You are the TD of the Blonde Poker Tour: timekeeping

[Tal]

Congratulations on being appointed the Tournament Director of the brand new and ever so slightly fictitious Blonde Poker Tour. Tikay, Tighty and Flushy take you for dinner somewhere suspiciously posh (you were expecting a Portuguese chicken establishment) and explain that they need your help.

The November Nine highlighted how lots of aspiring pros are taking longer and longer over their decisions, some concerned about missing something, others wanting to take exactly the same amount of time over each action in order not to give away perceived timing tells.

The problem is it is mind-numbingly dull. There is a growing audience that wants immediacy in the coverage, rather than a few hour long shows months later (the core audience for those shows is still there but they're not the types to watch the live stream particularly). They have taken to social media to inform the universe they are bored of watching images of so little happening they think their stream is buffering.

Your job is to find a solution. Objectives are:

- You should please the highest number of people
- You should not have a negative impact on the number of entrants to the tournament
- The major, established tours are watching with eagerness and are likely to follow suit, so what you decide to do matters.

I've added a poll for you to select one of the obvious options and a catch-all, none of the above for those with more imagination.

Please use this thread for explaining your reasoning and, critically, why your view represents what's best for poker.

[Ironside]

I like the idea of shots if you don't beat the clock

[arbboy]

If people want entertaining poker to watch then i suggest they pay for the product they demand or contribute towards its cost.  People investing 10 large with a view to making a return on it have absolutely no responsibility to entertain a load of fan boys sitting at home watching it.

Nothing is added to the prize pool from the sponsors/tv coverage (a certain % of rake is actually deducted).  Can't quite imagine any other sport on tv being run financially like this for the promoters with the players expected to entertain random strangers after paying serious cash out of their own pocket to play.  It is quite incredible the wsop earn huge fees from espn etc for the action yet the players involved in the final table do not get a copper coin out of them directly for being the stars of the show and on top pay 5% of their entrance fee to the wsop on top for the priviledge of taking part.

People sitting at home watching it for free have zero right to complain it is not entertaining imo.  Playing poker for $10m with 2 hour blind levels and deep stacked will predominately be quite boring to watch if it is shown live.

[Tal]

If people want entertaining poker to watch then i suggest they pay for the product they demand or contribute towards its cost.  People investing 10 large with a view to making a return on it have absolutely no responsibility to entertain a load of fan boys sitting at home watching it.

Nothing is added to the prize pool from the sponsors/tv coverage (a certain % of rake is actually deducted).  Can't quite imagine any other sport on tv being run financially like this for the promoters with the players expected to entertain random strangers after paying serious cash out of their own pocket to play.

People sitting at home watching it for free have zero right to complain it is not entertaining imo.  Playing poker for $10m with 2 hour blind levels and deep stacked will predominately be quite boring to watch if it is shown live.

In games like golf, football and cricket, there are rules (the interpretation and application of which are down to the discretion of the officials) about taking too long. These sports pander to the viewing public even though, unlike poker, the viewers can't enter.

[Ironside]

Golfers etc don't pay to play

[arbboy]

If people want entertaining poker to watch then i suggest they pay for the product they demand or contribute towards its cost.  People investing 10 large with a view to making a return on it have absolutely no responsibility to entertain a load of fan boys sitting at home watching it.

Nothing is added to the prize pool from the sponsors/tv coverage (a certain % of rake is actually deducted).  Can't quite imagine any other sport on tv being run financially like this for the promoters with the players expected to entertain random strangers after paying serious cash out of their own pocket to play.

People sitting at home watching it for free have zero right to complain it is not entertaining imo.  Playing poker for $10m with 2 hour blind levels and deep stacked will predominately be quite boring to watch if it is shown live.

In games like golf, football and cricket, there are rules (the interpretation and application of which are down to the discretion of the officials) about taking too long. These sports pander to the viewing public even though, unlike poker, the viewers can't enter.

