WSOP ME FT to be aired live, with a 'slight' delay?

[drewjax]

WOW. I really dont know what to think of this. Good for everyone, except, ummmm, oh ya, THE PLAYERS!!

[Wes]

I like the idea from a standpoint of how well this will improve the ratings and promotion for the game. Also, the donks that make it to the final table will likely get coached by big names which will help the popularity of well known pros which only helps the game. Overall, good for the popularity of poker, which is only a good thing for me.

Although there are certainly a lot of problems. The big one being that death, illness, and other things may cause the player being not able to attend. What would happen if one person can't show up for whatever reason? What stack do you give the final table bubble boy? Do you even let him in at this point? Do they distribute his stack evenly among all the players % wise?

I'm sure with how incompetent Harrahs people run the WSOP, they won't figure this out. But if they did, this could be a good thing.

[Talking Poker]

This is absurd, so I am sure it will happen.

[Invigilator]

I think the Harrah's people have watched a bit too much of "The Bachelor"

[Reel Deal]

One problem with this: live unedited poker can be painfully boring at times, especially to the uneducated masses that watch ESPN.

[Talking Poker]

FYP.

[GTDawg]

Can we get Phil Hellmuth to sit in and give his card guesses and stuff ala early 2000 final tables?

[Kurn]

I think I'm starting to come around on this.

How can we bitch and moan about Kyl, Goodlatte, et. al. in one breath, and whine about this in the next?

Anything that increases visibility and attracts corporate sponsorship naturally counteracts the forces against poker in Congress.

IMO there are two paths for poker to take.

1: Go back to the old days. Keep it quai-underground. Embrace that as poker players, we're outlaws on some level and thus accept our fate from a legislative/tax aspect.

2: Bring poker completely into the mainstream and hope that by mainstreaming the game we solve not just the legislative issues, but the tax issues as well.

IMO, we can't mix and match the two. While in theory, I'm equally comfortable with both alternatives, in reality the genie is already out of the bottle and choice #1 probably is not viable.

Bring on the corporate sponsorships.