Just happened upon Poker After Dark and it's four handed with Doyle Brunson, Johnny Chan, Chris Moneymaker, and Chris Ferguson. Doyle has said a few things, but other than that, you have no commentary and no talking... whatsoever.

This is the opposite extreme of having Phil Hellmuth, Mike Matusow, and other table talkers that keep a conversation going. I think there is a happy medium which works best, but I must say, I wonder how interesting the average viewer finds an episode like this?

What do you guys think?


To me, it says something about these "made for TV" events and the people they choose to be a part of them. There's often criticism about more colorful players being chosen over quieter players, but after watching this show, I'm starting to wonder if the TV people actually know something that we all don't?

I didn't care for it. One of the best parts of PAD are the stories and talk. I mean, if High Stakes Poker had the same sort of commentating, it'd be great to hear people like Doyle tell the story where he laid down aces full, or hear the entire religion discussion with Chen.

I definitely prefer the lack of commentary, but I like it when the table is at least talkative. Lederer discussing that huge asian sportsbetting operation was good, as well as Annie Duke's story about Sam Grizzle attacking David Grey (lol).

When you have good stories it works a lot better, but the format of the show is definitely the best there is.

This particular week (which is a rerun) was one of the most boring due to the quietness of the table. I think it would've been a little better if Carlos hadn't gotten knocked out so quickly.

I will start off by saying that I do enjoy PAD, but not nearly as much as HSP.

I have all of the PAD's TIVO'd, and have not yet seen the Brunson, Chan, MM, Jesus episode, but if I were a TV exec. I would NOT want these 4 as my main attraction if I am trying to get viewers. Seems to me that they are at the top of the quiet range without a doubt. Sounds very boring.

That said, while it is fun to watch and be entertained by players with more colorful personalities, the main focus should always strive to be the quality of the poker, less you end up with something like Celebrity Poker Challenge, which suckedballs. The answer is to intentionally put a mix of both together. If that sounds to some like it's favoritism or that some pros get left out and get their egos hurt, so be it. It is TV afterall and if there are no ratings and the show dies then NO ONE gets to play.

I also think the PAD's tournament format means that you risk exactly what has happened here...4 boring guys making it deep and putting everyone to sleep. Not good.

For me the perfect show (either by design of accident) is easily HSP. That it is not a tourney format is great because folks can stick around virtually as long as they want. So when you get a really good group, who all play great and get along great you get the perfect poker TV show.

HSP also seems to me to be what it might be like to be a fly on the wall of Bobby's room when all you guys are going to war. It is just awesome stuff to watch. I find it interesting to also hear the idle chatter, like when others are talking who are not in hands and are just chit chatting about lunch, or golf, or whatever. It is just great stuff.

But best of all is the "REAL" factor of HSP that captures the spirit of real poker like no other show. The pain and joy of the play is right there (as you sadly know Daniel). You guys are not losing a relatively small tourney buy in if you lose....you are losing or winning REAL dough, and serious amounts in many cases. That aspect of it is something that all of us can immediately identify with, regardless of our income ranges. This is just more like real poker, and for me it's the main reason why HSP is just the best poker on T. V., period.

So I think that the TV exec's owe it to themselves and the viewers to design and invite whomever they want. A great mix of personalities always will work best, as long as they are all professional players.

I can only hope there is going to be a HSP season 4.

I watched the first 20 min or so and found it to be very boring. I hate to say that considering there were 26 bracelets amongst 4 players, but I think to a large extent I only watch poker on TV for entertainment.

I definitely prefer watching guys like Matusow, Hellmuth, and You(Daniel) over guys like Johnny Chan and Chris Ferguson. I watch poker on TV for entertainment and 6 quiet people at the table doesn't provide entertainment unless the $$ stakes are monster.


1. Phil Hellmuth
2. Mike Matusow
3. Shawn Sheikhan
4. Sammy Farha
5. Daniel Negreanu
6. Scotty Nguyen

This is the Poker After Dark lineup I would LOVE to watch. It would be pure comedy and drama all together!

