THE ACE IS BACK 0 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I just picked up the WSOP 2003 DVD and amazingly enough in one year (2004) the pocket cams improved 10 fold. In 2003 the pocket cards seemed so blurry, where as in 2004 the clearness is remarkable. The general discussion of this post is what coverage do you enjoy more.... WSOP or WPT? I feel the WSOP coverage is way better then the WPT coverage.. I just like the flow of the production better on the WSOP.. The WPT seems to hesitate before flipping every card like it's some big climax in a cheap romance novel. Obviouly the WPT has Shana Hiatt but in my opinion the rest of the show just doesn't match the WSOP's presentation. I guess having ESPN Running the show sure helps. What do you feel? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest XXEddie Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 hey...any poker is good poker....However i pre the WSOP because it shows all the days of the main event. WPT only shows the final 6. But like I said....ill take anything, even if it celebrity poker showdown....(if theres no other poker on) Link to post Share on other sites
Pupsta 0 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I'll take anything that doesn't involve Vince Van Patten. If I have to have Carrot Top and Urkel commentating on nick at nite, I'll take it over Van Patten. Link to post Share on other sites
Mandelbrot 0 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I'll take anything that doesn't involve Vince Van Patten. If I have to have Carrot Top and Urkel commentating on nick at nite, I'll take it over Van Patten.ROFL The general consensus is that ESPN coverage is much better. WPT is all neon and cheese, though still worth watching. ESPN has better commentary and editing, more complete coverage, and it's not cheesey! Link to post Share on other sites
holybejeesusx 0 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I like WPT better. On the WSOP, they show so many different tables that you don't see many players in multiple hands. It gets repetitive because you don't really know much about any of the players in a given hand. In contrast, WPT focuses on the same 6 every episode so you can get more of a feel for the dynamics of the game. Link to post Share on other sites
superchuck 0 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Obviouly the WPT has Shana Hiatt  the wsop could throw matt savage in a speedo if you like seriously though i agree with the delay on the community cards(uneeded)i find the 1000 and 5000 denomination chips at the horseshoe to be the best in the world. (the yellows and blacks)alot of the chips on the wpt from various casinos look kinda cheap. in the wsop you can hardly tell that they are only showing highlights. i allways seem to catch the button at random places on the table while watching the wpt. maybe thats just me though. Link to post Share on other sites
KDawgCometh 2 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 the wsop could throw matt savage in a speedo if you likeLMAO, that is funny as hell. Anyway I like the WPT more because you get to see the players actually play. Espn for the final table showed only all-ins when if you read Andy Glazer's report there was tons of action at the final table. I was really hoping that they would show four hours of coverage of the final table, but they gave us only one Link to post Share on other sites
blknines 0 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I like the WSOP commentary becuase Norman Chad is funny. I do like how in the WPT they show more of the hands that people fold. Link to post Share on other sites
GoBucksIndy 0 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 "Espn for the final table showed only all-ins when if you read Andy Glazer's report there was tons of action at the final table. I was really hoping that they would show four hours of coverage of the final table, but they gave us only one"The coverage of the WSOP was great this year, but the coverage of the final table seemed almost to be an afterthought. They had 10-12 hours of the final event coverage, yet only one hour was dedicated to the final table? That didnt' make much sense to me. It was as if, as someone posted earlier, all they showed was all ins. I really enjoyed watching the multitude of events they showed this year. I think the WSOP coverage is much better than the WPT. The coverage is better and I enjoy watching coverage of the tables up to the final table. That is something they should include in the WPT. Even if it is only 20 minutes of action leading up to the final table, it would make the broadcasts more interesting. Link to post Share on other sites
