I personally liked the new format, but most recreational players don't want to think about ranges and all that. I think the new format is not good for the recreational player.

I liked watching it but at times you can't really enjoy the full magnitude of a player's ever move if you only know the whole cards at the end. I feel as if they should do like a 45min-1hour delay and show the hole cards from the beginning. By the time you really can appreciate their play, the next hand is already dealt.

The average person is definitely going to get bored because not knowing what a player is holding while that player contemplates for 4 minutes is REALLY boring.

i hope it was boring. fish learning how to play by thinking for themselves before seeing hole cards is not what we want

What was the flop? I grinded the whole thing but can't remember.

Viewing figures for the live coverage were better than ESPN expected, the highlight shows had big drops in viewers.It wouldn't surprise me if ESPN went to live only coverage next year.Financially it makes the most sense for them with the lack of online firms pumping in the advertising dollars post Black Friday.

I've just been billed for another week's pass for ESPN player. I didn't realise it was an ongoing subscription (reading T&C's ftw). Everyone who subscribed for the live feed and doesn't want it anymore should cancel it asap. Email address is support@espnplayer.com.

That is exactly what they need. Live streaming followed by the old edited format.

This. Except use this years edited format, which focused on hands other than just bustouts.

Bracelets suck. Make it a cup or something.

my roommates were intereted when they brought the money out but, fell asleep after the 1st 2 hours

They did this a couple years ago. It kinda sucked, it was like 100$ iirc and you NEVER got to see the holecards unless there was a showdown. It was like watching the old espn broadcasts except it was like ten hours long if not longer. Probably one of the worst spent 100$ ive ever spent.

Personally I loved the new format:

Comments:
Weird tho that the whole thing could've ended in 10 minutes. Lamb was eliminated on Hand 4, what if on Hand 5 Heinz picks up AA v. Staszko's TT or something and it was over just like that...20 minutes of coverage would probably have been a disaster for all the money that went in to producing it.

Suggestion:
2 minute "shot clock" so there's not those huge lulls where nothing's happening. I know there's a lot of money at stake, but a shot clock is going to make for better TV, and online poker's had a time-bank forever and players adjusted there.

Also, I think the casual player is going to enjoy Phil Hellmuth's commentary a lot more than Antonio's. They may hate him, but it's more like they love to hate him and he'll hold their attention more. Stick with Norman and Lon too, recognizable/consistent voices in commentary mean a lot in the presentation.

Why do millions of people around the world enjoy watching professional athletes run around with a ball?

http://store.theonion.com/product/th...uperior-to,39/

I watched a lot of the coverage, but fell asleep during heads-up. I like the sequester idea better than this, but I will say it was entertaining in some spots not knowing what they had, i.e. 89 bluff-shove HU by Heinz. I can definitely understand people getting bored and it's probably not good if it runs too long.

this new format sucks. the commentary alienates the people with limited/no poker experience (who still might enjoy watching the drama unfold on tv) while at the same time illuminating the existence of advanced theory to the viewers who play tournament poker recreationally with a rudimentary grasp on the game. instead of degree all in moments and norman chad getting whamboozled, we're hearing about delayed c-bets and polarized ranges.

the wsop main event coverage is the most exposure poker gets to the general public, and this format is horrible for introducing new players to the game. make it low-brow and fun like it used to be so average joes can watch, follow along, and cultivate an interest in poker. who gives a damn if it's too simple 2+2ers, isnt that how you make money in poker in the first place, by thinking one level higher?

For a player who tries to put players on hands/ranges I got bored after 3-4 hours. It was mostly due to the downtime inbetween hands and players like Heinz and Gianetti taking unusually long amounts of time to make even the simpliest decisions.

There is 2 ways they could do it IMO

1. Have it live with hole cards and have players segragated (Aussie Millions)
2. Have a 1-1.5 hour delay and show hole cards (EPTs)

good post

Format: I thought as a 2+2 nerd I would like this format, but instead I was bored and just wanted to see action and ooh and ahh at how much money was at stake. Instead it seemed more like any other tournament where you 'just' always try to make the best decisions... We NEED the glitz and glamour to keep the ME shrouded in mystery and given the illusion that ANYBODY can win!

Commentary:Antonio made it boring after a while. At first i liked his commentary but after a while he has the same thoughts on every hand. He didn't really put much psychology or game flow behind his analysis except oh he checked the flop so he probably has showdown value... blah blah. He never got really excited about anything and so i didn't really get excited. As much as i despise Helmuth, a refiend version of himself where he doesn't use the word "I' 3-4 times a sentence would be better for poker.

As 2+2 nerds we need to realize we are a niche, and not to have such a narrow view of the overall audience.