I have noticed that more and more tournaments have "celebrities" seeded in play so they get a shot to play the tournaments. At the same time to get a spot on Poker After Dark (PAD) or any similar TV tournament you have to beat a Jillion players and play your ass off.
What effect does this have on your opinion or enjoyment watching TV games? I am certain the reason is that a program director has sold the case that viewers will watch when Gabriel Kaplan, James Woods, Don Cheadle play and that various and sundry other usually 2nd tier TV "personalities" will increase Neilsen ratings thereby making it easier to sell time and get better placement (although many have cancelled shows or shows on the downturn). Well I used to work in television and in my entire life I have met ONE "Neilsen Family". This was two years ago and she and her children liked the money, the TV played in the background - no commercials were watched, let alone the target shows - kinda like most TV viewing nowdays.
OK if you haven't guessed by now I HATE IT! I am
much less likely to watch a TV poker show the more TV "stars" appear. They are much less interesting than poker players, not to mention the level of play is much lower. About the only satisfaction I get is when they get busted. Now don't get me wrong I have no problem with TV stars - when they're acting (some of them), I have a problem with preferential placement not based on skill, allowing them to have an easier time than players. Even in other game tournaments where players are seeded, being seeded is a result of prior or current or prior accomplishment usually in the same discipline - not celebrity alone.
I'm told that some of actors are good I just haven't seen it. Certainly being an actorr won't prevent you from developing poker skillI guess I'd equally hate
"Diehard - starring that fine acting trio Phil Ivey. Annie Duke and Gus Hansen" .... (I don't see any poker players getting roles in non-poker movies. If they did I bet most would be bad)
What do YOU think?Merlin333