isaac haxton wasnt great but i guess he's new to it

Eric Ulis

Any answer except Robert Willimson III is clearly wrong. The only saving grace he has is that an Irish friend of mine just calls him "The Third".

"Is The Third doing commentry on this?" in an Irish accent always makes me chuckle.

RWIII: nice enough, but says some moronic stuff.

Mike Sexton:

"He's a bidness man from ....." What kind of hillbilly can't pronounce the word 'business'?

"He's got the the queen ten of spade."
"He's got the queen ten of diamonds."
Why is every soot pluralized except for spades?????

Karate Kid-style hand jive is tilting.

There's clearly some cultural differences of opinion as to what is considered an annoying accent or sense of humor. Or humour. There's also a difference between commentating and analysing. Or analyzing.

The question would be better if it was:

For TV poker broadcasts over the last 2 years:
1a. Who was the best analyst
1b. Who was the worst analyst

2a. Who was the most amusing
2b. Who was the least amusing (and clearly wanted to be amusing)


IMHO, WPT has got to totally change their format. Putting up helpful explanations of poker expressions, e.g. "A flush is when 5 cards are the same suit" made sense 10 years ago when they were trying to attract a non-poker player audience, but just annoying now. It would be like putting up graphics during an American football/gridiron game "A touchdown is when a player carries the ball across the end line".

Mike and Vince are neither amusing nor good analysts for today's strategies. They too are still explaining the basics of poker as if talking to beginners. They pretend to be sitting near the players and commentating "live" when of course that simply cannot happen. Mike's hand gestures are repetitive and his pronunciations (like "spade" instead of "spades") put me on tilt.

Any show that essentially mutes the table talk in favour of commentating (vs. analysis) takes something away from the viewing enjoyment and learning opportunities.

Shows that don't show the player bet sizes, or hole cards if they fold (when they could have), or mis-time/delay numeric information about what's happening, are not catering to serious poker players.

Which brings me to my final point - poker shows are either targeting non- to low-level poker enthusiasts, for which they ensure they have beautiful but meaningless women interjecting occasionally, explain the basics of poker, and do nothing more than state the obvious "Joe bets 400. Mark calls. Bill calls.". Or they are targeting the mid- to higher-level poker enthusiasts, in which case they have a straight man and an analyst or poker pro. But good quality personable analysts are still a rarity for TV.

The problem is ratings - since FTP crashed, poker shows can't be self-funded info-mercials seeded with so-called poker pros (that are really just FTP investors promoting their brand), so they have to find an audience and maintain ratings.

The good thing is that the general level of interest/knowledge of poker in homes is increasing, so that should kill off the shows that target the non poker player audiences (or force them to up their game. I'm looking at you, WPT).

How anyone can keep from shooting themselves in the head while watching Norm Chad is beyond me. The guy is beyond annoying.

Agreed. He is awful and his jokes are life tilting

I used to HATE Stapleton, but his I think his analysis is actually better than that of any of other regular commentators. His Jokes are in general God awful. He does come the with the odd good one now and again. At least he doesn't just tell you what you can see anyway, 'X calls, Y raises' etc. What tilts the living hell outa me is after every single 'joke' the co commentator starts EVERY SINGLE sentence with a little chuckle. It does my brain in.

As a unique taste, I quite like Neil Channing.

Jesse May. If you actually listen to the guy, you realise he has no ****ing idea about poker.

QFT. Jessie May is a grade A ****.

The commentary on the recent Premier League of Poker, at one point had Jessie May, Phil Laak AND Jennifer ****ing Tilly! The commentary team form hell.

FML.

I'm now Stapleton's "co-commentator."

Is that what my life has come to?

Someone has to make the tea.

Yeah that's probably around #3 on my top 10 list of thing I hate that Stapleton and his co-commentator (James someone I think?) do.

Oh, come on...

EVERYONE loves a chop pot!

Please share the other nine...

OK,

1) Hartigan's fake laugh at Stapleton's terrible jokes.
2) Stapleton's terrible jokes.
3) Everyone loves a chop pot.
4) Stapleton's terrible jokes.
5) Stapleton's terrible jokes.
6) Hartigan's fake laugh at Stapleton's terrible jokes.
7) Stapleton's terrible jokes.
8) Stapleton's terrible jokes.
9) Stapleton's terrible jokes.
10) Hartigan's fake laugh at Stapleton's terrible jokes.


