blonde poker forum

I had an interesting discussion last night about this. Prompted by the live at the bike video, where the commentator is going full GTO and I heard an interesting take on it from a very smart guy.

Usually the argument is: complex strategy talk = no go, so as not to put off Joe Bloggs channel flicking who might get into poker.

Last night it was argued the complete opposite. Poker is an immensely complex and interesting game - and by dumbing it down for viewers, ESPN style, we are hiding its greatest strengths. All the nuances and intricacies are being brushed under the carpet so we can see AK vs QQ all in pre and Norman Chad make a joke about his ex wife.

ESPN makes the game out to be a very simple game of luck. They focus on X farmer playing his first WSOP who's made day 7. On the one hand - great - anyone can get a big score in a tournament. On the other hand - this must just be a complete lottery and doesn't seem like a game of skill at all.

There hasn't been a poker boom in a while. The strategies used by ESPN and Pokerstars in appealing to the masses have not worked. How about go the other way, and actually show people that there's a lot more to poker than you think.

Discuss.

how does going into that much detail appeal to newer recreational players for whom watching poker is competing with e-sports, say?

do you think they have any appetitite for the nuances of theory? a minority sure but enough to justify the costs of the programmes (viewing figures and advertising ratings required) if you don't have the ratings, who is making the programmes?

without personalities at the table its going to be a struggle? I look at the impact of the Kassouf controversy in the 2016 WSOP and think that the casula viewer would remember Will and probably not who won the event and almost certainly not who finalled 

p.s interesting post

For something like live at the bike, think it's fine,as probably more experienced players likely to watch it.
For any mainstream tv poker show, of which there is very little nowadays anyway, it's completely pointless.

Personally think stars lost their way with their tv stuff when they started getting more indepth. Anyone who's into poker already knows the results of these comps, for the newbies recs etc just makes it dull as...
A friend of mine who's been to Vegas with me a few times, gambler in general, plays homegames etc is the ideal person for these tv poker shows and he just says wtf? when listening to indepth commentary.

It's simple really though. Do it intelligently and appeal to a tiny audience or do it dumbed down and appeal to a tiny audience. Doubt there will be any poker on TV in another year or two - pretty obviously doesn't have an never will have any mainstream appeal.

Sure there's a  online niche market for the clever stuff though

Was thinking the last thing on TV that might have drawn people to play live was LNP. Always think it pulled off a great trick of making it look slightly seedy and dangerous but not so dangerous that you wouldn't rock up to a spieler somewhere.

 I assume more people are drawn to live poker via online poker than tv. So, since yr probably gonna get gubbed these days online, less people make the transition

There's not going to be another poker boom as the online experience is just a totally different thing from what is shown on TV.

Back in the day I could watch a load of people sitting round a table playing some cash or an STT for an hour and chatting among themselves, then go online, load up one table and find exactly the same thing.

Now everything is 12-tabling Euro-bots and 2-min super-duper turbo flipaments.

Whilst I can see that the LATB commentary has an audience, a lot of it went over my head. At that level, it's basically just a maths discussion, which will immediately turn-off 99% of people.

He made the point about Americans loving their stats and how NFL shows are full of stats and enable the viewer to really geek out on it if they want.

It doesn't have to be all maths, Doug Polk gets it spot on imo. There's actually very little maths involved in his videos.

because fantasy football in the NFL, (and daily fantasy/DFS) has become so massive

so far the only attempt (i think?) to "fantasy poker" is GPL (drafts, teams etc). how has that gone down with recreational poker watchers?

doubt any new recreationals are even aware of it

Yup fair point.

Nick Schulman is perfect. Very technical but in a really good way. Best commentator by far.

Commentators using a language us old guys understand would be good

At the bigger events (which will get the most viewers) there's room for both when it comes to live streams IMO. Stars have done this a few times from the PCA with Hartigan/Stapes broadcasting to the masses and Jason Somerville and guests on Twitch providing more strategy-heavy content.

