dn: with the increase in money "off the felt"...

[Nelson 0]

... do you think some of the "known" names of poker have new reasons to change their play in order to "make the TV final table"?Ex:"Well known poker pro" : Pro-A is late in the tournament and is 7 handed; final 6 make a WPT final TV table.Chip Counts:Amature-1: 1,100,000Pro - B: 800,500Amature-2: 700,200Pro-A: 475,000Semi-Pro-1: 437,000Amature-3: 420,000Amature-4: 375,000Pro-A is in the BB, Amature-2 (tight-aggro) is in the cutoff, Amature-3 is UTG.Action: Blinds are big at 8K/16K; UTG limps in for the first time in 15 hands. Cutoff limps in as well. You have [jd][10d] and check to see a flop.Flop comes [3d][8][9d]. For arguments sake, lets say you check. UTG goes all-in for this remaining 400,000 and Amature-2 flat calls the all-in.Will there come a time where a pro (with a short-stack) will fold this situation in hopes of making a TV appearance? Will the "well known pro" have more to gain from being on the TV final than just the prize money? Silly?

[BSUrugby240 0]

I completely agree with this idea. IIRC, didn't Sklansky say on 2+2 that he played slightly different on the "Poker By the Books" WPT event in order to get more face time to help promote book sales. I'm sure the majority of people who are not into poker would have an idea of who Sklansky was if they had not seen him on that episode of WPT.Also, if the shorter stack is to lose, the difference in prize money from 7th to 6th might also be pretty substantial. On the other hand, to play Devil's Advocate, if you make this call and hit you'll be going into the TV final table with a healthier chiplead, and possibly a better shot at finishing higher.But with the amount of the blinds and with an all-in and the call, I think its a pretty easy lay down if TV time were that important to me.