What was it about those early poker tv shows that were so great? Mike Sexton and Vince Van Patten announcing the WPT, Lon McEachern and Norman Chad doing the WSOP circa 2003-2004. What was so great about these old poker tv shows? Go back and watch and you'll notice at least one big difference, they explained the game of poker, no-limit texas hold 'em, the cadillac of poker, in particular. These shows catered to a wider audience, an audience of the uninitiated non poker player. It wasn't talking down to these people, it was educating them. Educating me. Initiating me. I can only imagine what trying to watch a poker tv show for a newbie must be like nowadays. VPIP? Solvers? "Is that even a human being playing? He hasn't moved at all for a minute, I'm pretty sure this is a prank show and they have one of those wax dummies at the table. Oh no he moved it's just some sperg wearing a scarf, wow this is boring next channel." That's the sort of product that's out there. Even shows that are entertaining to me wouldn't possibly be as entertaining as the old shows if presented at the same time.

I'm a smart guy but I've been trying my whole life not to be a nerd. Poker appealed to me because it seemed like a cool way to make money back when I was 16 twenty years ago. But now poker's not cool anymore, it's niche. And it's because of all these damn nerds with their calculators ultimately. So in an effort to clean these games up from nerds and to make poker cool again I'm advocating picking fights at the table with the nerdiest looking guy. Just straight bully this person until they ask to take it outside or they feel such hostility they may never want to come back. I'm not advocating to hurt anyone (just their feelings). Like another great cult leader before me Tyler Durden of Fight Club I'd like you guys to pick a fight, and lose. Maybe then that nerd will stop thinking about VPIP and realize the value of unthought out aggression.

I'm from Europe so I barely ever watched WPTs but the coverage of EPTs from way back in the day is still absolute gold.

Here's a prime example:



Remember, this was a 5k and watch some of those plays lol. Times were different back then and 100% more fun.

This one may have been the first I ever watched. Commentators today could learn a thing or two about how they set this up as a big underdog story for the dude who took it down.

The game was more fun back then and the average person could just be decent at the game and not lose money. Now I have to deal with euros at every 2/5 game I play in. A big part of the fun is experiencing something and not over thinking it and TV poker was good at creating stories and an atmosphere. We had real men like Farha who were social and dynamic, now we have pink haired dweebs who call the floor over micro aggressions.

The reaction the HSP live stream got recently gives me no hope for poker shows. I thought the opposite from what the majority thought about it. To be more specific about why old shows were great was a mix of emerging internet stars fighting with the old guard, poker being new and fun in general, the right pros being put in front of the camera and Gabe / Ali understanding that the show was more about the players then themselves calling out irrelevent play by play. We can still have entertaining shows going off past examples, I think Pokerstars Big Game with 1 amateur on a freeroll was the best format and would still work today.

it was new

That's part of it.
At least with the tournaments anyone could win back then.
There were way more personalities and less robots all basically mimicking similar strategies.

But it's also 15+years ago and people still watched tv back then.make those same shows today and it wouldn't have the same effect.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best. Sure, NLHE was never that interesting a format to begin with, but at least when it was still exploding players at least had a personality, you had crazy plays, these days the game's been for all intents and purposes worked out, the players are boring, and at any level which might be televised everyone does the same dull plays for fear of being exploited. Been that way for well over a decade.

Yeah the game has been worked out but what do almost all of these nerds who've solved the game have in common? A lack of muscles. So I'm arguing us alphachads go back to what's worked in the past, intimidation; we bully these dweebs.

Does anyone else have a better solution??

The game is pretty much solved today and good solid poker turned out to be v boring. Back then, the best players were still figuring out the game and making more unconventionnal plays which in turn made the game exciting.

It was the shiny new thing.

I was always amazed at Gus Hanson on those 2003/2004 WPT shows.

Good producers, editors, and interesting players. They developed characters and storylines around the game. Focused on 'rivalries'. Especially for the ME coverage. They did a great job of getting emotional backstories on random people that gave the hands/play more meaning and gave people hope that "Hey, maybe that could be me someday with a chance to win big."

There's so much focus on live streams now, which I think are the nut low. Poker is generally a boring game until big moments arise.

