Originally Posted by Alfergo
After reading the ATF thread, I think I'll give it a miss, thanks.
Originally Posted by sajeffe
Yeah. A little too charming for me, too.
I've only met Jon a few times and I agree that he doesn't come across great in that thread(LOL@ "2p2 has made a fortune off of the 100's of thousands of views my threads have received over the years", also tweeting asking fans to start a thread was a really bad idea), but I think that the poker world needs more intelligent and articulate people who aren't afraid to call things as they see them. So far, I think Occupy Poker does a pretty good job of that and I fully support it.
The thing I like about Jon(and JC) is that even though I don't agree with them always, they get the discussion started. One of the main points that their show drives home, for example, is that its not ok for us to just keep sweeping all the scandals under the rug- we may have different views on how to deal with member of the poker community who steal/don't pay back/cheat/etc., but at the very least we need to keep the discussion open and not just forget about them.
I'm also a big fan of the Joe Rogan Experience, so I like that they are trying to emulate his show a bit.
A few critiques:
1. You mentioned this in episode 4, but you guys definitely have a tendency to not fill the listeners in on the back stories of what you're talking about. The funny thing was that you specifically mentioned that you were aware of this in episode 4, and then one second later you guys jumped into a Jeopardy story which assumed that all the listeners knew who Ken Jennings was. Is Ken Jennings really that well known that you want to assume everyone knows his story?
2. I know that you want to follow the script of the JRE by having the guests discuss all sorts of topics and have it feel like a natural conversation, but I think the JRE achieved that by first having the guests/hosts talk about their areas of expertise(for JRE it was comedy, MMA, etc.) and then in later episodes branching off into more off-topic discussion. I think you guys are trying too hard to force the direction of the conversation...imo just go into it planning on discussing poker(your area of expertise) and let the conversation naturally go from there. I particularly found it awkward/bad in episode II when several times you guys intentionally stopped a conversation because "we don't want to talk about poker too much."
3. This is something that only comes from experience, but I think JC and Jon need to find more clearly defined roles. Take JRE for example- sometimes they'll just have Joe/Brian and they'll both talk a lot, but usually when they have a guest they'll have Joe play the "interviewer" role, the guest play the "interviewee" role, and Brian mostly shut up and be there for comedic support.
4. In conjunction with #3, it seems like JC and Jon both have a lot to say on various issues. As such, I'd advise doing a few shows without guests early on(again similar to JRE). That'll let you guys get your voices heard, and then in future episodes with guests you can make it more about letting the guest get his voice heard with you guys playing the "interviewer" role and maybe adding in a few of your thoughts here and there.
Anyway, I enjoy it so far and will keep listening. Keep up the good work.
edit: Just read through the entire ATF thread...yea, not the right way to promote your podcast, guys. I don't think JC or Jon come across well in that thread, which sucks because their podcast is worthy of more support imo.