Pros and cons of the WSOP coverage IMHO.

It was great to see such thorough unedited coverage. Below are some  observations for next time.

In no particular order:

We keep saying poker is more like chess, something thoughtful, and it was presented like a boxing match. The rail was super distracting and added nothing positive. Why would the production team allow that constant drunk rowdy stupid behavior?   After Hevad Kahn, the “excessive celebration” concept was put in place and I think it’s so cool now when players take huge pots, beats…whatever, and don’t go batshit.  Just hated the rail element. It demeaned the game, was hard to watch, and I can’t imagine that it helped the players. But I’m wrong half the time, so who knows.

Anxious to see what’s on the forums, but I didn’t like what the 15 minute delay/show did to the strategy.  Sure it added another level to the game, and yes, every player had access to the information, but it added a team element that I didn’t like i.e. people had “their teams” working on getting and parsing the info. There’s always a hand you fold that haunts you (remember the game where, when Joe Cassidy got knocked out, he went up to John Aglialoro…2004 I think, and asked “what did you have?” Or when you show one card?  I think the strategy element the delay/show added isn’t nearly as interesting as the elements it eliminated. I wish #wsop would tape live and show in a few days. We’re watching more to see how the game went down than to learn who won IMHO).

The commentary was great…..a real course in poker strategy and how to break down hands. Every guest commentator had so much to add, and #normanchad and  #lonmceachern were terrific as always.  I wouldn’t have minded some quiet time. It’s hard to fill all of those hours and we can only hear the stats so many times, but all in all, everyone rose to this ground-breaking occasion.

On another topic, remember how online players were called “internet kids” and not in a good way (think Hellmuth playing Dwan HU the first time). In this recent telecast, someone said the internet wizards.  Yeah, it’s about time. I’ve loved them from the start and love to play them live. These players are machines with huge brains and heart.

4 responses to “Pros and cons of the WSOP coverage IMHO.

  1. The circus atmosphere could be eliminated if the powers that be not think that a loud crowd is the lacking aspect or I should say the “Fill In” for a poker table. It seems they (WSOP) want to put some life into the final tables. Which is in need of something as witnessed by Martin and Pius. No banter no communication,very boring without colorful players what is a veiwer to do? Ahay,we could let the crowd entertain the viewers n show the hands fifteen minutes later and really get the home audience involved more. Well the later makes a little more sense cause they have to sell poker to the viewers. The loud rail is so un professional but then again we are dealing with people in their early twenties whom seem to be tethered to a beer. It could be worse…………….

  2. Only serious players would watch so many hours of hands. And I think much of why we watch is for the commentary. Why compete with it. Golf’s not that exciting and people watch one guy stare at a hole in silence.

  3. I really have grown to value Tony Dunst and his hand breakdown. You could see that all the commentators did not have a clue to the hole cards and how the hands played out. Yes there is a great deal of speculation on the hole cards and the wsop team does not have an template on describing the hand to hand play. Esfandiary is not bad but in general I found the whole show very boring,not only from the commentators but the players where very vanilla. There where so many mistakes by both players and everyone was moot on raises that should have happened and mucked cards that should not have been mucked. How for the sake of me can I watch the blinds at 500/1 million and the raises are only to two or three million. Watching the majority of flops go to the river was just cruel and unussual punishment.
    Watching is not just for the commentators for me I like to see moves put on by the players. Some watchers may need the commentary to keep them informed,but I prefer to see the hole cards and watch how a player operates,that is where one could pick up a play that worked and you see it go down before you very eyes.

  4. I agree with player Down. Dunst is doing great job, I enjoy listening his comments! I’d rather see him or Phil Helmuth as commentators. They would have done better job than Esfandiari!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s