The old 2003-2005 WSOP Main Event final tables had a much better atmosphere

Light shining on table, crowd blacked out, tension had to be cut by knife

Now they have the Mothership and it’s a Happy Gilmore crowd

Huge factor.
It was very 'new' in the 00s.
Combine this with that era now being 20'ish years ago (give or take), so now add a huge shot of nostalgia to the mix.

The poker world was still a lot more colorful, full of characters back then, so it was a lot more interesting than watching the aspergers vs aspergers battles of today. It was sincere, it was earnest. It was a crappy table in a smoky room full of dudes. Production value is great, but there's no substitute for the 'way things were, before everyone showed up'.

Overall, it was a less theoretically optimal game back then, but it was way more interesting and very fresh.
You'll never get that first high, ever again. Everyone bitches about the sawdust floor in the saloon, until the barkeep puts in title. Then they all miss the old sawdust floor.

This topic was been beaten to death 10 years ago.

I agree with Defarse that novelty is the most important factor at play.

Poker content now is literally better than ever. The games are aggro AF and the drama is spicy. If 10 years ago someone told me that omgclayaiken would publish a thesis on the psychology behind the behavior of wcg|rider's internet bullying, i wouldn't have believed it.

Skill wasn't as big of a factor back then. Now it's everything, and it's taken the fun out of the game for the average recreational dreamer whose chances of winning a major event are much closer to zero than they used to be. The Jamie Gold years are gone. The dreams have been crushed. There are fewer Average Joes who people can relate to making big scores. People realized you need to work hard and be smart to win, and those talented people are now over-represented in your typical line ups where everyone at the table acts like a robot. No one is entertained watching a robot play cards.

The stars of the past had charisma and attractive energy. They were more human. Those traits do not necessarily make the best poker players though. Poker today rewards mimicking a computer. It's not entertaining anymore.

I think you are underestimating variance. Any rec can still bink a huge score.

No I'm not underestimating variance. I said the chances are much lower, not zero.

Several things.

- People still watched TV and then "did" things back then. I.E. they weren't glued to social media all day. They would see poker and then go "do" poker. They got out the house and found local games and such.

- People like Gabe Kaplan. Gabe made HSP enjoyable IMO. Even now, where his knowledge isn't as high as the theory based guys, I'd still take him over most any poker commentator.

- We understand too much theory now. If you're halfway studied, when you watch a game or stream, you already know what the "right" play is. Back then, every hand was a mystery and you never knew what people were going to do.

- It was "new."

- And lastly, the skill level gap wasn't as wide. I make a much larger hourly rate than I did 15-20yrs ago. You could still have a huge edge playing super system poker. But now, if you're playing a game full of non studied recs, and you're fairly well studied......it's just ridiculous how many levels behind they are.

Also, all these deeper games aren't good for rec players. The amount of hourly possible in a 1/3 $1k cap game vs a $300 is ridiculous. The $300 cap is far, far better for rec players.

Theoretically yes but look at the final tables of the last 10 main events or so-how many of those players are rec players?

Even the “rec players” are oftentimes experienced amateurs with pretty impressive results. Every now and then some average Joe from middle America will bink a satty and Pokernews will latch onto the story like a parasite. They milk the feel good story for all it’s worth. Then we all get to laugh at the poor soul when they inevitably incinerate their stack in some tragic manner vs an emotionless GTO robot.

True. I mean whose the last trainwreck to win-Yang?

It was the main event heads up match between that likable fellow from Georgia and that GTO bot from Germany when the rec punted with one pair (KQ).

George Holmes. Definitely a reasonable example of a true rec making a big splash. However, it is noteworthy that he had a previous deep run in the ME in 2019 and apparently has played since at least 1999. Also noteworthy, that 2019 run was his only live cash before coming 2nd in the ME.

From the few hands I saw he played pretty solid and can’t really be considered a trainwreck. Obviously still a considerable underdog to make it as far as he did.

Better characters. Imagine 2023 Jungleman in a 2008 HSP lineup. It would have been amazing. No one really has personality anymore. Guys like Persson and Doug just come off as giant douchebags.