In Response to Re: 5 Hours of Live TV on 865 - Emporer's New Clothes : Your efforts are noted & appreciated, Ryan. Welcome to the world of TV, tedious ftw! I think all the new Analysts, you included, have been a breath of fresh air, & I think most viewers do, too, but it's the nature of life that folks prefer to discuss negatives, not positives. Don't get disheartened, think of the abuse I get! I thought "tedious" was a compliment, tbh........ Hopefully, the efforts of all of us will be enough to keep the Channel alive & healthy, by attracting tons of new viewers, which has certainly been the case so far. Constructive feedback, of course, is always welcome. Posted by Tikay10
QFT.
I have been really impressed by all of the new analysts. Both yourself and Reds have taken to the TV side of things very well in my opinion, and I know how nerve-racking that can be! More of the same please!
In Response to Re: 5 Hours of Live TV on 865 - Emporer's New Clothes : In fact, an oddity of Teleshopping licences, which is what 865 operate under (EXCEPT in the Sky Sports simulcast, which is the complete opposite), is that the Channel is legally obliged to devote some time "direct selling". It might not be ideal, but it seems a small price to pay, in my personal opinion. Posted by Tikay10
Where was this "direct selling time" before the new studio, then?
I think Sky have made a mistake in not showing more coverage of the main tourney on that night, one of the best things about Sky was playing a tourney while watcing it on sky, hopefully running deep and telling your mates to turn on ch 865 to watch how you do. Even though i think the new programmes are informative it is just not as fun and most players on SKY are here for fun. I do want to add the idea of getting new analysts who play reg on Sky is a good one and i think they all are doing well.
I think Sky have made a mistake in not showing more coverage of the main tourney on that night, one of the best things about Sky was playing a tourney while watcing it on sky, hopefully running deep and telling your mates to turn on ch 865 to watch how you do. Even though i think the new programmes are informative it is just not as fun and most players on SKY are here for fun. I do want to add the idea of getting new analysts who play reg on Sky is a good one and i think they all are doing well. Posted by jonjo75
In Response to Re: 5 Hours of Live TV on 865 - Emporer's New Clothes : Where was this "direct selling time" before the new studio, then? Posted by EvilPingu
It was squeezed into the Main Show, but not very effectively. The new Show is effectively 5 different Shows, able to be re-packaged throughout the week in 1 hour chunks, which is why at the top of each hour each show is topped & tailed.
I think Sky have made a mistake in not showing more coverage of the main tourney on that night, one of the best things about Sky was playing a tourney while watcing it on sky, hopefully running deep and telling your mates to turn on ch 865 to watch how you do. Even though i think the new programmes are informative it is just not as fun and most players on SKY are here for fun. I do want to add the idea of getting new analysts who play reg on Sky is a good one and i think they all are doing well. Posted by jonjo75
Hi Jonjo,
As we have said on many occasions, & say at the top of each & every Live Show, if you have an interesting hand from the Tourney, just send the Hand ID in via e-mail, or the Show Thread, & if it is interesting, it may well be shown.
We want to show interesting hands, but we needed to freshen things up, we have done the same Show for 5 years straight, & it's edge was becoming blunt. I'm sure you realise the financial committment the Show requires, & it either has to do innovate or die. Life, & poker TV, is like that.
The ONLY bitof the live shows i've ever actually enjoyed is Top of the pots, in everything else there seems to be 5 hands shown per hour Posted by Poker_Fail
We will leave you & Penguin to debate that, but it perfecly encapsulates the situation we have here.
Penguin said.....
"....Top of the Pots at least promised some poker, and the chance of some hand analysis. But after seeing a couple of hands, it becomes a little one dimensional to watch, unless you are one of the regular players in these high stakes games. Out of 15 or so hands shown, only 2 or 3 had interesting decisions. So the majority of them played themselves, and we had two respected analysts with little to do apart from agree with each other....."
You said.....
"The ONLY bit of the Live Show I actually enjoyed was Top of the Pots".
The show also didn't have the quality of guests it does now. You essentially have 2 analysts who are gonna have different views but also are gonna be able to talk about the game on a fairly high level, hence the number of hands per hour going down because the analytical content being that much higher.
Remember tho that the new shows on in their early stages and feedback like this will be taken in by the production team.
In Response to Re: 5 Hours of Live TV on 865 - Emporer's New Clothes : We will leave you & Penguin to debate that, but it perfecly encapsulates the situation we have here. Penguin said..... "....Top of the Pots at least promised some poker, and the chance of some hand analysis. But after seeing a couple of hands, it becomes a little one dimensional to watch, unless you are one of the regular players in these high stakes games. Out of 15 or so hands shown, only 2 or 3 had interesting decisions. So the majority of them played themselves, and we had two respected analysts with little to do apart from agree with each other....." You said..... "The ONLY bit of the Live Show I actually enjoyed was Top of the Pots". See the problem yet, anyone? Posted by Tikay10
I'm fine with it really, it just means that I only watch when there is a competition or something slightly unusual on.
