WSOP Live on ESPN2 Doesn't Deliver

Last night the wireless internet crapped out at the Rio. We were told that some of ESPN's equipment for the livestream was the culprit, as it was interfering with the wireless frequencies. Today the problem will be solved, but yesterday there was no choice but to grin and bear it. That meant either work off an aircard or head home.

I chose to head home, partially so I could watch the "live" (ok, 30-minute delayed) broadcast on ESPN2 myself. The companion livestream on ESPN3 wasn't available from the press box -- a total boggle.

Anyway, I watched the "live" broadcast of the 2011 PCA final table back in January. I knew the WSOP broacast wasn't exactly breaking new ground but I was still curious how the sucker would turn out.

The good: the production itself is very slick. ESPN and Poker PROductions have learned a thing or two in the 8 years since the hole-card cam changed televised poker. It's incredibly easy to follow the action.

The bad: live poker is boring.

Here's the thing. I've been watching live poker all over the world for the last three years. I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that live poker is boring, especially when there's no big money (yet) on the line. It only appeals to the most hardcore of the hardcore poker fans.

If live broadcasts are the future of televised poker, then televised poker is in deep trouble.

Some viewers complained that the on-air talent stumbled at times last night. And while they did, I believe it's simply a case of growing pains. Making the transition from a canned product to a live product is incredibly difficult -- and filling up all those hours of air-time is no easy matter either. The on-air talent will get demonstrably better day by day as we get deeper into the Main Event. The PCA didn't have that problem because the on-air talent had already been doing EPT Live for years.

What won't get any better, however -- at least until we get to the last 2 or 3 tables -- is that live poker is incredibly boring. I say that as a poker fan and as someone who covered 75 to 100 separate poker tournaments between 2008 and 2011.

I know that part of understanding why the "big hands" happen the way they do is all the "little hands" in between. At times in previous WSOP broadcasts, viewers were robbed of much of the story between all-in hands. But I'd be surprised if those little hands retain much broad viewer interest. It's not that fun to watch "raise it and take it" or a single c-bet take down the pot on the flop for 30 minutes at a time, even if it does shift the table dynamic.

Making things even worse is ESPN's / Poker PROductions' curious decision not to reveal players' hole cards until the end of a hand, even though the stream is on a 30-minute delay. This may be required by Nevada regulators -- I'm not sure -- but it robs hands that were already not very interesting of any gravitas they might possibly have. It effectively removes the hole-card cams from the production until the end of the hand (and sometimes even then Poker PROductions doesn't reveal what the players were holding), thereby returning the production to the late 80s or 90s, before the hole-card cam was invented.

I've been told by ESPN personnel that the goal of the livestreams and the broadcasts is to "get younger", that the only way the WSOP on ESPN can survive and work is to attract a younger audience. They are making the bet that this is the way to do it. But poker is an incredibly niche market to begin with. In my mind, ESPN should be looking at ways to make the game appealing to the wide demographic it attracts at the tables themselves, to grow the market beyond that young grinder niche.

Showing every single hand from now until Tuesday seems like a curious way to do it.

[For a great companion piece, re-read Wicked Chops Poker's take on the 2011 PCA livestream.]