The model is the World Series of Poker TV coverage

[joeydb]

It's been said before here, but it bears repeating:

If ESPN covered the NHC in a similar way to the World Series of Poker, this game would boom. In the same demographics -- college kids, young professionals, and just those currently unfamiliar with the game.

Millions of people watch the WSOP for weeks as a pool of over 7300 players narrow down to 9, and then to 1 winner -- where the winner gets several million dollars.

In contrast, a field of just over 300 players where the champion gets $500,000, and next year the winner is expected to get $1,000,000 has GOT to appear to be the value that it is. The NHC is much shorter -- two days in total. With the editing that is done similar to the WSOP, showing the highlights, it could be presented in 2 hours.

The similarity of horse racing to poker for the player is obvious. A pool of money is accumulated, a "rake" (or takeout) is siphoned off, and the rest is divided among the winner(s). Odds fluctuate that CAN make the game profitable in either case -- if you know the math and you get a little lucky.

It is universally accepted that Texas Hold 'Em Poker exploded in popularity after Chris Moneymaker won the whole thing back in 2003. He was one of 838 players that year. Seven years later, the tournament has grown to 7319.

If I had the money, I'd back this project myself. If done right, it can make a splash. I'd piggyback it off of the repeats of the World Series of Poker like networks do with new shows that are likely to have similar audiences...they call it the "lead in".

Am I the only guy who feels this way? I know some are opposed to the NHC itself expanding, just as some are dismayed that the WSOP is now so huge. But the benefits to the sport of getting positive exposure rapidly and stimulating new interest are enormous.

[justindew]

I think the main difference between poker and horse racing, from the perspective of the "new gambler", is that poker appears more "beatable" to those just starting out. Everybody who sits down at a poker table incorrectly thinks they have an edge over the competition by virtue of the fact that they have been playing for a while and "only lose on bad beats." But horse racing presents more challenges in getting up to speed. Add in the takeout, and I think it's easy to see why poker exploded while horse racing handle basically stayed steady.

*(Note: This is not an indictment on horse racing. Merely my view of the differences between poker and racing from a gambling perspective.)

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by justindew

I think the main difference between poker and horse racing, from the perspective of the "new gambler", is that poker appears more "beatable" to those just starting out. Everybody who sits down at a poker table incorrectly thinks they have an edge over the competition by virtue of the fact that they have been playing for a while and "only lose on bad beats." But horse racing presents more challenges in getting up to speed. Add in the takeout, and I think it's easy to see why poker exploded while horse racing handle basically stayed steady.

*(Note: This is not an indictment on horse racing. Merely my view of the differences between poker and racing from a gambling perspective.)

I don't disagree with you on how we got here. But just as the World Series of Poker is independent of the rake at the casino due to the huge prize money, so would the NHC be independent of takeout. The draw is the big payoff -- can I beat the field of players, even if we are all cashing with chalk?

You are also quite correct on the learning curve aspect -- as an engineering and computer professional though, I find myself drawn to it. I would think that guys in college now studying a technical curriculum, who play poker online, might give this game a shot if they knew more about it.

All I was trying to point out was that the result of the television coverage of the WSOP was cheap and very effective advertising. That's how I started looking into Texas Hold 'Em or I never would have tried it.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

ESPN attempted to do this once a few years ago - I watched the show - and it was pretty awful TV.

If they tried it again - certainly vast improvements would have to be made.

Before they put those cameras under the tables allowing you to see the hole cards - I doubt poker shows were hot TV.

[Split Rock]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It's been said before here, but it bears repeating:

If ESPN covered the NHC in a similar way to the World Series of Poker, this game would boom. In the same demographics -- college kids, young professionals, and just those currently unfamiliar with the game.

Millions of people watch the WSOP for weeks as a pool of over 7300 players narrow down to 9, and then to 1 winner -- where the winner gets several million dollars.

In contrast, a field of just over 300 players where the champion gets $500,000, and next year the winner is expected to get $1,000,000 has GOT to appear to be the value that it is. The NHC is much shorter -- two days in total. With the editing that is done similar to the WSOP, showing the highlights, it could be presented in 2 hours.

The similarity of horse racing to poker for the player is obvious. A pool of money is accumulated, a "rake" (or takeout) is siphoned off, and the rest is divided among the winner(s). Odds fluctuate that CAN make the game profitable in either case -- if you know the math and you get a little lucky.

It is universally accepted that Texas Hold 'Em Poker exploded in popularity after Chris Moneymaker won the whole thing back in 2003. He was one of 838 players that year. Seven years later, the tournament has grown to 7319.

