The Global Poker Masters (GPM) is a new, TV-friendly poker event that will be pitting some of the world’s best poker players against each other when it runs in March of this year. It is being organised and run by Alexandre Dreyfus and the Global Poker Index (GPI). The cards will be in the air on Malta just before the arrival of the first PokerStars EPT to grace the Mediterranean island. This timing isn't a co-incidence as the EPT tournament staff are involved in organising the Masters, bringing some of the best tournament personnel to the tables in order to carry through the event.

It has been a long time since we've seen newly created, high-quality poker content on our televisions that hasn't been generated just to expose online poker logos or other existing "big names" in the industry (the WSOP for example) to the audience. It's the first time since the heady days of the initial poker boom that we have third parties inaugurating poker events that are, at their cores, designed to be televised, and in my mind, this is long overdue.

I am of the opinion that the next poker boom is going to be, at least in part, driven by the media, and if that is going to happen, events like the Global Poker Masters are going to need to be produced to the highest possible quality. On the other side of the coin, if events such as the GPM fail to satisfy viewers, it could have a very noticeable negative impact on the poker industry. The question that I think will be asked following a failure isn't going to be: "What went wrong?" It is much more likely to be along the lines of: "If an event with the backing of the Global Poker Index can fail, how is it possible to succeed?" One high-profile failure could burn bridges for others trying to enter this arena regardless of the use of different ethos and methods. That’s why I have become more and more concerned by some of the decisions taken on the road to bringing the GPM to the public.

http://www.flushdraw.net/news/global...eed-might-not/

My opinion here probably counts for very little but I'm afraid to say I don't really like the concept already. Iv never understood the need to have a sport such as poker undertaken on a team basis, and especially a "country of origin" one.
Sure, all the pros have a great team of players around them constantly, but when they sit down at the felt it is every man for themselves against all challengers.
It is an individual sport, no? Best shown (in my opinion) when it's the 2 best minds at that time going at it no holds barred.
Making it a team sport means you have to rely on other peoples results and sometimes tailor your play around that. Often resulting in perhaps not the most optimal/entertaining play/viewing and also the best individual players can often end up on a losing team overall. Good for who?

I'm also from Australia, and the fact that my "team" doesn't even seem to be represented just adds another level of disinterest for me. I can watch all the WSOP or EPT tour events and be totally enthralled with them (even if no Aussies present) as it is the very best going at it on a totally level playing field with no restrictions.

Again, this is just my opinion, and of course I do not wish this concept to fail at all. But you did ask for comments so I'm simply offering one..

TV audiences are bored with watching the "world's best poker players" fight it out. Now that the novelty of televised poker has worn off, only two things I can think of will attract viewers, and they will never get old:

1. Captivating personalities. If the personalities are interesting enough, an audience will watch anything. That's not going to happen with poker unless you somehow handpick the players, not from a pool of poker pros, but from outside the poker community. (I have no idea how this would be done so don't ask me.)

2. A great story. The dream, the drama, the quest. This is the WSOP ME and maybe it could be done with some other tourney, but we're talking about Chris Moneymaker, Darvin Moon, Jamie Gold, etc. Watching everyday people compete at the highest level to become world champions used to be fascinating. Problem is the WSOP ME has become so tough, and the game so slow that we don't see those kinds of stories anymore. And maybe people are tired of seeing those stories anyway.

As much as I hate to say it, maybe we need a new format for the TV coverage of the WSOP. Different commentators, the works. Something needs to change to inject some energy into the TV game.

@OP

What is the Global Poker Index?

GPI ranks tourney players worldwide based on the top 13 cashes of the past 36 months. It is recognized pretty universally as the best listing of top current tournament crushers.

I see the stream, I hope the TV show will have better production quality. It seems like they are changing rules on the fly and even the commentators have no clue whats going on. Stapes and Kara are great but Stapes' non-Hartigan co-hosts and Eric from GPI are not exactly captivating personalities.

Ive never been a fan of staples or harrington. I also dont really like the idea of team events either. Watching players like benny spindler make the game exciting, even doyle loves him. Or durrrr back on pad and HS poker. And gabe kaplin was a great announcer, maybe the only one.

Dnegs sick hand reading skills brought viewers but his appeal has long worn off.

I think the hardcore players really appreciate watching players like dan colman as he is so skilled and every hand is interesting to see how he plays it. Same with jungleman and other top guys. Lots of mixed feels over colmans win celebrations tho..


Btw when you really respect a players talent and the announcer continually disrespects and makes fun of them it while taking about nothing relating to poker but only offtopic instead it makes it really hard to watch. This is what happened at the final table of the tourament where jungle and colman went heads up where staples was announcing, just painful