I just have a short attention span and for me the shows have always had long gaps between hands.
But FWIW I am mainly talking about the old show, where discussions were derailed constantly, some people enjoyed the banter, but I was just there for poker, I understand I need to give the new format a chance!
In Response to Re: 5 Hours of Live TV on 865 - Emporer's New Clothes : I'm fine with it really, it just means that I only watch when there is a competition or something slightly unusual on. I just have a short attention span and for me the shows have always had long gaps between hands. But FWIW I am mainly talking about the old show, where discussions were derailed constantly, some people enjoyed the banter, but I was just there for poker, I understand I need to give the new format a chance! Posted by Poker_Fail
Good to hear. The New Show has only had 4 editions, & I think it kinda makes sense to give it a little longer before rushing to judgement.
We - the Team at 865 - are really incredibly pleased with the positives, the new Analysts, etc, & the Show wll be allowed to bed in for a while before it is reviewed by the Suits, and any changes made.
As with the "old" Show, the Producer sends a Show Report to the Management Team after every Show, including viewer feedabck via e-Mail etc. This is then reviewed the very next morning.
Once a week, "Channel Bullets" are composed by Mother, who sends them to the Sky Poker Management Team, together with the viewing figures, in graph form (pretty graph it is, too, a bit like Nutter5932's Sharkscope graph), & they in turn send them round to the entire SB&G Management Team.
Then, every Tuesday, all this info is discussed & debated in the weekly Management Meeting, to ensure it is meeting its objectives - Education, Entertainment, Commercial.
It would appear that Mother remaind quite unwell, & is not expected back this week, so there will not be any "official" response until she returns, but I'll field the questions unofficially in the interim. But she is da boss, not me.
The feedback is all very welcome, but we do hope you will also read the replies, because things are rarely as straightforward as they might seem if you are not party to how the business works.
I think it is too early for anyone to make a judgement on the show, its in the early stages and the change is big from thr previous format.
There are positives, the guests are brilliant and the analysts do a fantastic job, there is cetainly alot to be learnt from watching the show, more so than before.
However i do feel that the fomat is tedious. The old shows were far more engaging, like jonjo said watching your hand son tv is always good to see, the banter between presenter and anlalyst made the shows.
I think Ed was a massive loss, the guy was a fantastic analyst and shared some good banter with the likes of rich and the shows were very entertaining with him. The same goes for the likes of Tikay and Rich, or Anna and Carlo. I think redmond and ryan and julian are all fantastic analysts but i think for the shows to be watchable there has to be a mixture of teaching and banter to make it entertaining and educational and not just focusing on the educational side of the game.
As you rightly say, Tikay, it is all about opinions and a lot of us are coming at it from different directions. And we all must try to appreciate what Sky themselves need to get from the show. It is an impossilble trick to keep everyone happy.
I have to admit that I have only watched one of the new shows in full so far and odd bits of the others, but I was a little disappointed by them. I am sure that the format will evolve with time though, the old show certainly underwent huge changes over five years.
So I should try to find positive things to say about it apart from the sofa looks nice !
Having been on the show a couple of times, I know what a tough job the presenters and analysts have always had. And for Scotty, Yoyo and Reds to suddenly turn their talents to this is a huge task. And they are doing it brilliantly. As for lack of banter now between presenters and analysts, I suspect this will come as their confidence grows.
But to me the best entertainment and the educational aspects of the show have always come from the hand analysis. Our analysts and guests can keep telling us what to do or not do, but it is far more effective in the form of pointing out good or bad play when a hand is shown. And I think there is a good case for showing tournament hands more than cash hands, because the progressive nature of a tournament asks different questions, with more emphasis on stack sizes/blind levels as well as the actual hands.
One little moan here, is that the current software hides the players stack while a hand is in progress, which makes it difficult for the viewer and for the analyst too.
Does the new format get the best out of our guests ?
A few years back Channel 865 tipped the balance for myself and a few mates when we were looking to join an online poker site.
Having the chance to see your hand on tv and your play analysed was of real interest and entering the nights main event was a real buzz.
There was good interactive stuff, such as studio guests playing in the events, the odd £100 bounty if you knocked the studio guest out and spot prizes for certain plays or what not, I even found a Sky Poker t-shirt posted through my door in a brown jiffy bag, no idea what I'd done to deserve it, probably gave the audience a laugh with one of my 'moves'.
