Do you like Today's coverage of the WSOP better than years back?

I watch alot of the wsop. Both current and re-runs. I think I liked previous coverage such as 2004 and 2005 better than I like today's coverage.

Today you see 2 final tables (The Players Championship and the $50,000 HORSE) and then the main event. Granted the Main Event now is covered in more details from begining to end.

But in the earlier years you seen many more final tables of other events and what I still thought was plenty of coverage of the Main Event.

Anyways, just wondering what others thought. I will have to admit that I do like the "November Nine". The main reason I like that is that there's no way if you read poker magazines or go to Forums that you can keep the winner a secret. At least with the Nov 9 you can actually enjoy it withouth someone spoiling by telling who's the winner.

Thanks

Like the coverage better in years past...more events covered. Now just NLHE for most part. November Nine is better though.

I prefer the old coverage for all the different games.

I think that all the most entertaining characters seem to be at the alternative final tables (2008 HORSE springs to mind), the NLHE final tables are a bit too serious, it would be ok if you actually got some playing tips by watching them but you don't so I don't really see the point of only having NLHE

Cover all tournament

They should cover more WSOP tou. since there are so many now. Like the ones with popular pros winning more bracelets. Like Phil Ivey just won his 8th. I want to see that. They should throw in Omaha and the other variety games too. Am I right. Wouldn't you watch them.

I liked the old format much better. It's more interesting to see a few different games. Most of all, I'm sooo tired of the hosts, Norman Chad in particular. How many lame versions of the same old jokes do we need to put up with? I'm embarrased to say that I graduated from the same school (U of MD) that he did.

ckickenking said:

They should cover more WSOP tou. since there are so many now. Like the ones with popular pros winning more bracelets. Like Phil Ivey just won his 8th. I want to see that. They should throw in Omaha and the other variety games too. Am I right. Wouldn't you watch them.

Click to expand...

I would, I guess most people here in the forum would too, but the casual fan couldn't care less about Omaha. We can't forget this is still a TV show, it's all about ratings and Hold'em is the only game that attracts a big audience.

I just wish ESPN didnt have the exclusive rights to the WSOP so smaller stations who dont expect such high ratings could show other games, like 2-7 or Omaha.

ThunderPT said:

I would, I guess most people here in the forum would too, but the casual fan couldn't care less about Omaha. We can't forget this is still a TV show, it's all about ratings and Hold'em is the only game that attracts a big audience.

Click to expand...

^^^ Totally what happened.

I personally love the different formats but it's all about the ratings. I'm not sure if that is why the final table of horse was NLHE only or not. I had heard that but never knew for sure, but I can see it happening for TV coverage though.

I wish they did show some of the other events.
I like the beef jerky commercials better than the beer commercials though !

I too prefer when they showed more of the events, especially some of the non-holdem ones like the 10,000 dollar PLO and others. However I do like the improvements that they have made to the actual broadcast, like showing chip counts, and this year they started showing position at the table.

I only really care about the NLHE Main Event anyways since they are the 'god' of the poker world for a year. I definitely approve of the way they do things now, but i also enjoy those throwback coverages.

rozzz5 said:

I too prefer when they showed more of the events, especially some of the non-holdem ones like the 10,000 dollar PLO and others. However I do like the improvements that they have made to the actual broadcast, like showing chip counts, and this year they started showing position at the table.

Click to expand...

They've also added VPIP and "PFR" although it's actually Agg% by the looks of it. It does help shed light on how many hands they're playing, since they only broadcast a fraction of them. I just wish they made it a stat by every player's name instead of just showing it infrequently for a very few players.

dmorris68 said:

I just wish they made it a stat by every player's name instead of just showing it infrequently for a very few players.

Click to expand...

That would be cool (even though it doesn't have much value to an aspiring poker player) but could you imagine the amount of work that would be ? It could be doable on one or two tables but not all of them.

The biggest problem is they don't even film the other events any longer. They cut cost by only filming selected events. The reason being is that many borderline fans only understand NLHE and not the other games.

Only really started playing this year. So I can't really say. Although I do agree, it is only Hold'Em shown over here.

