What has happend to Poker Tournament Coverage

[FurnessPoker]

I just wanted to say that I found that the coverage of major poker games lately has been at the all time lowest, I mean getting live updates from the WSOP 2009 games were just about nil, and sine then I have found the same in a lot of other major games, if they expect a following which obviously may lead to conversion then they should look at promoting their live tournaments, I would even offer my services if they covered my expenses to give them updates every 5-10 minutes along with photos and video footage. Yes I am on a rant, 5 of my players attending a major event and even though they did sporadic updates they covered a couple of celebs and mates, thats all. God Bless Phone technology, but please, please, please get real and if your running a big tourney get some coverage!!!!

[stefanaltzer]

You're completely right!
I have my mail account in the newsletter of the wsop website and although I'm more the Hold'em guy, I love to wathc all types of poker.

Poker basically a life-attuitude rather than a card game. One would think, the high rollers and the big entertainment companies like WSOP would care to have their brand mentioned in public when events like the Europe tournament will take place.

It's no wonder that more and more high rollers simply loose interest in playing the real game and move to online casinos for entertainment.
In Chicago I have attended an est. 80.000 $ tournament that wasn't mediatised AT ALL... believe it or not, only half of the given spots were occupied during the game... the end score went down to about 46 grand. It was still a win for someone but i thin kyou get my point.

But hey, the good news is, even if someone leaves the real deals withoput mentioning, the big names will always ring a bell...
I'm not afraid of WSOP or USPokerFED will ever get their names forgotten...

See Y'all!

[Shaun O'neill]

I guess the reason that coverage is getting less and less is down to the following:

To many events

1. The cost of sending people to events is huge
2. Very little ROI on covering events

Just my thoughts.

Shaun

[stefanaltzer]

Low ROI???? Well this all depends on what you do with the people that read/see that the announced event is coming up.

Do a nice e-mail campaign out of it and you have 10.000 e-mailadresses in your newsletter..
with a percentage of 3-9% conversion you can easily sell poker books to these people or just have them invited to a charity or whatever....

The costs for a campaign are high though, in that you're right!

Cheers!

[bbonline]

I guess the reason that coverage is getting less and less is down to the following:

To many events

1. The cost of sending people to events is huge
2. Very little ROI on covering events

Just my thoughts.

Shaun

Or maybe they can't grab any sponsor to help them in making the event live.
Imagine the cost when viewing online, isn't it too expensive enough?

[TheGooner]

The time of the poker rock star seems to quickly be coming to an end. It was fun while it lasted - but the shear variation of winners - and the fact that only a few known pros can win in the massive events means that the following dwindled quickly.

Most casual players simply are not interested in the blow by blow, hand by hand accounts of play, or even who finished where in an $80K tourney.

It just seems that the whole set-up of live-play poker tournaments is unstructured in terms of build-up and other than the WSOP there is no momentum at all during the year.

Even within the WSOP there are too many events, too many variants, too many buy-ins (and rebuys), and even the big no-limit $10K buy-in shot itself in the foot with the "November Nine" delay.

That does NOT build suspense - that kills the event dead - and then two months later people find out that the final table played plast night and xxx won.

The $50K horse event was a step in the right direction for public appeal ... but too little.

[CK - Schalk]

The time of the poker rock star seems to quickly be coming to an end. It was fun while it lasted - but the shear variation of winners - and the fact that only a few known pros can win in the massive events means that the following dwindled quickly.

Most casual players simply are not interested in the blow by blow, hand by hand accounts of play, or even who finished where in an $80K tourney.

It just seems that the whole set-up of live-play poker tournaments is unstructured in terms of build-up and other than the WSOP there is no momentum at all during the year.

Even within the WSOP there are too many events, too many variants, too many buy-ins (and rebuys), and even the big no-limit $10K buy-in shot itself in the foot with the "November Nine" delay.

That does NOT build suspense - that kills the event dead - and then two months later people find out that the final table played plast night and xxx won.

The $50K horse event was a step in the right direction for public appeal ... but too little.

I agree with all this. Gooner, you are a wise man

[sagiscub]

congratulations to EYECON and SOMU.i really like your works.hope to see u in the next challenge .....

[bbonline]

congratulations to EYECON and SOMU.i really like your works.hope to see u in the next challenge .....

Excuse me? Would you so kind to tell who are those names you mentioned? Are they a part of the biggest tournament that win the highest price?