On Jan 19, 9:16=A0pm, richardhut...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> I read a book on poker, Copyright 2000, that said said pretty much the
> same about poker, that it was boring to watch on TV. =A0Well, they found
> a way.
They showed the hole cards.
> Actually, acting does NOT increase your chance of winning.
> Everything is uniform and consistent and you can't tell anything.
Except for the dramatic irony of knowing who will win, unless they
think they have to fold.
> That is the funny part about poker on TV. =A0 What poker REALLY is, is
> not seen. =A0People don't see why people win or not. =A0They just see
the
> highlights mostly. =A0
Yes, hours upon hours are condensed into a few good hands that turn
the game. Yet, if moves are not covered in a chess game, there is no
comprehension about how they got there.
> Of course, there will be a
> bunch of emotion at tables, and sometimes there is trash-talking.
> Come to think of it, isn't that what Fischer did? =A0Fischer was Phil
> Helmuth, before the poker brat Phil Helmuth showed up. =A0Maybe players
> projecting more emotion and their personalities before and after a
> chess match would help.
As long as it translates into playing the board, not just prissy
whining about the controls. And something has to be done about draws,
because that's why soccer hasn't taken off on TV in the U.S.
|