The show format appealed and in particular there was one guy with funny looking yellow hair, who used to be the brunt of a few jokes, but was seriously entertaining and gave some really good advice.
It must have been a few years back though as the guy with funny yellow hair has now gone grey!
I know Ed has gone now and we all move on, but hopefully no harm in pointing out that Ed was very good at involving the watching public, his analysis was to the point without being offensive and his £5 bets with Richard Orford were always good value, not just for Ed but for entertainment in general.
Yes some of the new guest analyists have been excellent, personally I always enjoy listening to Paul Jackson and the involvement of Julian Thew on the shows and the tables is a real bonus.
I don't watch every show, but I can only think of one occasion where the evenings guest didn't come across very well and perhaps made me switch channels when I might have stayed tuned for the night.
Sky Poker presenters and analysts have real strength in depth with no real weak links, for me James Hartigan and Richard Orford are excellent in their own unique way and a thumbs up to the local boys (local to Sky Poker) doing good, such as Ryan and Redmond, I particularly enjoy Ryan's honesty, perspective and thought process on the game.
Hearing the general views of quality professional poker players at first is almost jaw dropping, but after a while it can become as mentioned in previous posts.....a little tedious.
Now from a purely selfish point of view (and I think the majority of sky poker players), tuning into to listen to a top poker pro who every now and then might analyse one of my hands (or even players I come up against every night), well that will keep me interested, where else could I be publicly humiliated by one of the 'games names'?
I think the show's have become more polished as time has moved on, which shouldn't be a bad thing, though perhaps a certain Tiswas and Sally James element could be retained!
I also pledged to give the new format a couple of months before making a judgement, but I have to say that the "Poker Chat" that was repeated this morning was 5 minutes of content and an awful lot of padding.
As has been said numerous times on this thread, the analysts and guests have been excellent but "horses for courses" needs to be borne in mind when collating the guests against the planned content, as mentioned above re the Poker School episiode when Alex Rousso was the guest.
As with the others I am not yet sold with the new format but will give it time to get used to the new style and structure. One thing I really miss is the Saturday mastercash programmes.
I dont understand why Sky have decided a Tuesday night program would be more popular than Saturday when usually you have the highest player numbers on the site. Surely the idea of the programming is to attract new players as well as educate existing poker players to the site and that would be best done on a Saturday.
I think the show's have become more polished as time has moved on, which shouldn't be a bad thing, though perhaps a certain Tiswas and Sally James element could be retained! Posted by TheDart
the standard of the guests/analysts is of a much higher standard than a few years back that is very hard to argue i have been impressed with them all
the format and order of the new show im not in love with at all, i understand the need for the first hour but would struggle to see why anybody would rush to sit down and watch it.
the constant promotion of the site/cash for points/refer a friend e.t.c are all understandable and obviously required however they often seem to be "stuck in" during an interesting hand analysis and the guests if not sky poker players sometimes look slightly bemused.
not having a show live on a saturday night is the biggest baffler to me is it a cost issue? i have watched the channel from the start and always enjoyed the shows , the only time i have felt the need to watch the show live was the mastercash shows between mr giddins and rich orford. That show had a real feel of community and almost was like a mini series with good continuation of last weeks topics and analysis.
I have to be honest and say that I also much preferred the old format.
That said, I think the guests and analysts are fantastic and doing a great job. I would just like to see more live poker, being able to watch the main event when playing it (not that I play that many) was all part of the appeal.
I appreciate it's early days and will still be watching 865 on a regular basis.
Comments
Even though i think the new programmes are informative it is just not as fun and most players on SKY are here for fun.
I do want to add the idea of getting new analysts who play reg on Sky is a good one and i think they all are doing well.
As we have said on many occasions, & say at the top of each & every Live Show, if you have an interesting hand from the Tourney, just send the Hand ID in via e-mail, or the Show Thread, & if it is interesting, it may well be shown.
We want to show interesting hands, but we needed to freshen things up, we have done the same Show for 5 years straight, & it's edge was becoming blunt. I'm sure you realise the financial committment the Show requires, & it either has to do innovate or die. Life, & poker TV, is like that.
Penguin said.....
"....Top of the Pots at least promised some poker, and the chance of some hand analysis. But after seeing a couple of hands, it becomes a little one dimensional to watch, unless you are one of the regular players in these high stakes games. Out of 15 or so hands shown, only 2 or 3 had interesting decisions. So the majority of them played themselves, and we had two respected analysts with little to do apart from agree with each other....."
You said.....
"The ONLY bit of the Live Show I actually enjoyed was Top of the Pots".
See the problem yet, anyone?
I'm fine with it really, it just means that I only watch when there is a competition or something slightly unusual on.
I just have a short attention span and for me the shows have always had long gaps between hands.