Daniel, how would you feel about this lineup? How crazy would the table get?

That table would= good television. We'd mostly all be crackin' on Phil which is the norm, but then you have some gambling, some great play, some funny moments, some heated moments, some stupid moments, some good one liners... you have a great TV product.

The reason I brought up this topic is that I've always felt bad for players who are overlooked for these invite only shows, but now I'm starting to see why it's such a big mistake to not consider the ratings. If they'd led off with this particular show, they would have risked being cancelled after week 1.

Phil Laak, love him or hate him, isn't boring. Neither is Antonio Esfandiari. Sometimes they are silly, but at least they can be entertaining and care about being entertaining when invited to one of these shows.

If you are playing in a WSOP event, I don't think you should feel responsible about making entertaining television. However, when you are invited to a made for television program you should first, see it as an honor, and second, do your best to add to the show in any way that you can.

I think Doyle tries to do that and he is an amazing character to watch. On this episode, though, he had no sidekick and it really caused for some quiet, boring moments.

The episodes where Hellmuth has been on shows the more important fault: the players don't care that much for 100k profit. Hellmuth would routinely play like Gold on High Stakes. Just raise with anything for the sake of it. So you either get people talking a bunch and not caring, or caring too much and not talking.

The most entertaining week was the one where Laak took it all and that was only because Laak wanted to beat AE so bad and they had all been drinking and it was starting to show. What can you possibly tell the players to make sure it remains interesting? That there's a 2 drink minimum? "There's nobody talking so be funny... But make like you care."

I think after the show has been on for a few more weeks and poker pros see enough of the episodes they'll get a feel for the format and will adjust to a more casual attitude and put on their home game faces while still trying to win. Ivey even lightened up a few times when he was on. It won't be a very good show for picking things up, but neither are WSOP broadcasts.

i'd have to agree in saying that this particular viewing was rather boring

i'd also have to agree with Daniel about certain players getting overlooked.. if you think about the world series of poker coverage on espn.. they show all the pros getting knocked out, but during their hours of play you only see the one hand.. no one wants to sit and watch a bunch of guys play straight poker with nothing being said.. it's like sitting down to dinner with your in-laws

I definitely prefer talking but I always talk at the table so maybe that's why. Without talking you wouldn't have those golden moments of freddy deeb crying when Johnny Chan (or at least i think it was him) said he went south and DN and sheiky got the blame. Mike matasow and Tony G always insulting people, Phill Hellmuth blowing up, it's all golden T.V. Oh and of course DN just being the friendly guy. I find that entertaining but prefer it when people go made like phill hellmuth.

Shame Flack doesn't play on tv (or make final tables) much anymore. I always thought he was among the most entertaining table talkers around. That 6 handed event where Doyle won his 10th (i think it was the 10th, but I forget) a few years back was one of my favorite tv tables of all time. Great characters with Flack, Scotty, Doyle and even Ming who is funny in his own sorta quiet way. Awesome table. Great one-liners like when Flack flashed Doyle K-high and folded and Doyle goes "he's got me up against the nuts everytime"..."the turn's the flop to me, I'm an oldtimer"....Scotty's Welcome to the jungle line....Flack pretending to get hurt on Ming's chair when he busts out...his comment after he loses a big chunk of his stack that "all his fans gave up on him and left"....etc....

My HOF tv table in no particular order would be:

1. Layne Flack
2. Tony G
3. Phil Hellmuth
4. DN
5. Scotty Nguyen
6. Sam Grizzle
7. Doyle
8. Mike Matusow
9. Sammy Farha

i also think that the quietness was the reason for it being the worst week so far (in my opinion)
i loved watching laak and esfandiari because they were joking and talking.
also, in the first week (Duke, hellmuth, sheikhan, hansen, zolotow, seed) the talk was great for the first episodes. when it got heads up, it wasn't as fun to watch (although it was still good to see seed vs. hansen heads up)

I like watching talk at a poker table, if it doesn't get out of hand. Look at the episode of PAD when every one badgered Phil and they didn't play for a period of time, that's not playing poker, its more a reality show... Am I wrong here for thinking that was a stupid episode?

