more luck, less skill?

[Koroshiya 0]

What other competitive sport can you think of where people who have just learned to play, or have never even played in a live tournament before, can not only compete, but win top prize? The correct answer is "none". This is why we may see fewer former champions at final tables in the future. Working their way through hundreds, or thousands, of less experienced players who chase after draws and defend weak hands only to suck out wins, will become nearly impossible. On the WPT programs, Mike Sexton loves to rave about how some player or players at the final table have only been playing a short time, or that they are online players who won a seat in a $5 qualifier, or that they are college students who decided to play on a whim. Pointing out this fact may draw more fish into the game, but it does not improve any aspect of the game itself. Watching the limit event on the WPT show last night was the least interesting poker I've seen on TV. Not because it was a limit game, but because it reminded me of $1/$2 games on-line. Players defending bottom pairs, sucking out flush draws, calling and raising again and again with no hand at all. Showing no respect for the play of an opponent, not even pausing to consider what his reraise might mean, and throwing caution to the wind does not make for very interesting poker viewing.As more "less experienced" players enter the game luck becomes a greater determining factor and it diminishes the benefits of skill and experience, as well as the enjoyment of watching the game. If poker is to remain interesting draw on television, there may need to be more events which have certain prequalification, like money won during the season, or number of final tables made, or previous events won... something like that. I find the Poker Superstars coverage most interesting because every player there is playing a high level tactical game. Would it be more rewarding to watch top pros get knocked out by some college freshman sucking out a 20:1 draw? Not!Koroshiya

[snakster 0]

As more "less experienced" players enter the game luck becomes a greater determining factor and it diminishes the benefits of skill and experience, as well as the enjoyment of watching the game. If poker is to remain interesting draw on television, there may need to be more events which have certain prequalification, like money won during the season, or number of final tables made, or previous events won... something like that. I find the Poker Superstars coverage most interesting because every player there is playing a high level tactical game. Would it be more rewarding to watch top pros get knocked out by some college freshman sucking out a 20:1 draw? Not!Koroshiya

I think that would be what the PPT is for. Hopefully they will have a TV deal for that sometime soon. I think there is room for both and both would have their merits.

[Scanner313 0]

I absolutely agree with your comment on the WPT show last week. Even though it was limit, there didn't seem to be any thinking going on at all. Hell, even Paul Darden was calling raises with weak hands. It got to the point where it seemed like any raise was called no matter what.It was by far the worst episode (in terms of the game play) I've ever seen. Boring as hell and completely worthless to watch.