Swift_Psycho 1 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I actually prefer the WPT a lot more because they keep you informed on how large the blinds, bets, and pots are with visuals on the screen. A lot of the time on ESPN, they say "There's a $16,000 bet." I find myself saying, "Great, that doesn't mean anything unless I know how much the antes and/or blinds are."Another thing is that Norman Chad has little to no understanding of the game and is simply making viewers dumber poker-wise for listening to him (though I agree he can be comical at times). The same argument could be made for Mike Sexton and Vince Van Patten in some respects, but I think that they are still slightly more poker savvy than Chad.Also, I do like the fact that some great laydowns are shown on the WPT in addition to the big action hands. ESPN is all about the huge, all-in, exciting hands. The final table of the WSOP main event episode was pretty disappointing simply because someone was all-in virtually every hand. A 9-player table had to be summed up in one hour. Compare that to a 6-player table summed up in 2 hours.However, I enjoyed watching some omaha, seven-card stud, and razz on ESPN. Link to post Share on other sites
fluxer 0 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 The poker coverage on Fox Sports Net is by far the best in my opinion but otherwise, I think the WPT and WSOP coverage are equal; both have their positives and negatives. Celebrity Poker showdown... ugh. Link to post Share on other sites
Dr_Shakes 0 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 i like WSOP a little better than WPT just because you get to see all stages of the tournament. But WPT is very good too. As far as Fox Sports they have to be the worst. Terrible commentary and during the pokersuperstars they have that annoying flashing bluff icon. That has to be the cheesiest, pitiful thing I have ever seen. The one exception was FOX's coverage of tourning stone live! That was great, hope someone does it again. Link to post Share on other sites
Spidurman 0 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I think the best announcers are the ESPN crew - and the best coverage (production) is Fox - they show the 'real' hands moreso than anyone else. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I enjoy them both, i like the fact that WSOP shows a lot of different players catching hands, and the fact that WPT just shows one table. I find I learn more from the WPT events. However anything is better then watching the one broadcast out of the UK. The one announcer freaks out everytime there is a call or an all in, like he's calling a goal in soccer, so bloody annoying. The heart rate meter is pretty good though, it shows that even the pros heart rates jump through the roof in big pots, or how controlled they are when they stab at a big pot with rags. Link to post Share on other sites
heisthejuan 0 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 First time posting here. Don't be too brutal.While the WSOP obviously has a higher production quality, I prefer the WPT final tables. The WSOP seems intent on telling a story. They present the players as characters and you tend to follow them through the tournament getting updates and what not. This great, fun to watch compeling television. However, as other posters have said before I think the WPT gives a more comprehensive view of what happens at the particular table. They show a lot more hands, you always know the blinds, and feel like you can generally learn more by watching these shows. And of course, there is always Shana. Link to post Share on other sites
GoBucksIndy 0 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 "Celebrity Poker showdown... ugh."I watch virtually everything on TV about poker, but I can't stomach Celebrity Poker showdown.And I agree with the comment made about the Bluff meater. That thing is just obnoxious. It reminds me of the timeclock they had once on the WPT. Luckily the WPT realized what a dumb feature that was. Link to post Share on other sites
workz 0 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 i agree with the above, i enjoy fox's poker better than the others.. obviously wsop and wpt do a better job of looking better visually, etc...but fox shows more hands, and i enjoy the commentary where it doesn't feel like the commentators are the main attraction but rather the players...especially when like howard sits in and talks too... Link to post Share on other sites