If I had the money, I'd back this project myself. If done right, it can make a splash. I'd piggyback it off of the repeats of the World Series of Poker like networks do with new shows that are likely to have similar audiences...they call it the "lead in".

Am I the only guy who feels this way? I know some are opposed to the NHC itself expanding, just as some are dismayed that the WSOP is now so huge. But the benefits to the sport of getting positive exposure rapidly and stimulating new interest are enormous.

Agree wholeheartedly about the advertising of the NHC. I think it would generate some interest. I do feel, however, that the poker pie is not the right group to be going after. While there are similarities, the main difference is a huge one. Horse racing is critically dependent on analysis of many data points. Poker is certainly not. If you know the rules of the game, you can sit down at a table and be competitive. Not so for a horse player. Not only does a horse player have to master all the litany of handicapping angles in order to have an edge, they have to understand and master all of the betting options, as well. To be competitive with the top players, this edge might take years or decades to achieve.

I do think there is a comparitive gambling pie to attack and it is the sports betting pool. Also, I think, from the non gambling industry, people that invest in stocks could be converted. Both sports betting and stock investing require serious data analysis to gain an edge. I think that's the most important connection.

[pweizer]

They are very different games. What makes poker work on TV is that the viewer can see the hole cards so they know what is happening as the hand unfolds. There is no similar comparison for racing. Watching races is very exciting. Watching a room full of people watch races is not. Watching a room of people where nearly every horse is covered by someone in any given race has little drama.

Paul

[Split Rock]

Originally Posted by pweizer

They are very different games. What makes poker work on TV is that the viewer can see the hole cards so they know what is happening as the hand unfolds. There is no similar comparison for racing. Watching races is very exciting. Watching a room full of people watch races is not. Watching a room of people where nearly every horse is covered by someone in any given race has little drama.

Paul

Agreed. However, if the show is telecast on delay and edited with narration, it might be a bit more interesting. However, to the non horse player, it probably wouldn't have the appeal the initial poster would have hoped for.

The main problem is that viewing poker and seeing the hole cards allow the home audience to strategize along with the players and live vicariously through the conclusion of the hand. Viewing racing without the specifics around why a horse will run or not run is rather uninteresting.

Saying it a bit differently, is there any difference between a $5,000 claiming race and the Kentucky Derby to the novice horse racing person watching a race on TV? Other than the excitement surrounding the race, that person wouldn't know the difference. So, unlike poker where you understand why certain things are happening, a faceless horse race has no meaning to most.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Split Rock

Agreed. However, if the show is telecast on delay and edited with narration, it might be a bit more interesting. However, to the non horse player, it probably wouldn't have the appeal the initial poster would have hoped for.

The main problem is that viewing poker and seeing the hole cards allow the home audience to strategize along with the players and live vicariously through the conclusion of the hand. Viewing racing without the specifics around why a horse will run or not run is rather uninteresting.

Saying it a bit differently, is there any difference between a $5,000 claiming race and the Kentucky Derby to the novice horse racing person watching a race on TV? Other than the excitement surrounding the race, that person wouldn't know the difference. So, unlike poker where you understand why certain things are happening, a faceless horse race has no meaning to most.

Good points by everyone. I guess one thing I think might help is that as leaders emerge in the competition, a brief synopsis of what the top 4 or so stand to win or lose at pivotal points in the competition might help, followed by a replay of the race itself and showing the subsequent reaction. Just as in the WSOP, by the time the editors get a hold of the footage, they know what happened and could present their best footage in the most exciting way.

Something like (in chart, with voiceover) "John Smith, in the lead with a $200 balance, is playing it safe, playing the favorite to win and place. Joe Brown has $180 and needs a contender not the favorite to come in, he's playing it all to win. Fred Nelson did well Day 1, but has lost a few today and at $150 he needs a big score. He has a live longshot that will push the cap of 20-1 and he's putting the most he can on it."

Cut to the race itself (either in whole or in part, depending on what the best format is for viewing) then the reactions from the winners and losers, not necessarily interviews, just good footage, how loud the room gets, the whole thing -- like you are there, but without the long intervals where nothing is happening.

This is something like having the percentages on the hands. Can't have percentages on what's likely to happen as they are not universally agreed upon.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It's been said before here, but it bears repeating:

If ESPN covered the NHC in a similar way to the World Series of Poker, this game would boom. In the same demographics -- college kids, young professionals, and just those currently unfamiliar with the game.

