most entertaining poker on tv?

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Ok, from an entertainment perespective only, which of the following shows do you feel does the best job of not only relating to the average viewer, but also entertains them as well?

[getarealjob 0]

ESPN WSOP. For your average viewer. Higher entertainment value, low poker purist value (like you've said before). No serious poker player would value this show for the play alone. No chip counts, too many profiles... it disrespects the more historical match-ups. ESPN needs to take some of the televised games more seriously. Doyle's 10th and Johnny's 10th come to mind.WPT for the poker purist, but has high cross over appeal for your average viewer--not for mere entertainment--but for entertaining and luring more hardcore "degenerates" into the game. It's too long for your casual viewer, but might get people hooked to the game.WPT more likely attracts new long-term players. It represents the game better... makes it look less like a pure gambling game.Superstars is sorta in the middle between the two above.I'm biased, but Celebrity Poker is so bad, it's a wonder it's still on t.v. Negative entertainment value, negative poker content value, except for Phil Gordon who knows what he's talking about, but whose knowledge is wasted on that show.EDIT: I just read your post about Celebrity Poker, and you have more data to work with probably. Honestly, of my friends that don't play poker seriously, they would be most likely to watch Celebrity Poker... So, while I'm biased, I understand the entertainment value here for the average television viewer ("channel block"-prone donkeys), but this show is the laughingstock of serious poker players around the world, and I doubt it brings serious/hardcore degenerate players, but rather pure casual recreational players into the game.I have a friend in the Marines who just got back from Iraq recently. I've always been a serious poker player, and if I talked to him about what I do for a living, he always brought up Celebrity Poker--not WPT, WSOP or Superstars... He thought serious poker was all about Celebrity Poker-- where I always cringed saying, no!! It's harder to explain what you do for a living if every non-poker player watches Celebrity Poker.But maybe you have a point about its pure entertainment and its (in my opinion only) small substantive cross over appeal, I still don't think this show is good for the game, but that's off point.

[GodOfEntropy 0]

The Main Event episodes on ESPN have been great entertainment, especially the verbal sparring between Matusow and the Sheik. Overall though I found the broadcasts of the circuit events to be boring and repetitive - basically all-in fests.The WPT has not had a new episode in ages(besides Lady's Night), but it never seems to dissapoint me.For purists, "live at the Bike" webcasts are great for no other reason than you actually get to see every hand played for 3 hours.

[LAS22 0]

Pure entertainment only is WSOP on ESPN.

[Sims4Short 0]

I think if you know how to play poker then you're going to be most entertained by the WPT. I have Seasons 1 and 2 on DVD and I can watch these over and over. Even all of Season 3 has been Tivo'd. However for the average joe that doesn't play poker. I gotta go with Celebrity Poker Showdown. Who saw Lacey Chabert on there. God is she hot.

[Golden 2]

WSOP on ESPN runs away with it in entertainment value.Poker Superstars is probably the most boring poker TV I have ever seen.And Celebrity Poker is an abortion.

[SportsW234 0]

If you ask this question less than four months ago, I would say World Poker Tour because the World Series coverage really didn't offer any explaination of the game. However, Norman Chad's commetary on the actual game of poker has improved so much in the past two years. He helps explains situations novices would not understand.Since WPT is more focused on poker than entertaiment aspect of the game and WSOP is more interested in entertaiment than poker, so I say WSOP.

[thatguy 0]

I have to say WSOP for entertainment value. Because alot of people I know who don't even know what poker is will watch that show just because they make it entertaining. But they usually change the channel if they see WPT, superstars, or celeb poker.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

The only show that I make sure to watch is WSOP.I watch it every Tuesday night while playing in the Army home game.Celebrity Poker is fun because of the players not the pokerPoker Superstars 1 was fun to watch but I couldn’t get into 2. I hope 3 is better.I don't get the Travel Channel.

[Swift_Psycho 1]

I think ESPN is probably more entertaining for average viewers.I much prefer the WPT personally however, because I enjoy being able to constantly see exactly how much the bets are and the pot size.

[Governator 54]

Mike Sexton's voice is getting old for me. While ESPN's WSOP coverage isnt consistant here in canada, I seem to be more entertained with the coverage.