Opp234 0 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Norman Chad is definately funny.Vince Van Patton makes everything try to be so dramatic. The flop will be Ace, King Queen and the guy one guy has pocket 2s. The player with pocket 2s is thinking about laying it down after another player put him all-in and Van Patton will say, "THIS IS THE GREATEST LAYDOWN IN POKER HISTORY, WE WILL TALK ABOUT THIS ONE FOR YEARS" what a moron! He tries to make everything so dramatic when he needs to just shut his mouth.Commentrary to me makes the show.So carry on WSOP.P.S. Phil Gordon is such a geek Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Hand 0 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 "Celebrity Poker showdown... ugh."I watch virtually everything on TV about poker, but I can't stomach Celebrity Poker Showdown.But CPS is about the celebrities, not the poker. I got to meet Phil Gordon and speak with him for a couple of minutes during his book signing at a vendor expo. The second season had just started broadcasting, and I told him that he looked a lot more comfortable than he did in the first season."Oh, yeah." he said. "The first year I thought they wanted real hard-core analysis, like on the other poker shows. But they just want everyone having fun and making jokes. The producers even want me to start drinking during the shows."Imo, with the right group of celebs, the table talk can be very entertaining. Link to post Share on other sites
TheIceman05 0 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 The poker coverage on Fox Sports Net is by far the best in my opinion but otherwise, I think the WPT and WSOP coverage are equal; both have their positives and negatives. Celebrity Poker showdown... ugh.Bingo. FoxSportsNet does an absolutely top-notch job. They have great commentators, and some pretty advanced insight. Also, they'll show a lot more hands, giving you a much better feel to the flow of the tournament. It seems decidedly geared towards the more serious player, as opposed to the casual viewer. I've heard Howard Lederer make a few comments that absolutely blow me away. Norman Chad, onthe other hand...Ice Link to post Share on other sites
jeff_536 3 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I agree that the Poker Millions from the UK has some interesting angles... the other night they showed a guy... Jon something...who was down to his last 6,000. he put his head in his hands an inch above the table. They went to the card cam, which shoots straight up through plexiglass, and the look on his face was priceless...a great angle you're not going to see on any other coverage. Link to post Share on other sites
superchuck 0 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 The poker coverage on Fox Sports Net is by far the best in my opinion but otherwise, I think the WPT and WSOP coverage are equal; both have their positives and negatives. Celebrity Poker showdown... ugh.lol. chris rose is such a moron but best coverage by far. the championship at the plaza was the best tournament on t.v. i have seen ever. lederer put such nice professional comments and theories out there that chris rose stumbling through his lines of "well freddy deebs shirt might win him this pot" was worth it. the gregorich guy at the invitational was a joke though for sure, he looked so unatural in front of a camera. cant wait for there next televised tourney.p.s. how can you hate celebrity poker showdown. dule hill is a hold em whiz! Link to post Share on other sites
Bubba83 0 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I prefer Fox Sports Net, Gregorich and Lederer provide great expert commentary and Chris Rose isn't annoying like Norman Chad of the WSOP. Norman just spits out cheap joke after cheap joke and it gets ridiculous. Vince Van Patten of the WPT also annoys me and can always be found saying the same stupid things every broadcast. He says stuff like, you gotta love it, poker at it's finest here, it's the battle of the blinds mike! It gets pretty annoying. I much prefer the in depth commentary of Mike Sexton and Howard Lederer, so i'd have to go with:Fox Sports Net > WPT > WSOP Link to post Share on other sites
superchuck 0 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 i like when norman chad calls chau giang a moron in the pot limit omaha final when they are HU. way to call one of the most succesfull high limit players of our time a moron assuming he didnt know the rules to pot limit omaha and betting structures. Link to post Share on other sites
superchuck 0 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Norman Chad is definately funny.Vince Van Patton makes everything try to be so dramatic. The flop will be Ace, King Queen and the guy one guy has pocket 2s. The player with pocket 2s is thinking about laying it down after another player put him all-in and Van Patton will say, "THIS IS THE GREATEST LAYDOWN IN POKER HISTORY, WE WILL TALK ABOUT THIS ONE FOR YEARS" what a moron! He tries to make everything so dramatic when he needs to just shut his mouth.Commentrary to me makes the show.So carry on WSOP.P.S. Phil Gordon is such a geekin the wsop lon mcaren (dont knwo if i spelled it right, but u know who i mean) says stuff like this: one player will be drawing to like 6 outs or something and the river will bring the wrong card but he will still get the emphasis in his voice like they hit it. "and out comes THE 3 OF DIAMONDS" changing no ones hand . just a side note.p.s. phil gordan is abnormally tall Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now