Millions of people watch the WSOP for weeks as a pool of over 7300 players narrow down to 9, and then to 1 winner -- where the winner gets several million dollars.

In contrast, a field of just over 300 players where the champion gets $500,000, and next year the winner is expected to get $1,000,000 has GOT to appear to be the value that it is. The NHC is much shorter -- two days in total. With the editing that is done similar to the WSOP, showing the highlights, it could be presented in 2 hours.

The similarity of horse racing to poker for the player is obvious. A pool of money is accumulated, a "rake" (or takeout) is siphoned off, and the rest is divided among the winner(s). Odds fluctuate that CAN make the game profitable in either case -- if you know the math and you get a little lucky.

It is universally accepted that Texas Hold 'Em Poker exploded in popularity after Chris Moneymaker won the whole thing back in 2003. He was one of 838 players that year. Seven years later, the tournament has grown to 7319.

If I had the money, I'd back this project myself. If done right, it can make a splash. I'd piggyback it off of the repeats of the World Series of Poker like networks do with new shows that are likely to have similar audiences...they call it the "lead in".

Am I the only guy who feels this way? I know some are opposed to the NHC itself expanding, just as some are dismayed that the WSOP is now so huge. But the benefits to the sport of getting positive exposure rapidly and stimulating new interest are enormous.

Honestly, I think it's a horrible concept. Poker has different things going for it.
#1- Most people now how to play and can relate to what's going on.
#2- After all these years of watching it, poker has personalities that people like to root for and against. It's almost like a secondary storyline.
#3- In poker you don't need the best hand to win. Obviously the tableside cameras make everything so mch more interesting, but watching somebody laying down their aces to a guy who has 2,7 offsuit is always fun to watch.

What is the horse racing show going to offer? Have some guy read the form and explain why he betting a certain horse at 7-1? I think it's just a poor introduction to the sport for beginers. Basically it's exposing them to contest play (which the betting rules and bets for that matter are different), with the percentage probably very low for many of these people just visiting a track, let alone going into a contest.

I just think if ESPN is really comitted to any type of horse racing programming, they would just be better of served showing races from a certain track for a two-three hour block. In between these races explain the different types of bets/angles while also getting into explaing how to dechiper a racing form for some of the newbies who might have intrest in learning. I think Friday night Hollywood cards would be a great place to start. Make it a weekly thing for the meet and see if intrest picks up. I believe that would do more justice for the sport than the airing of some contest that honestly I would think most horseplayers would have a hard time sitting through.

[jms62]

Friday nights at Hollywood would be neat. They can play it as the hot place to be for Friday Happy Hour crowd. As far as the TV crowd goes they need to devise a interactive game with decent prizes to really gather a following. Maybe an online Pick 4 which allows you to only pick 1 horse per race.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

I just think if ESPN is really comitted to any type of horse racing programming, they would just be better of served showing races from a certain track for a two-three hour block. In between these races explain the different types of bets/angles while also getting into explaing how to dechiper a racing form for some of the newbies who might have intrest in learning. I think Friday night Hollywood cards would be a great place to start. Make it a weekly thing for the meet and see if intrest picks up. I believe that would do more justice for the sport than the airing of some contest that honestly I would think most horseplayers would have a hard time sitting through.

Well, that's the ultimate goal, good exposure for the sport in whatever form it comes, and that exposure leading to an increase in the number of people who play in the pools. Other than that, I am flexible in that I will support and applaud any format that accomplishes the goal of revitalizing and strengthening the game.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

The nerds who play fantasy sports and take it very seriously - and there are millions of them - are the people who could really get into racing if they could understand it.

How you reach those people is anyones guess - and how you keep them after they start losing 20% of every dollar they bet is also anyones guess.

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

The nerds who play fantasy sports and take it very seriously - and there are millions of them - are the people who could really get into racing if they could understand it.

How you reach those people is anyones guess - and how you keep them after they start losing 20% of every dollar they bet is also anyones guess.

Fantasy Stables for $$$. Could either be small pots like daily cards or big pots that go for entire meets.

This would have to be done primarily at two major tracks at first. And if popularity grows then expand the database to all tracks and have thousands of money stables.

I'd go into more detail but it's a waste of text because there are morons in charge of horse racing.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

I'd go into more detail but it's a waste of text because there are morons in charge of horse racing.

Sadly, I could not agree more.

[richard]

What is the take out on poker ?

[joeydb]

Depends on the casino and the game (1-2 no limit, 2-4 limit...)

