Is The main event coverage better now ?

[highonbetter]

Is the main event coverage better This year or Does it seem like you had a better feel for the players back in 2003-04-05.06.
To me it seems, not only do i not know a soul in the field. I find the coverage a little boring compared to when moneymaker won it. or jamie Gold. Those were all fun years. I didnt know those guys either,But it just seems like more fun years, does anyone else think this way?

[The 6th Wilbury]

Hard to answer this question because my fandom of poker has varied too much during that time frame. I started following poker as a "TV fan" in 2004. I started playing it for real money a year later, but -- save for luckboxing a few tourneys right from the start -- didn't become a consistent small-stakes winner until 2006. I became more of a diehard fan in 2007. However, I will also admit that my interest in poker coverage (online or televised) has waned since Black Friday.

So what does this have to do with your question?

In 2004, when Raymer won it, the coverage was perfect for the casual fan. I didn't know strategy, didn't really care about it and probably would not have understood even the simplest concepts (e.g. "what does he mean by 'dominated?'"). ESPN provided mostly all-in plays, suckouts and bluffs -- so much so that they created half-hour specials titled as such. My fondness for the coverage: high.

By 2006 and 2007, the years of Jamie Gold and Jerry Yang, my interest in the WSOP had shifted to that of someone who actually played the game on a recreational basis. By then, I wanted to see more poker, how it was played, and the factors that shaped decisions at the table. But that was the apex of ESPN focusing on antics and over-the-top personalities. So much of the coverage was Hevad Khan's chair dancing, Eric Molina's trash-talking, the Friedman-Lisandro spat, "top top" and so forth. My fondness for the coverage: low.

In 2008 through 2010, ESPN (and other poker television entities) began to recognize how split its audiences were between those who still like the all-in highlight reel and those who, well, frequent poker sites and forums. Though ESPN still caters more to the former group more than any other, the producers managed to inject more for the poker-savvy viewer to like: a bit more strategy-based talk, more informative graphics, more hands and fewer sideshows. My fondness for the coverage: higher, although tempered by comparison to shows like HSP, PAD, The Big Game, etc.

In 2011, we experienced a major sea change in televised poker with the advent of the live-minus-30 tables. Most of the casual TV fans (e.g. my brother) hated it. Most of the diehard TV fans (e.g. myself) loved it. But the problem is that as ESPN airs its Tuesday night show, I've already seen a more complete version of it. Watching the edited highlight show feels like watching a movie's trailer after having seen the full film. And, as I said before, I find myself slightly less interested in poker now that I can't play it. I still check in on it, but it's not appointment TV like it used to be. Hell, I didn't realize the WSOPE had started until midway through the second event. My fondness for the coverage: tempered.

Anyway, to answer your question... is the coverage of the WSOP better now than it was during the boom years? It's impossible for me to answer because I'm watching it through different eyes.

[The 6th Wilbury]

Originally Posted by highonbetter

...or Does it seem like you had a better feel for the players back in 2003-04-05.06.
To me it seems, not only do i not know a soul in the field.

Oh, and to this point, I know of far more of the players now than I did then. Sure, there are far more unknowns now than there were in 2003 simply due to the larger field sizes. But I also recognize more names because of that growth in the game.

Remember the WSOP draft-based fantasy league we did last year? Those who couldn't participate submitted a 100-person draft list. I had a helluva time shortening the list to 100. Yet in 2005, I wouldn't have been able to go 20 names deep.

[highonbetter]

Thanks for the input, I wish they had more shows inbetween the wsop.I'll even take a champions of poker again.
I always wanted to pitch the idea of the top 50 great poker stars training and mentoring 10 guys from each state in the united states and playing until one table was left only one state and one coach would come out victorious.
It would involve the normal average joe and top pro's to make it interesting.
I had the idea for champions of poker in my head even before that show came out.
Dont get me wrong i love the wsop its a dream come true to watch poker on tv with hole card cams.when i was young i had to stay upto 3 am to catch old wsop coverage . It aired one or two times a summer. I even taped it one year.and ordered vhs tapes ... i couldnt get enough. i loved it.
I came up with the idea on my own and i have more details about the Usa holdum state champions in my head. If anyone wants to pitch it to a company,to see what they think. I sure would love to play in it and watch the outcome on t.v someday in the future. but only if im on team Bear!! hall of famer Barry ..that is )

[The 6th Wilbury]

Originally Posted by highonbetter

Thanks for the input, I wish they had more shows inbetween the wsop.I'll even take a champions of poker again.
I always wanted to pitch the idea of the top 50 great poker stars training and mentoring 10 guys from each state in the united states and playing until one table was left only one state and one coach would come out victorious.

Sort of poker version of Dancing With The Stars?

[highonbetter]

Im not sure, I dont watch dancing with the stars. Its just an idea i created and thought of. I think it would create excitement through people trying to get on the show, or people knowing friends on the show who are playing.plus all the pros.
I really think this idea would work and be a popular poker show.

[TOCurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by highonbetter

I always wanted to pitch the idea of the top 50 great poker stars training and mentoring 10 guys from each state in the united states and playing until one table was left only one state and one coach would come out victorious.

This sounds a bit like the dreadful "Best Damn Poker Show". Of course, the problem with BDPS was less the concept and more the poor execution (it was better than "Poker Dome" but not by much).

Back to the original post: ESPN seems to really have hit a sweet spot with nearly live poker for the cognoscenti, and the highlight show they can show at anytime. WSOP highlights have replaced figure skating and cheer leading competitions as ESPN's fill-in/counter programming when faced with big events on other networks.

[AK Ship]

I am of the opinion that the regular coverage has gone downhill since 2006. That said, I love the live coverage that they've done this year, even though I didn't get to see a whole lot

[a10fouru]

The main event coverage - with all the hands, hole cards shown only at the end...is the best ever. But, I was introduced to television poker through the old coverage which only showed the big hands and not the set up.

Frankly, if I didn't enjoy studying and playing poker as much as I do, I am not sure I would enjoy the long coverage as it is mostly boring to someone who doesn't understand tournament theory or image, etc.

[5carab]

I have been too busy to watch any of it (boooo), but would like to know if it has to old "Doyle's done it! This is beyond fairytale, it's inconceivable! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! I can dodge bullets baby!" intro? The fact that was gone last year made me absurdly angry.