Basically what's been said above - I liked watching the mixed games, but I know I'm in the definite minority and WSOP with ESPN is a hell of a lot better off than WSOP without ESPN so I guess they can do what they want.

I would rather see more events leading upto the main event like they did in the past. I don't care much for the November 9. I wish they'd just finish it and show it.

I would like to see the final table shift from NLHE to at least PLO or PLO/Stud Eight when the level goes up on the HORSE championship. I dont really care to see Razz but for maybe 2 or 3 dramatic hands...

dmorris68 said:

They've also added VPIP and "PFR" although it's actually Agg% by the looks of it. It does help shed light on how many hands they're playing, since they only broadcast a fraction of them. I just wish they made it a stat by every player's name instead of just showing it infrequently for a very few players.

Click to expand...

I'm already surprised they're now talking about position using terms like UTG+1. Even some journalists of poker press didn't use those acronyms because they were afraid a big percentage of their audience wouldn't know what they meant. So, I think ESPN wants to introduce these things that would interest us, but they have to do it slowly so the casual fans aren't overwhelmed. These year they introduced position, soon everyone will be know what the hijack seat is and then they introduce something else. It's like ESPN is educating the casual fans.

One thing I really don't like is that bull segment where Norman Chad tries to read a player's hand. That's an awesome concept when you have someone who knows what he's doing on the microphone. What Chad does is ridiculous. Instead of putting a player on a range of hands and then narrow it down as the action takes place, he puts a player on a specific hand after his first action pre-flop and then assumes that's the hand the player has throughout the hand, even after it's clearly obvious by his actions that he couldn't have that hand. He even goes as far as criticizing the way the player is playing the hand he "supposedly" has. That's just stupid and the whole idea seems pointless if that's the way they're going to do it.

I dont think Norman Chad putting someone on a hand is intended to be insightful with his vast poker knowledge. I'd rather have a commentator with a sense of humor than to have one so dry that it's unwatchable.

There's no critisizing... only Chad being Chad. He usually goes on to say that's why he's commentating and not playing.

nc_royals said:

I dont think Norman Chad putting someone on a hand is intended to be insightful with his vast poker knowledge. I'd rather have a commentator with a sense of humor than to have one so dry that it's unwatchable.

There's no critisizing... only Chad being Chad. He usually goes on to say that's why he's commentating and not playing.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I like Norman for his wit, and he's been a perfect schtick guy to Lon's straight man routine.

And I often hear him putting those players on something less than a specific hand. Like "a weak ace" or similar. But the whole point of the gimmick is to "guess the hand" not "put him on a range." It isn't meant to be a poker lesson, just entertainment, and I'm okay with that. If they don't make it entertaining to the non-poker-geeks then it wouldn't be as popular and we wouldn't see as much of it.

nc_royals said:

I dont think Norman Chad putting someone on a hand is intended to be insightful with his vast poker knowledge. I'd rather have a commentator with a sense of humor than to have one so dry that it's unwatchable.

There's no critisizing... only Chad being Chad. He usually goes on to say that's why he's commentating and not playing.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind listening to a commentator who's only purpose there is to be funny and doesn't know much about poker (other than the basics obviously). As long as it entertains me, I'm happy.

I just think the whole "commentator reading an hidden hand" thing is really only interesting with someone who knows what he's doing. There's not much to be funny about it either, so I think it's just pointless. I think the production just saw it on another show (I did too, it was made by an actual player, can't remember which show was, though) and decided to copy the idea.


Btw, about the humor in commentary. Why don't they do like The Big Game? They took a really funny guy, Joe Stapleton, and put someone who's good at poker working behind the scenes and telling Stapes what he should say. We have both humor and serious commentary in nice doses, seems like the perfect formula to me.

I actually caught some of the one they showed on Tuesday.

Have to say It was nice to see the stats on the players (although briefly) and to see their positions on the hand. Makes some of the hands a little more understandable when your going "Why is he playing that" LOL.

I'm tired of Norman Chad. Okay, you went to Maryland and have ex wives...we get it!! Get AJ Benza. I still think HSP getting rid of him was a huge mistake.

i agree 2days wsop doesnt show that much poker as before