It is not typically done as a raw percentage (in the casino) but as a tier system (this much of the flop betting, this much of the turn betting, river, etc) and there is usually a cap. It is nowhere near as high as 20% if I had to guess the ballpark.

Online might due a percentage (rounded to whole numbers) because the counting is that much easier. I haven't done it, so that's also a guess, but it would be feasible without slowing the game down.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Fantasy Stables for $$$. Could either be small pots like daily cards or big pots that go for entire meets. This would have to be done primarily at two major tracks at first. And if popularity grows then expand the database to all tracks and have thousands of money stables. I'd go into more detail but it's a waste of text because there are morons in charge of horse racing.

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

The nerds who play fantasy sports and take it very seriously - and there are millions of them - are the people who could really get into racing if they could understand it. How you reach those people is anyones guess - and how you keep them after they start losing 20% of every dollar they bet is also anyones guess.

Not sure if Joey heard Steve Crist on ATR Wednesday in regards to this topic... All the relevant points brought up here were featured in Crist's thoughts, including the 'what can be added to the coverage as a hook' to make the broadcast compelling. And Doug and Coach have it. The viewer needs a stake in the outcome. And as suggested, there's ways to do it.

Callers to ATR regularly wax nostalgic about the regional grocery chain horse racing TV game that had viewers watching previously run races on tape that generated prizes based on the game tickets they accrued at the market. People are STILL talking about it 40 years later! WTF? Doesn't that say everything we need to know?

There are variations on this theme -- fantasy racing as Doug & Coach allude to -- that are very viable and marketable to the sponsors needed to make this work. I was broaching this subject with Satish as well Wednesday. It needs exploration and trial. The sport has nothing to lose...

[joeydb]

Steve I did not get to hear Crist's segment, but I will now seek it out in the archives.

If anyone does put up a good show about the sport, I'll definitely be watching it and promoting it to friends and family.

Hell, my wife bought me both seasons of Jockeys on DVD. A lot of equine entertainment materials around my house.

And if they EVER release Phar Lap on NTSC Region 1...

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Not sure if Joey heard Steve Crist on ATR Wednesday in regards to this topic... All the relevant points brought up here were featured in Crist's thoughts, including the 'what can be added to the coverage as a hook' to make the broadcast compelling. And Doug and Coach have it. The viewer needs a stake in the outcome. And as suggested, there's ways to do it.

Callers to ATR regularly wax nostalgic about the regional grocery chain horse racing TV game that had viewers watching previously run races on tape that generated prizes based on the game tickets they accrued at the market. People are STILL talking about it 40 years later! WTF? Doesn't that say everything we need to know?

There are variations on this theme -- fantasy racing as Doug & Coach allude to -- that are very viable and marketable to the sponsors needed to make this work. I was broaching this subject with Satish as well Wednesday. It needs exploration and trial. The sport has nothing to lose...

Definitely a great concept, most of us will never be a horse, even fewer get to be a jockey or trainer. The best chance we have to be involved is to gamble but a real stake (or even a fantasy stake) that actually pays off is the most attractive option and owning outright is too much. Someone had mentioned the TV pick-4 which is a great idea, at my Derby party I buy 20 $2 win tickets, with this simple move everyone is interested immediately. I turned my annual Haskell picnic from 6 gamblers drinking and eating burgers into over 50 people (all wagering) most of whom would call me to revisit the track again. I have moved away but they still have the party. Just a small stake and a little taste of action can be enough for most.

[tector]

I've sat in person at the WSOP and watched the final table unfold in real time. (I think the past two years the full table started the afternoon of BC Saturday). The amount of editing that goes into producing that show is pretty incredible, around 90% (say 16 real time hours cut down to 2 or 2.5 hours--with commercials). You could do something like that for the NHC--that isn't a problem. Here are the problems:

Handicapping a horse race is fundamentally different than making a poker decision. The latter lends itself to TV coverage and analysis, since the math (with hole cards) is plain enough. The former, not so much. And this is the "hook" for most people, not just seeing money change hands. Everybody has played poker, if even only badly. Most people have not truly doped out a horse race. A DRF looks more foreign to them than a WSJ.

You have about two months of lead-in coverage to the WSOP final table (easy enough to do with 8000 players playing over a week in real time). Nothing like that for racing.

You have year-round coverage of other poker tournaments which basically familiarize people with the process they are going to see at the WSOP--High Stakes Poker (new season starts later this month), WPT (new season starts Sunday), Poker After Dark (out of their repeats this week), Pokerstars series (in repeats now--season 1 just ended), and so on.

I just don't see the two as comparable, fundamentally.