The players that I enjoy watching are the ones that play interesting poker or/and add something to the table banter. If a player isn't entertaining or educational I can see why people easily switch off. From the limited amount of poker shows I've seen High Stakes Poker seems to provide the best format so that even if they do have the occasional player thats says nothing and folds 95% of thier hands they don't end up dominating the show by being the only ones left.

I love the table talk, but when I watch HSP or PAD with my fiance she makes me mute the TV if Mike Matusow has a bad hand.

To me, the point of those shows is to let you feel like you are on the rail at a game with the best. If you guys were all there without the cameras, then there would be tons of talk. That's what people want to see. Within the same night I went from four statues stealing blinds to Daniel grilling Esfandiari about dumping his girl! Talk about night versus day, and guess which I enjoyed more.

Although I would like to say that since I'm a noob to the world of spectator poker, this PAD was the first time I got to see Johnnie Chan in action, and his ultra deceptive style of play is beyond even his legendary reputation. I was really impressed.

Keep it lively Daniel! The more active you are, the more face time you get on HSP and PAD, and the more I enjoy watching it!

The one thing I hate most about both Poker After Dark and High Stakes Poker is when the announcer(s) start talking over a conversion that has never been discussed before and then when the table is silent the announcers hardly say a word. It's as if they don't want us to be entertained by anyone but themselves.

This usually happens more often on HSP when Gabe tries to be funny and says something like, "Oh , there goes Mike The Mouth talking about how he lost his luggage at the airport." Meanwhile, Mike was really in the middle of something worth listening to, but instead Gabe has to pick this time to fill his quota of at least 1 joke every 5 minutes or so. I love Gabe's humour but please wait till the table's quiet or at least just talking about standard stuff. They do the commentary after the shows taped anyway, so it shouldn't be too hard to speak at the right moments, especially since the players aren't miked that well (or mumble too often).

Yeah - silent = boring, too talkative = reality show not poker and a good balance is the best. Personally I love hearing the stories of the old days or crazy things that happened. Steve Z getting arrested and stuff like that. Doyle (with the right person to get him to talk) could entertain for hours with tales of the old days.

I think that's actually part of the reason why Gordon came off as such a dork on the PaD with Lindgren. The table was pretty quiet and Gordon was trying to get some talk going. Too bad 90% of what he said was stupid or inappropriate/potentially insulting.

Call me crazy but some of the best balance I've seen has been on UPC: Cash Poker. Good amount of table talk and Greenstein is probably the best commentator I've heard in a long time. It was kinda funny hearing BG shoot down half of what Chad Brown said. The show from a production standpoint is a low-rent version of HSP but it's becoming one of my favorites.

I watch poker for the poker, not the table talk. I watch it to improve my game and to follow what's going on in the poker world, more than for entertainment. I'd prefer watching Barry Greenstein in a cash game to almost anything, even though he hardly says a word (other than LOL donkaments).

I think in PAD the producers told the players to gab it up, to the show's detriment: some of the conversations seem forced. Make it real: that's the most important thing in televised poker.

That said, I agree that HSP has some good tabletalk. 8 players, no one busting out since it's a cash game, that's enough people to keep it lively. Although I wish Gabe would shut the hell up so we could hear what they're saying more often.

I watched most of the PaD episodes, after the first one aired...I even got a chance to catch Hellmuth playing blackjack on UB and talked to him about the first episode. He said that it might be getting cancelled, thats been a few months ago.

The PaD episodes I didn't find interesting were the ones where there was no dialogue between the players. When they did talk the commentator would ad lib over them and you couldn't hear what they were talking about. That was pretty annoying, because he really isn't all that funny. I think the best tables are where you have a mixed bag. Half and Half, 3 lively players and 3 not so lively. I'd like to see a lineup of DN, Phil laak, Mike Matusow, Phil H, Doyle, and maybe Allen Cunningham. They should can the commentator all together, as he really doesn't add anything to the show except hearing his own voice.