But FWIW I am mainly talking about the old show, where discussions were derailed constantly, some people enjoyed the banter, but I was just there for poker, I understand I need to give the new format a chance!
We - the Team at 865 - are really incredibly pleased with the positives, the new Analysts, etc, & the Show wll be allowed to bed in for a while before it is reviewed by the Suits, and any changes made.
As with the "old" Show, the Producer sends a Show Report to the Management Team after every Show, including viewer feedabck via e-Mail etc. This is then reviewed the very next morning.
Once a week, "Channel Bullets" are composed by Mother, who sends them to the Sky Poker Management Team, together with the viewing figures, in graph form (pretty graph it is, too, a bit like Nutter5932's Sharkscope graph), & they in turn send them round to the entire SB&G Management Team.
Then, every Tuesday, all this info is discussed & debated in the weekly Management Meeting, to ensure it is meeting its objectives - Education, Entertainment, Commercial.
It would appear that Mother remaind quite unwell, & is not expected back this week, so there will not be any "official" response until she returns, but I'll field the questions unofficially in the interim. But she is da boss, not me.
The feedback is all very welcome, but we do hope you will also read the replies, because things are rarely as straightforward as they might seem if you are not party to how the business works.
Thanks.
I have to admit that I have only watched one of the new shows in full so far and odd bits of the others, but I was a little disappointed by them. I am sure that the format will evolve with time though, the old show certainly underwent huge changes over five years.
So I should try to find positive things to say about it apart from the sofa looks nice !
Having been on the show a couple of times, I know what a tough job the presenters and analysts have always had. And for Scotty, Yoyo and Reds to suddenly turn their talents to this is a huge task. And they are doing it brilliantly. As for lack of banter now between presenters and analysts, I suspect this will come as their confidence grows.
But to me the best entertainment and the educational aspects of the show have always come from the hand analysis. Our analysts and guests can keep telling us what to do or not do, but it is far more effective in the form of pointing out good or bad play when a hand is shown. And I think there is a good case for showing tournament hands more than cash hands, because the progressive nature of a tournament asks different questions, with more emphasis on stack sizes/blind levels as well as the actual hands.
One little moan here, is that the current software hides the players stack while a hand is in progress, which makes it difficult for the viewer and for the analyst too.
Does the new format get the best out of our guests ?
Get well soon Claire
Having the chance to see your hand on tv and your play analysed was of real interest and entering the nights main event was a real buzz.
There was good interactive stuff, such as studio guests playing in the events, the odd £100 bounty if you knocked the studio guest out and spot prizes for certain plays or what not, I even found a Sky Poker t-shirt posted through my door in a brown jiffy bag, no idea what I'd done to deserve it, probably gave the audience a laugh with one of my 'moves'.
The show format appealed and in particular there was one guy with funny looking yellow hair, who used to be the brunt of a few jokes, but was seriously entertaining and gave some really good advice.
It must have been a few years back though as the guy with funny yellow hair has now gone grey!
I know Ed has gone now and we all move on, but hopefully no harm in pointing out that Ed was very good at involving the watching public, his analysis was to the point without being offensive and his £5 bets with Richard Orford were always good value, not just for Ed but for entertainment in general.
Yes some of the new guest analyists have been excellent, personally I always enjoy listening to Paul Jackson and the involvement of Julian Thew on the shows and the tables is a real bonus.
I don't watch every show, but I can only think of one occasion where the evenings guest didn't come across very well and perhaps made me switch channels when I might have stayed tuned for the night.
Sky Poker presenters and analysts have real strength in depth with no real weak links, for me James Hartigan and Richard Orford are excellent in their own unique way and a thumbs up to the local boys (local to Sky Poker) doing good, such as Ryan and Redmond, I particularly enjoy Ryan's honesty, perspective and thought process on the game.
Hearing the general views of quality professional poker players at first is almost jaw dropping, but after a while it can become as mentioned in previous posts.....a little tedious.
Now from a purely selfish point of view (and I think the majority of sky poker players), tuning into to listen to a top poker pro who every now and then might analyse one of my hands (or even players I come up against every night), well that will keep me interested, where else could I be publicly humiliated by one of the 'games names'?
I think the show's have become more polished as time has moved on, which shouldn't be a bad thing, though perhaps a certain Tiswas and Sally James element could be retained!
As has been said numerous times on this thread, the analysts and guests have been excellent but "horses for courses" needs to be borne in mind when collating the guests against the planned content, as mentioned above re the Poker School episiode when Alex Rousso was the guest.
Custard pies it is then.
That said, I think the guests and analysts are fantastic and doing a great job. I would just like to see more live poker, being able to watch the main event when playing it (not that I play that many) was all part of the appeal.
I appreciate it's early days and will still be watching 865 on a regular basis.