[mk 11]

In my opinion, the average viewer (read: non-poker player) would be most inclined to watch Celebrity Poker Showdown. However, I voted for WSOP on ESPN. This is due to the fact that the American public is still obsessed with the American dream, i.e. 'get rich quick' schemes. You can point to a number of factors that caused poker to explode, but easily the number one factor was Chris Moneymaker. The fact that celebs play for charity diminishes the entertainment value, imo. Perhaps it's sad, but it's certainly true. Another reason I voted for WSOP coverage on ESPN is their production savvy. The 2003 and 2004 M.E. coverage remains the best reality television of all time. ESPN produces drama. They are acutely aware of what it takes to make a story interesting. If you watch their coverage, it's almost as if they hired a Hollywood screenwriter to pen it. Anyone who has studied Joseph Campbell and classic mythology will be familiar with what is known as the Hero Quest. This is essentially the story outline for many classic films (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, The Matrix films, Harry Potter, etc.) in which an unassuming hero (Luke Skywalker, Frodo, Neo) is selected for a quest and discovers his powers along the way. They are often mentored by a wise, old wizard-like character (Obi-Wan, Gandalf, Morpheus, Dumbledore) and ESPN even included this storyline in their 2004 coverage with David Williams and Marcel Luske. I couldn't help but smile. ESPN tailors their coverage to this story outline, and it makes it immensely enjoyable to watch.

[KyleStark 0]

Average VIEWER this is a no brainer and Celeb poker showdown...especially the first season when they actually had celebritys and not D listers.Average POKER PLAYER obviously CPS is ranked low...I refer you to watch the episode with Carrie Fisher and The Creed guy, or the rodman episode...just horrid.I haven't checked the ratings yet so I'm guessing the WPT or WSOP has overall higher ratings, however if you draw a huge pie chart of what portion of viewers for the wpt or wsop is an "average viewer" and not a poker player, it would be very miniscule and probably not even reportable. The "average" tv viewer doesn't play poker, therefore could care less to see Johnny Chan win his 10th bracelet. The average viewer would definately stop clicking the channel if they saw *insert celeb* on reality TV, so if you draw a pie chart of who watches CPS their would be a HUGE ratio difference of viewers: players.Just so i can be a little more clear:ex.lets say 100 people watched the WSOP (i did 100 for easy math)80 out of 100 is probably a poker player and that 20 peopre are your average Family Guy, OC, Smallville, reality tv "viewer".20:1 players to viewersCeleb poker showdownEven though it is "poker" I'm sure most of the viewers or atleast a good portion is actual players vs viewers, however the ratio would probably be a lot more dramatic like say 4:1 poker players to viewers ratio.

[p r o d i g y 0]

You cannot beat the vast coverage by the WSOP.

[ravenwolfab 0]

In my opinon Poker on TV has to go a new way. Everyone is getting to know the personalities of the professional players and the shows like Bad Boys of Poker, WPT event final tables are going to become staples in the cable tv market. What viewers need is a show where everyone can relate to the experience of Poker. Since I am new to posting lets just say that soon - Hopefully - that show will be on the air. Stay with us on this one Daniel....it is going to be a winner.Cheers,RavenWolf (AB)

[TobyOrNotToBe 0]

In my opinion, the average viewer (read: non-poker player) would be most inclined to watch Celebrity Poker Showdown. However, I voted for WSOP on ESPN. This is due to the fact that the American public is still obsessed with the American dream, i.e. 'get rich quick' schemes. You can point to a number of factors that caused poker to explode, but easily the number one factor was Chris Moneymaker. The fact that celebs play for charity diminishes the entertainment value, imo. Perhaps it's sad, but it's certainly true. Another reason I voted for WSOP coverage on ESPN is their production savvy. The 2003 and 2004 M.E. coverage remains the best reality television of all time. ESPN produces drama. They are acutely aware of what it takes to make a story interesting. If you watch their coverage, it's almost as if they hired a Hollywood screenwriter to pen it. Anyone who has studied Joseph Campbell and classic mythology will be familiar with what is known as the Hero Quest. This is essentially the story outline for many classic films (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, The Matrix films, Harry Potter, etc.) in which an unassuming hero (Luke Skywalker, Frodo, Neo) is selected for a quest and discovers his powers along the way. They are often mentored by a wise, old wizard-like character (Obi-Wan, Gandalf, Morpheus, Dumbledore) and ESPN even included this storyline in their 2004 coverage with David Williams and Marcel Luske. I couldn't help but smile. ESPN tailors their coverage to this story outline, and it makes it immensely enjoyable to watch.

Are you an American or a wanna be American like the rest of the world ??

[dEv~ 19]

My favorite to watch entertainment wise is the WSOP on ESPN. Poker wise it would be the live stuff...like live at the bike, the one just one where Ivey won 600k and the table where he ended up beating Dags heads up. All in's are fun but I like to learn and live poker is a much better tool for that.