You charge a golfer £10k to enter an event and see how interested he is in pandering to the media demands once he realises they are not paying a penny towards his services.  Pro sportsmen pander to these demands because the media pay them fortunes for their services.  The media pay zero towards poker players and as such poker players have absolutely zero obligation to make what they do entertaining for anyone other than themselves and their own wallet.

I find it really annoying when i play £500 events now i am told i am expected to show the world, via the internet, my hole cards/identity every hand when i have paid a monkey to play an event in a casino in private. I then have to worry about fan boys of other table members relaying the information back to the players which gives them an edge.  I have no friends live at the casino and/or i can't be arsed reviewing the information because i am turning up at the casino for a jolly and a spin up then i am at a competitive disadvantage in the event.  Why?  To entertain people who have paid zero towards the product i am PAYING for to entertain them.

Poker is quite weird when you look at it from a business point of view.  As long as poker players ego's keep getting fuelled and they keep agreeing to such redic demands from the organisers the operators will continue to take advantage of them financially.

 If i invested a monkey playing roulette i wouldn't expect my face and bets to be shown on a live stream on the net.

[TightEnd]

If people want entertaining poker to watch then i suggest they pay for the product they demand or contribute towards its cost.  People investing 10 large with a view to making a return on it have absolutely no responsibility to entertain a load of fan boys sitting at home watching it.

Nothing is added to the prize pool from the sponsors/tv coverage (a certain % of rake is actually deducted).  Can't quite imagine any other sport on tv being run financially like this for the promoters with the players expected to entertain random strangers after paying serious cash out of their own pocket to play.

People sitting at home watching it for free have zero right to complain it is not entertaining imo.  Playing poker for $10m with 2 hour blind levels and deep stacked will predominately be quite boring to watch if it is shown live.

In games like golf, football and cricket, there are rules (the interpretation and application of which are down to the discretion of the officials) about taking too long. These sports pander to the viewing public even though, unlike poker, the viewers can't enter.

You charge a golfer £10k to enter an event and see how interested he is in pandering to the media demands once he realises they are not paying a penny towards his services.  Pro sportsmen pander to these demands because the media pay them fortunes for their services.  The media pay zero towards poker players and as such poker players have absolutely zero obligation to make what they do entertaining for anyone other than themselves and their own wallet.

I find it really annoying when i play £500 events now i am told i am expected to show the world, via the internet, my hole cards/identity every hand when i have paid a monkey to play an event in a casino in private. I then have to worry about fan boys of other table members relaying the information back to the players which gives them an edge.  I have no friends live at the casino and/or i can't be arsed reviewing the information because i am turning up at the casino for a jolly and a spin up then i am at a competitive disadvantage in the event.  Why?  To entertain people who have paid zero towards the product i am PAYING for to entertain them.

Poker is quite weird when you look at it from a business point of view.  As long as poker players ego's keep getting fuelled and they keep agreeing to such redic demands from the organisers the operators will continue to take advantage of them financially.

 If i invested a monkey playing roulette i wouldn't expect my face and bets to be shown on a live stream on the net.

i agree with many of your points, but players don't enter the tournaments any less do they? its a bit like football fans,, demand is completely inelastic, so the TV companies are compelled to compsenate the players for their "media rights"

[Magic817]

We seem to be looking at this from an audience perspective but it isn't fun playing with players who take ages over decisions, players who constantly get asked to put their ante in etc. Having a 2hr clock so everyone can tank to get the same amount of hands in as a 1hr clock seems pointless. Players need time for key decisions not every decision.

[arbboy]

If people want entertaining poker to watch then i suggest they pay for the product they demand or contribute towards its cost.  People investing 10 large with a view to making a return on it have absolutely no responsibility to entertain a load of fan boys sitting at home watching it.

Nothing is added to the prize pool from the sponsors/tv coverage (a certain % of rake is actually deducted).  Can't quite imagine any other sport on tv being run financially like this for the promoters with the players expected to entertain random strangers after paying serious cash out of their own pocket to play.

People sitting at home watching it for free have zero right to complain it is not entertaining imo.  Playing poker for $10m with 2 hour blind levels and deep stacked will predominately be quite boring to watch if it is shown live.

