Poker on TV: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
There is some great poker on TV, but for the most part it has become hum-drum and mediocre. At least with other sports (and I use that word very liberally since we are talking about poker), you know what you are going to get. If you turn on baseball you are going to see 9 innings, 9 players on the field, a batter and a standard for how it is produced on TV. Poker is all over the place. You have the WSOP and WPT that leave the actual poker playing on the cutting room floor and focus more on Norman Chad talking about his ex-wives. Then there’s Face the Ace, where you feel you are watching a game show — a boring game show. In order to reclaim some of the momentum that TV had 5 years ago, the producers of the shows need to focus on showing real poker and somehow making it exciting–some of this relies more on who is playing, but the right foundation of tournament structure and production needs to be laid.
Is this where poker on TV is going?
Elements of a bad poker show:
- Not enough focus on real poker. The World Poker Tour was arguably the first poker show that really broke through to the main stream. For this reason, what they created became the standard, and unfortunately, because it is over produced and whittled down to the “big pot” hands it has encouraged others to do the same. The other side to this is that some of the best poker shows on today have responded to consumer demand to see more “real” hands and have created a nice little niche, specifically Poker After Dark.
- Too much focus on bad poker. Tournaments with ridiculous structures make for bad poker and consequently bad TV. An example of this is all too fresh in my mind: Ante Up for Africa. First, let me say, that I think ESPN made the right move this year by televising only 4 events, all no-limit hold ‘em, from the 2009 WSOP. The wrong move was to televise Ante Up for Africa. I understand the concept of celebrities helping ratings, but please don’t ruin poker because of it. The structure of this tournament was so ridiculous that it would have been more exciting watching a celebrity slot machine tournament. When the final table started the chip leader had 10 big blinds. When it was heads up (probably a few hands later) there was a total of 4 big blinds on the table. This isn’t interesting for the hardcore poker players or the casual fan. It is just bad TV.
- No named players. I am kind of torn with this one because the beauty of poker–and the reason it has become so popular–is anyone can win. The Chris Moneymaker effect was huge, but is it dead? The casual fan can only remember so many new hot players. At some point, and that point has come, the no names become irrelevant. Caveat: unless it is the WSOP main event.
- Bad casting. Well really I am thinking of one show in particular, Face the Ace. I haven’t watched the show, but from reading blogs and talking to those who have, I hear that the players that actually won their way on to the show are horrible. It is my opinion, that if you are going to create a game show around poker, which Face the Ace invariably is, you better cast for it. Jeopardy doesn’t let you on just because you did well on the test.
I don’t think reality poker shows, such as Two Months Two Million, even deserve to be mentioned until at least one becomes moderately relevant.
Norm
The two shows that have combined elements of excitement and real poker play are Poker After Dark and High Stakes Poker (and that’s not just because SpadeClub advertises on those shows). However, these shows aim to serve the hard core poker enthusiats–poker players are the only ones still awake when Poker After Dark airs. As far as the shows that aim to reach the masses, the World Series of Poker is by far the most important broadcast; it gives life to all the other poker show by keeping poker relevant. It serves its purpose and is produced well for the masses in spite of (or maybe because of) what seems to be a discussion between Norman Chad and his therapist.
So what does the future of poker on TV hold? Will producers continue to take the equity that has been created by the best most relevant shows and continue to make junk?
I could not agree more. There seem to be so many people who seem to have such big ideas relating to poker on TV however very few have actually accomplished longevity. My favorite two shows by far are Poker After Dark and High Stakes Poker. High stakes poker games on TV are great because it creates action that might not normally be there. Sometimes there are some big names that make it onto the cash games of High Stakes Poker when in reality they are only there because of their name and not because they create action at the tables. While I am not a huge fan of Tom Dwan I do love any time he is going to be on an episode of HSP because it is guaranteed to be an unpredictable hour of action at the table. A player like that forces people to play out of their comfort zone because his range is so open.
I have tried to watch numerous other poker shows on TV and every single one falls short of expectations. You are 100% right in saying that the Ante Up for Africa was horrible and while its a great cause that I support it made for horrible TV including the final three players agreeing to go all in every hand until somebody won. Lets just hope that the test of time will continue to weed out the bad shows and the shows that paint an exciting picture of the ups and downs of the skill, the risk, the glory, etc. continue to prosper.
KY – that is a great point about Ante Up For Africa that I should have pointed it out. It is a great cause and impressive that they raised so much money. The fact that it is on TV brings even more awareness to the cause and the benefit of that far out weighs any discussion on good v. bad poker.