You might find the recent posts by the PAD host (Ali Nejad) interesting and informative.
Try, http://pokerforums.fulltiltpoker.com/onlin...-play27867.html

In particular, these Ali post's explaining his announcing. Ali writes:
The times you hear me blatantly speaking over the players chatting is by design. Occasionally they discuss something that the producers can't allow to be heard (legal issues, other networks/shows/tourneys etc) and we don't have a shot that we can use to hide the moving mouths. So we can't simply mute the audio, but rather have to bring it down a bit and have me speak over it.

As well, this post by Ali:
With respect to the times I don't say enough...I actually lay down a lot more audio than typically makes it into a show. I'm not around for the final phase in the cutting room so I don't know what makes it in and what doesn't until I watch the finished product at home just like you. But know that the gaping holes of silence during matches between the more introverted are generally filled with something...whether or not they make air is anybody's guess.

Another great Ali post:
I am not on set when PAD shows are shot, and see them for the first time when I voice them in Los Angeles. I have "beats" on each hand (which aren't always correct) that I use to follow the action since I often don't have graphics like you guys do. In the room are a producer, sound mixer, and a poker consultant who actually plays and knows the game and helps check for accuracy and quality.I typically voice 3 shows a day, twice a week, and it takes about 8 hours a day.

When I was hired to be the voice of PAD my role was still being defined. It was unlike anything that was out there in televised poker and there were many opinions on how I should approach the job. I could try to be funny, I could be dry play by play, I could be analytical, but no one really had a sense of what was going to work best so we tried them all.

In the first shows, I was making it more like Mystery Science Theater 3000 (for those who remember) and letting the poker speak for itself through the graphics and picture. That didn't work for the powers that be, so I swung the pendulum way over to dry play by play but that didn't seem to work either. So the idea ultimately (and it may change again) was to attempt to split the difference by delivering minimal play by play, occasional light analysis, and occasional light humor. All this squeezed in between the wealth of player chat on certain weeks, and spread out across the virtual absence of it on others. Easier said than done - I promise. No matter what you might think of the show, it is an irrefutably ambitious and progressive concept in an otherwise overwhelmingly monotonous space. Translation: it's different by design, for better or for worse.

It is silly to assume that what people hear of me in the finished product of PAD is a direct descendant of my personal take on what/how things should be, although I fully believe in the show. I don't want to sound defensive at all because I am sure that there are people who are keenly aware of this fact that still hate hearing my voice (and you are 100% entitled to your opinions). But those who don't know that need to understand I don't produce the show, but rather "do what I am told" to a certain extent... sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. And the hardest part is that there are quite a few legitimate superiors/entities weighing in on things that aren't all necessarily on the same page with respect to my role. Some feel similar to the disgruntled masses, some side with the "like things the way they are" faction, and then there's me -ultimately a pawn in the middle who has to tread lightly and mostly reserve opinion.

Finally this Ali post, in response to someone wanting him to stop his silly smartass comments:
I suppose the idea of Dennis Miller in the MNF booth irked me as well. The dilemma is that the people who take poker as seriously as you and I do, number few in relation to the massive viewing audience that exists. And as such, the overall objective of entertaining people is far more essential to the viability of a broadcast (viewership>advertisors>revenue) than pure poker.

I'm sorry that you don't enjoy the "smartass" version of humor you've seen from me, but I am sure you can acknowledge that for everyone like yourself who might dislike it, there is likely (if I may be presumptuous) someone who does (that variety of humor at least. Whether or not they like it on a poker show is arguable). Rest assured the laughs are not one dimensional from me, but on the PAD platform they came through that particular filter. End of his posts.

So, it's really hard to complain about Ali's announcing after reading his informative posts concerning PAD. That doesn't mean future episodes of PAD won't be boring from time to time, but at least we now know why some of the problems occur.