In games like golf, football and cricket, there are rules (the interpretation and application of which are down to the discretion of the officials) about taking too long. These sports pander to the viewing public even though, unlike poker, the viewers can't enter.

You charge a golfer £10k to enter an event and see how interested he is in pandering to the media demands once he realises they are not paying a penny towards his services.  Pro sportsmen pander to these demands because the media pay them fortunes for their services.  The media pay zero towards poker players and as such poker players have absolutely zero obligation to make what they do entertaining for anyone other than themselves and their own wallet.

I find it really annoying when i play £500 events now i am told i am expected to show the world, via the internet, my hole cards/identity every hand when i have paid a monkey to play an event in a casino in private. I then have to worry about fan boys of other table members relaying the information back to the players which gives them an edge.  I have no friends live at the casino and/or i can't be arsed reviewing the information because i am turning up at the casino for a jolly and a spin up then i am at a competitive disadvantage in the event.  Why?  To entertain people who have paid zero towards the product i am PAYING for to entertain them.

Poker is quite weird when you look at it from a business point of view.  As long as poker players ego's keep getting fuelled and they keep agreeing to such redic demands from the organisers the operators will continue to take advantage of them financially.

 If i invested a monkey playing roulette i wouldn't expect my face and bets to be shown on a live stream on the net.

i agree with many of your points, but players don't enter the tournaments any less do they? its a bit like football fans,, demand is completely inelastic, so the TV companies are compelled to compsenate the players for their "media rights"

You never hear about the players who don't play anymore because of this.  They just don't turn up anymore.  I got told at a gps if i didn't put my cards in the box for the stream after a first warning i would be thrown out of the event a couple of years ago.  Since then i have never played a gps.

[TightEnd]

If people want entertaining poker to watch then i suggest they pay for the product they demand or contribute towards its cost.  People investing 10 large with a view to making a return on it have absolutely no responsibility to entertain a load of fan boys sitting at home watching it.

Nothing is added to the prize pool from the sponsors/tv coverage (a certain % of rake is actually deducted).  Can't quite imagine any other sport on tv being run financially like this for the promoters with the players expected to entertain random strangers after paying serious cash out of their own pocket to play.

People sitting at home watching it for free have zero right to complain it is not entertaining imo.  Playing poker for $10m with 2 hour blind levels and deep stacked will predominately be quite boring to watch if it is shown live.

In games like golf, football and cricket, there are rules (the interpretation and application of which are down to the discretion of the officials) about taking too long. These sports pander to the viewing public even though, unlike poker, the viewers can't enter.

You charge a golfer £10k to enter an event and see how interested he is in pandering to the media demands once he realises they are not paying a penny towards his services.  Pro sportsmen pander to these demands because the media pay them fortunes for their services.  The media pay zero towards poker players and as such poker players have absolutely zero obligation to make what they do entertaining for anyone other than themselves and their own wallet.

I find it really annoying when i play £500 events now i am told i am expected to show the world, via the internet, my hole cards/identity every hand when i have paid a monkey to play an event in a casino in private. I then have to worry about fan boys of other table members relaying the information back to the players which gives them an edge.  I have no friends live at the casino and/or i can't be arsed reviewing the information because i am turning up at the casino for a jolly and a spin up then i am at a competitive disadvantage in the event.  Why?  To entertain people who have paid zero towards the product i am PAYING for to entertain them.

Poker is quite weird when you look at it from a business point of view.  As long as poker players ego's keep getting fuelled and they keep agreeing to such redic demands from the organisers the operators will continue to take advantage of them financially.

 If i invested a monkey playing roulette i wouldn't expect my face and bets to be shown on a live stream on the net.

i agree with many of your points, but players don't enter the tournaments any less do they? its a bit like football fans,, demand is completely inelastic, so the TV companies are compelled to compsenate the players for their "media rights"

You never hear about the players who don't play anymore because of this.  They just don't turn up anymore.  I got told at a gps if i didn't put my cards in the box for the stream after a first warning i would be thrown out of the event a couple of years ago.  Since then i have never played a gps since.

did you sign a release form pre-event? if so, thats reasonable. if not, then the request is unfair

i have commentated on streams at dtd where a player did not want to reveal cards and we went face down with him.

