Posted by Dr Fro 1:43 PM

In case you haven't heard, the newest poker T.V. show is Poker After Dark. It comes on NBC long after Dr Fro goes to bed, but I Tivo it and catch up on the weekend. Overall, I would give it two thumbs up.

What PAD does well is taking the best elements of all of its predecessors:

• Nobody wants to watch Eric Molina battle it out with Steve Danneman's poker buddies. This was a fatal flaw in WSOP and WPT: The popularity of those shows drew thousands to the tournaments they covered which diluted the talent (i.e. name recognition) of the field, which in turn made the tournaments less interesting. High Stakes Poker understood this and only let "name" players on their show. PAD followed suit.
• When HSP used the single-table cash game format (as opposed to the multi-table tournament format) in order to force the issue of keeping the no-namers off the camera, the consequence was a format that was inherently less exciting. Simply put, cash games have less drama than tournaments. PAD's solution: single-table tournament.
• WPT made the decision to not allow players to advertise vis a vis logos on their apparel. The thought was that by not allowing any free advertising, they could increase the value of paid-for advertising. Unfortunately, this pissed off some big-name pros who began to participate in WPT tours less and less. PAD looks like NASCAR with the logos, which means that the people who make their living off of sponsorships (or in Doyle's case, out of an equity stake in a site) are very excited to play. Presumably (and this is just an educated guess) sponsors will pay the $20,000 entry for their players. If this is the case (and I am quite certain that it is), the show should attract the biggest names - nothing to lose, $120,000 (and further name recognition) to win.
• The WPT had Shana Hiatt. PAD understood that she was a lot more interesting to look at than Norm Chad, so they hired her. Evidently, she had a non-compete agreement with WPT that almost precluded her from gracing the screens of PAD, but she won in court on this matter based on the fact that she never signed the agreement. I guess she is smarter than we gave her credit for.
• Not only do the play-by-play guys rarely talk, their voices are muted to the point that you almost don't notice they are there. This is vastly superior to hearing about Norm Chad's ex-wife. The focus is on the banter between the players, which I find endlessly fascinating.
• The prop bets (which were killing me on High Stakes Poker) are not allowed.

So given all the above best practices poached from other shows, it shouldn't be surprising that the show is great. You should check it out. I have not seen every episode, but some interesting bits I have caught include the interview between Sheiky and Shana. The total brainpower in that interview exceeded the total IQ of most ant farms. Yet, it fell somewhere short of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. You may have missed it, but Daniel Negreanu mentioned that the "executives at Harrah's are expecting an increase in the size of the WSOP Main Event despite the change in landscape...hah!" If true, the executives must be suffering from irrational exhuberance.

One thing PAD has tried out that other shows haven't is little to no editing out of hands. This makes for poker with less populist appeal, but with a truer representation of real life. Methinks this is good.

The website is interesting, too. First of all, it is covered with pictures of Shana, proving that the show is not above populist appeal. Second of all (as pointed out by longtime blog reader, Plantation Owner), it is in the nbcsports domain. A subtlety, but an interesting observation. Hey, if driving a car in circles is a sport, I say sitting in a chair for 12 hours straight is too! The website has a blog, which supplements the show. The blog even makes the same point I did about the play-by-play guy letting the players be the stars of the show. I guess great bloggers think alike.

0 Comment(s):

Post a Comment