Well I skimmed through it and he still isn't a good commentator, I don't know why. Maybe its in the tone of his voice, his humor comes off as condescending, where as a comedian would be able to pull it off much better. As far as the network masking what they are talking about, thats what bleeps are for or better yet put a poker show on a cable network that doesn't have to adhere as tightly to being "pc". I don't remember what other show Ali commentates on with Phil Gordon, but he isn't quite as annoying on that one.

I think for many, many viewers, poker on tv is just, well, tv. I think one of the main attractions to poker on tv, and the success of High Stakes Poker on GSN, is that it gives us regular working folk who play poker once in a while a little taste (be it faked, overdone or heavily edited) of what it's like to be a world class player that is in it for lots of money to the average person.

Except for the hardcore purists that just want to see straight up poker, no one wants to WATCH ON TELEVISION the dozens and dozens of previous hands where the only conversation is "I fold, I check, I raise, reraise - nice hand/absolute silence ending" during a matchup that is hours long. It may be interesting to see for a moment why the same audience member during the marathon WSOP Horse tourney looks like he hasn't bathed or slept in days when 5 minutes earlier in footage, he looked fine in obviously edited footage while they show a really interesting hand or showpiece, but I don't want to go over the minute by minute breakdown of what happened, we'd all fall asleep.

Though, I do think it's a decent idea to have some of the less talkative types on the poker shows, I also think it's a given that you have to put in television poker players in the show - it keeps us watching.

Besides, I'm glad that it is very likely that some of the less chatty, more successful poker players are making good money despite not reaching "television poker diva" status and guys like Mike the Mouth are at least making some scratch to pay some of his bills from television fame because he goes so broke outside of television, lol.

firstly i am envious of all of you for getting as much poker on TV as you do, In Australia the game is growing bigger each day but the free to air coverage is limited to celebrity crap and not much else, we get a bit on pay TV mainly coverage of WPT and WSOP but nothing of the regular shows that get aired in the US

so i look at the PAD question from a different perspective, i have to search the web and download or youtube anything i want to watch, obviously HSP is the greatest poker show that has ever been and i dont think there will ever be anything in the future that will come close

in a simple word its just "REAL"

as for what rates i look at it like this,

the first time i saw an episode of PAD was whilst searching youtube for "Phil Hellmuth" obviously looking for clips of his biggest blow ups, i came across the episode of PAD with Sheiky (who by the way is a complete tool most of the time) Duke, Hansen etc

this episode was so entertaining and i have been watching PAD on the web ever since

I like watching solid poker but i love the entertainers, so i think the producers should be very carefull of the player mix that they select.

perhaps 3 talkers and 3 quiets would give us the best mix

I have no problem with talk between hands, even if the talkers are getting obnoxious.

I really dislike all the chitchat during hands in play, whether Matusow or Gold or Sheiky or whoever. Just shut up and let your chips do your talking for you.

It's really bad when there are 3 players in the hand and (e.g.) Gold is talking to one and completely ignoring the other. Entirely inappropriate.

If Gold can't run a bluff without running his mouth he should go sit on Johnny Chan's lap for another few months.

Probably the stupidest stuff that goes on is when someone is deciding on a bet and starts trying to talk out the hand. OK, Danny does it well. But so many others just come up like ignoramuses, like the fellow at the USPC who, faced with a major reraise, asks "got AK?" Or Prahlad Friedman showing off at WSOP saying "I know what cards you have" and then trying to name them by rank and suit. Just stupid.

OTOH, when the loudmouths jabber they are usually giving off tells like crazy, so if one can ignore the jabber and watch the body language you can usually learn quite a lot. Jamie looks very different when he's talking with a hand and when he's out of it.

And I'll say this. A lot of the obnoxiioius bs may be entertaining, but IMHO it denigrates the game. I would like to see everyone play in a way that shows respect for all the old men who made the game and made it possible for us to play it. I don't think it's too much to ask.