Cost is obviously an issue, but I'm surprised the WSOP haven't tried it for the November Nine with Busquet/Galfond etc providing alternative commentary for those who want something more in depth.

Bring back Ali Nejad if you ask me!

I think alex may have a point here, when you look at Esports they dont "tone it down" to attract new players they please the players they have and then this player pool seems to grow.

My little brother used to watch hours and hours and hours of Youtube videos where i had no idea what language they were speaking never mind what they were talking about.

Maybe it is time for change, i certainly think the way Doug Polk markets himself has been very impressive, he is possibly (aside from Will Kass) the poker player i see most of now I am out of the game a bit.

Think there's a few problems with trying to get too technical in that it's not that hard to get it wrong/say something stupid along with going to deep and losing your audience, but think with commentary it always comes down to what your audience is and what you're trying to achieve.

If your audience is mostly recreational players and "rando morons" (sorry, couldn't help it), then you'll do much better by just having fun and talking strategy on a more basic level by pointing stuff out that they may not notice.

If your audience is mostly pros or people who consider themselves/aspire to be pros, then the more technical stuff is going to be much better.

So, ESPN coverage for me seems to be aimed at a very wide audience, and as such needs to appeal to people who know little more about poker than the rules. Obviously it also needs to appeal to people that play more etc, but I think that the "pro" part of their viewership a) is smaller than everyone else watching and b) won't actually mind that much if commentary is more fun and less technical.

I think it works best when they have a mix of commentators, one who ask the questions (knows little about poker) and a pro who answers them, giving some kind of mild in depth strat. This way the some viewers doesn't feel alienated as they have someone to relate to (the guy asking the questions) and some viewers get the more complex stuff. Someone mentioned Nick Schulman earlier, his live stream commentary of the PPC at WSOP was prob the best poker content I've seen. You had David Tuckman? (I think his name is) who knew very little about a lot of the games in the 10 game mix asking the right questions and Schulman giving some great (not too in depth) strat advice about the games work. AJ Benza and Gabe Kaplan were great at this. One knew very little of poker and the other gave quick simple analysis and both were very entertaining.  You see this same thing in football. You get the presenter asking the questions the general football fan wants to know, and some old ex pro's answering the questions. Nothing too in depth and entertaining at the same time. There isn't enough time in either format for the real meaty in depth stuff to be presented anyway. Like Alex said, poker is so complex, you can go from analysing a hand for the 2-5 mins it's played like at LATB, have a 15-20 min breakdown in a youtube vid like WCG does, or you can do an hour+ (up to 3 hours maybe) proper solver type that you get in RIO vids. Only one of these works well for TV and people who really want to go more in depth can find it elsewhere or do it themselves. The pro's commentating aren't actual giving away any real hidden info anyway and it's much better presented in other ways.
Same in football. That's why you have the dumbed down ex pro's analysing, giving cliche answers in the 15 mins at half time and the 30 mins after. Then if people want they watch extra stuff like at the end of Monday Night Football, or even more in depth they go get the data and do the analysis themselves. Football data analysis guys would be soooooo much better at discussing football but just wouldn't work in the 15/30 mins you get, it would put off a lot of casual football fans as well.

wanna engage people then you need fresh new TV poker ideas - Pokerstars Big Game was one of the best innovations imo, and commentate on it properly.

I think the difference between NFL style geeky punditry and Poker geeky stuff is that people sort of understand the basics of the NFL before they hear it, and whereas it's a decent way above them they can sort of follow along and almost certainly pick up a little extra knowledge on the way. I don't think this is the same for poker, the words/phrases/concepts that top technical poker analysis involves is alien to most recreational players, and actually to a fair chunk of pros :P

I think an understanding of the audience (from the commentators) and a good TV concept and it'll be fine.

Really agree with this , WSOP commentary is a joy with nick shulman.