I personally prefer commentating on streams where cards are not visible, you can do more with the commentary looking at ranges etc

[arbboy]

If people want entertaining poker to watch then i suggest they pay for the product they demand or contribute towards its cost.  People investing 10 large with a view to making a return on it have absolutely no responsibility to entertain a load of fan boys sitting at home watching it.

Nothing is added to the prize pool from the sponsors/tv coverage (a certain % of rake is actually deducted).  Can't quite imagine any other sport on tv being run financially like this for the promoters with the players expected to entertain random strangers after paying serious cash out of their own pocket to play.

People sitting at home watching it for free have zero right to complain it is not entertaining imo.  Playing poker for $10m with 2 hour blind levels and deep stacked will predominately be quite boring to watch if it is shown live.

In games like golf, football and cricket, there are rules (the interpretation and application of which are down to the discretion of the officials) about taking too long. These sports pander to the viewing public even though, unlike poker, the viewers can't enter.

You charge a golfer £10k to enter an event and see how interested he is in pandering to the media demands once he realises they are not paying a penny towards his services.  Pro sportsmen pander to these demands because the media pay them fortunes for their services.  The media pay zero towards poker players and as such poker players have absolutely zero obligation to make what they do entertaining for anyone other than themselves and their own wallet.

I find it really annoying when i play £500 events now i am told i am expected to show the world, via the internet, my hole cards/identity every hand when i have paid a monkey to play an event in a casino in private. I then have to worry about fan boys of other table members relaying the information back to the players which gives them an edge.  I have no friends live at the casino and/or i can't be arsed reviewing the information because i am turning up at the casino for a jolly and a spin up then i am at a competitive disadvantage in the event.  Why?  To entertain people who have paid zero towards the product i am PAYING for to entertain them.

Poker is quite weird when you look at it from a business point of view.  As long as poker players ego's keep getting fuelled and they keep agreeing to such redic demands from the organisers the operators will continue to take advantage of them financially.

 If i invested a monkey playing roulette i wouldn't expect my face and bets to be shown on a live stream on the net.

i agree with many of your points, but players don't enter the tournaments any less do they? its a bit like football fans,, demand is completely inelastic, so the TV companies are compelled to compsenate the players for their "media rights"

You never hear about the players who don't play anymore because of this.  They just don't turn up anymore.  I got told at a gps if i didn't put my cards in the box for the stream after a first warning i would be thrown out of the event a couple of years ago.  Since then i have never played a gps since.

did you sign a release form pre-event? if so, thats reasonable. if not, then the request is unfair

i have commentated on streams at dtd where a player did not want to reveal cards and we went face down with him.

I personally prefer commentating on streams where cards are not visible, you can do more with the commentary looking at ranges etc

If you don't sign the release form i assume they won't let you play the event though otherwise what is the point of the release form if players can simply not sign it and play as normal.  Why would anyone ever sign the form?  Slightly off topic anyway.  Let's get back to the original post.

[TightEnd]

If people want entertaining poker to watch then i suggest they pay for the product they demand or contribute towards its cost.  People investing 10 large with a view to making a return on it have absolutely no responsibility to entertain a load of fan boys sitting at home watching it.

Nothing is added to the prize pool from the sponsors/tv coverage (a certain % of rake is actually deducted).  Can't quite imagine any other sport on tv being run financially like this for the promoters with the players expected to entertain random strangers after paying serious cash out of their own pocket to play.

People sitting at home watching it for free have zero right to complain it is not entertaining imo.  Playing poker for $10m with 2 hour blind levels and deep stacked will predominately be quite boring to watch if it is shown live.

In games like golf, football and cricket, there are rules (the interpretation and application of which are down to the discretion of the officials) about taking too long. These sports pander to the viewing public even though, unlike poker, the viewers can't enter.