In all seriousness, it is easily the best poker show on TV - And the commentary and analysis is far, far superior to anything else currently about. (It's one of about 3 things I have on Sky+). Aside from the commentary, it's also well presented, directed, edited, and looks slick.

Also I wouldn't worry too much about being Stapleton's co-commentator, you are by very definition his co-commentator, and he yours. There are two of you, and you co-host a program! You are each others co-bro.

Hahahahaha! Awesome list! And I love the fact that we're "co-bros."

Thanks for your kind words about the show, particularly the standard of production. I'll make sure I forward this feedback to the talented team who work incredibly hard on the EPT (and allow us to ruin every episode with our jokes, chuckles and moronic songs).

I'm sure my feedback will be welcomed, what with me being such a high profile name in the poker world! - You took the ribbing in good humour, so I thought you deserved my honest thoughts on the program/s. With regards to the commentary I also enjoy the Sky cash games, and the live EPT shows. (Stapleton doesn't have time to write down 4000 puns, when it's live!) The poker enthusiastic viewer appreciates proper analysis - It's like the difference between MOTD with Hanson and Shearer v Sky with Neville and Carragher, the casual viewer will prefer the family friendly MOTD, real football fans bang their head against a wall watching MOTD, whilst actually leaning something from team SKY. Keep up the good work Co-Bros.

James, the live streams need more movie trivia, and no I am not kidding.

Luv the shows.

I was watching some of the 2013 WSOP streams on Xbox through the ESPN app and I have to say that Tuchman is the worst commentator that I've ever heard and I can explain.

Tuchman is usually having conversations with guests instead of announcing each action, so a lot of action doesn't get announced. Then he and his guests analyze hands with usually a very biased opinion and sometimes give wrong analysis as well (with a strong opinion).

All in all, his "conversations" that he's having instead of focusing on the action pulls the audience away from the action instead of getting into it. They should let the crowd analyze the hands themselves, after all, most of the viewers are family members of people that made the final tables and friends of those people too...so by analyzing the action with a bias opinion it promotes a lot of people to not want to play and not watch the broadcast since the analysis is usually bias for what Tuchman thinks is "the right play" or who he thinks is the better player without knowing much about some players. And he misses a lot of great plays because of the stories he's telling or biases that he had earlier expressed.

How to fix it: it's very simple, simply turn the mics UP for the players at the final table. Many times Tuchman would say things like "Oh, the players aren't very talkative at the final table so we'll do the talking for them", even though you could see the players talking often but you couldn't hear them since Tuchman's mic was turned up and the final table mics were turned way down.

I do think Tuchman would be a good commentator if given a shorter lease. And maybe he was directed to give a lot of analysis, but even if that analysis was perfectly spot on it takes something away from the viewer experience. Viewers just want to see how their friend or family member's experience was. People don't view them thinking they're watching "training videos". At least that was true for this viewer and I think the majority of viewers are on the same page.

I have heard some people say they just watch it on mute but then miss some of the action...

Maybe an option to either 1) hear the floorman on the scene announce the action with sound from the players at the final table talking OR 2) listening to Tuchman's commentary would be a good choice. I would choose just hearing the players at the final table with the floor man's announcements of action.

Sexton

Norman Chad

+1

Norman Chad is horrible. I mean every show do we have to hear a joke about how many ex wives/divorces he has been thru? Also he readily admits to sucking at poker. I understand the WSOP tries to appeal to non-serious poker audience, but damn man. U learn nothing during these shows. At least IMO the "live" final table coverage should have pro analysis.

I enjoyed the steaming on ESPN 3 during the series so much better. Yes Tuchman had alot of conversations but alot of them where poker related. Also u gained insight from ppl actually playing in/making deep runs in these tourneys.

Fish won't get educated bc even if someone gives them the playbook they will apply it wrong. IMO intellectual conversation about plays will appeal to recreational players and actually show it's strategy and thinking in this game. How can poker progress when the biggest tourney is commentated by 2 ppl who know no advanced strategy and Norman making ridiculously stupid jokes every episode all the while giving no insight into why players are making the plays they make