In Response to Re: Are you going to get any real poker player presenters? : Hi Dave, Sorry mate but your a bit late, your shirts are SHOCKING, LOL, nearly as bad as james' wardrobe. I know thats harsh but true hehehe. col Posted by mr_mbro
Can I just say that THAT shirt was provided to me by the otherwise lovely lady in Wardrobe. I turn up every day looking devilishly handsome in some perfectly nice shirts. The only reason I had to wear (shudder) that shirt was that my one would have strobed on TV.
In Response to Re: Are you going to get any real poker player presenters? : ha ha Tikay. The first person I made an offer to who said 'we werent' busy said he was too busy to come down to the studios... I think he chickened out. I even offered tea and a sandwich Posted by Sky_Claire
Poker is not an exact science and we all approach the game differently. Added to which we all have different levels of skill, experience, bankroll and risk appetite. The analysts have the unenviable task of trying to improve all of us whilst keeping the show entertaining as well as informative. I think they do an outstanding job.
Of course, they also each bring a different perspective to the game and this will resonate differently with different members of the community. We need this mix.
Personally I find the high-spot of any week to be Tikay's digressions into the land of steam locomotives, the comarative strengths and weaknesses of motorway service areas or the idiocy of our traffic police. The man is a superstar. I learn most from Ed's analysis, probably because I can most easily relate to his thought processes, but I learn from all of them. I don't want to change the mix. It's the mix which makes Sky a community rather than just a site. (I say that even though I moved here just a couple of weeks ago - that is why I moved.)
The mix will always be biassed towards ABC because there are always people joining who have never before played a hand of poker. That's OK - there is always in depth analysis availabe in the forum.
My last addition to this thread was in praise of the analysts. However, the thread started by referring to the presenters. I have to agree that Sky's various presenters have been a very mixed bunch (from Awesome to Awful).
I see their job as keeping us entertained and ensuring that the programme flows and never becomes turgidly nerdy. Sky used to have the services of the best poker presenter on the planet (Norman Pace - side issue - could we start a campaign to bring him back????)
The presenter fails unless he/she has the personality to create the right chemistry with the analyst. It also helps if they have an interest in poker so that they can ask the questions many of us were thinking. Normal was great because interest in and knowledge of the game was up thee with any of the analysts. This often raised issues for discussion which appealed to the "beyond-ABC" sector of the audience.
Whilst none of the current presenters are able to do this quite as well as Norman, both Richard and Lisa-Marie create the chemistry and bring forward discussion at their own level (adding to the mix). Kara used to be good at this too.
I'm sure there are other members who value buffoonery and tottie just as highly. My point is that we each have an opinion but need to value the mix rather than promote our individual preferences too much.
I watched master cash repeat today and i think james has took what I said on board and i think hes advice was really good and bit more in depth. nice show. Posted by harvey23
Comments
Sorry mate but your a bit late, your shirts are SHOCKING, LOL, nearly as bad as james' wardrobe.
I know thats harsh but true hehehe.
col
No one wants a strobing Dave, am I right?
Good.
Now, where do I find that blue jumper, Lisa?
nice show.
Of course, they also each bring a different perspective to the game and this will resonate differently with different members of the community. We need this mix.
Personally I find the high-spot of any week to be Tikay's digressions into the land of steam locomotives, the comarative strengths and weaknesses of motorway service areas or the idiocy of our traffic police. The man is a superstar. I learn most from Ed's analysis, probably because I can most easily relate to his thought processes, but I learn from all of them. I don't want to change the mix. It's the mix which makes Sky a community rather than just a site. (I say that even though I moved here just a couple of weeks ago - that is why I moved.)
The mix will always be biassed towards ABC because there are always people joining who have never before played a hand of poker. That's OK - there is always in depth analysis availabe in the forum.
It's NOT broken so let's NOT fix it!
I see their job as keeping us entertained and ensuring that the programme flows and never becomes turgidly nerdy. Sky used to have the services of the best poker presenter on the planet (Norman Pace - side issue - could we start a campaign to bring him back????)
The presenter fails unless he/she has the personality to create the right chemistry with the analyst. It also helps if they have an interest in poker so that they can ask the questions many of us were thinking. Normal was great because interest in and knowledge of the game was up thee with any of the analysts. This often raised issues for discussion which appealed to the "beyond-ABC" sector of the audience.
Whilst none of the current presenters are able to do this quite as well as Norman, both Richard and Lisa-Marie create the chemistry and bring forward discussion at their own level (adding to the mix). Kara used to be good at this too.
I'm sure there are other members who value buffoonery and tottie just as highly. My point is that we each have an opinion but need to value the mix rather than promote our individual preferences too much.