You charge a golfer £10k to enter an event and see how interested he is in pandering to the media demands once he realises they are not paying a penny towards his services.  Pro sportsmen pander to these demands because the media pay them fortunes for their services.  The media pay zero towards poker players and as such poker players have absolutely zero obligation to make what they do entertaining for anyone other than themselves and their own wallet.

I find it really annoying when i play £500 events now i am told i am expected to show the world, via the internet, my hole cards/identity every hand when i have paid a monkey to play an event in a casino in private. I then have to worry about fan boys of other table members relaying the information back to the players which gives them an edge.  I have no friends live at the casino and/or i can't be arsed reviewing the information because i am turning up at the casino for a jolly and a spin up then i am at a competitive disadvantage in the event.  Why?  To entertain people who have paid zero towards the product i am PAYING for to entertain them.

Poker is quite weird when you look at it from a business point of view.  As long as poker players ego's keep getting fuelled and they keep agreeing to such redic demands from the organisers the operators will continue to take advantage of them financially.

 If i invested a monkey playing roulette i wouldn't expect my face and bets to be shown on a live stream on the net.

i agree with many of your points, but players don't enter the tournaments any less do they? its a bit like football fans,, demand is completely inelastic, so the TV companies are compelled to compsenate the players for their "media rights"

You never hear about the players who don't play anymore because of this.  They just don't turn up anymore.  I got told at a gps if i didn't put my cards in the box for the stream after a first warning i would be thrown out of the event a couple of years ago.  Since then i have never played a gps since.

did you sign a release form pre-event? if so, thats reasonable. if not, then the request is unfair

i have commentated on streams at dtd where a player did not want to reveal cards and we went face down with him.

I personally prefer commentating on streams where cards are not visible, you can do more with the commentary looking at ranges etc

If you don't sign the release form i assume they won't let you play the event though otherwise what is the point of the release form if players can simply not sign it and play as normal.  Why would anyone ever sign the form?

thats true.


anyway i voted for a shot clock as a viewer. i accept it doesn't solve the bigger issue, and that players are under no obligation to provide "entertainment"

[SuuPRlim]

I think the main event final has blown this out of proportion a bit, most of the time in live poker tournaments people are pretty good with it, Ive seen some of the slowest guys ever and then over time they've gotten quicker as they realise its just so fucking annoying. Zvi Stern taking ages over eveyr decision was pretty zzzzz but playing for $7m and Pleno made a good point that its likely he was told by his coach Martin Jacobson to take his time because he has shown a habbit to get a bit hot-headed, and it's prolly a decent strategy on the ME final table anyways when you're playing for so much money. On day 2 he obviously got told he was getting a bit OTT with it and quickened it up.

Just call the clock and tell people who are slow every hand how annoying it is and im sure this will police itself.

[david3103]

Some interesting points here..
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/19623-wsop-main-event-final-table-reinvigorates-shot-clock-debate
Not sure that averaging 4minutes per hand is actually that slow given the context.
The intervention from Jack Eiffel speeded up Stern although Neuville appeared to be equally slow/deliberate in his decisions.

I don't think that it should be necessary to impose an arbitrary time in a comp with a 2 hour clock and an abundance of levels.

To me, the risk is that all the aspiring pro's and wannabes will bring this approach to shorter formats.

[rfgqqabc]

As an aspiring billionaire I don't think the Main Event final table is worthy of much discussion. I very much doubt that what is good for TV and the Main Event final table is good for poker. Will the final of the next 300 deepstack have a delay for 6 months hype. Its not really relevant to grassroots poker and I think the best way of handling this is to simply talk to people. Tell them they are too slow. Poker loves to trickle down. I'm surprised the £20 pub freezeouts aren't 100k chips starting with a 30 minute clock. I would seek to remind all players at the start of every event/day and whether they were  aspiring pros or not, that poker is supposed to be fun for all and anyone who is regularly action too slow will face penalties/DQ before chugging a beer and taking a shot.