As far as televised pastimes go, poker gets the short end of the stick when it comes to accuracy. In this article, I’m going to dispel some of the misconceptions that the casual poker player might have.

First, I’m going to start with the obvious. Poker shown on TV is not live. I’m sure if you are reading BLUFF Magazine you already know that, but I mention it because I think it’s a tragedy that it’s presented that way. Programs like the World Series of Poker on ESPN intentionally use phrases to make the viewers think that it’s live when it’s not. They try to convey poker as an action-packed game full of all ins. Personally, I prefer programs like Poker After Dark that show every hand. One of my favorite televised events ever was the 2004 American Poker Championship at Turning Stone Casino where the fi nal table was actually broadcast live. As someone who enjoys the strategy behind the smallest of pots I would love to see more live poker shows, although I understand the average viewer might not fi nd it as interesting.

While we are on the subject of the WSOP on ESPN, I think even some more knowledgeable poker players are unaware of just how much editing goes into an episode. Many comments are shown out of context. Josh Arieh comes to mind as someone that was vilifi ed when ESPN aired his comment of “Bust this MFer” out of context. It was whispered in private to his friend David Williams whom he was cheering on, but the footage made it seem like the comment was directed nastily at Greg Raymer. Even cheers and crowd applause are pasted in wherever they fi t best. For example, the WPT actually does ‘cheer takes’ of the audience before play starts. They ask them to cheer excitedly or gasp dejectedly to make sure they have footage that they can edit into action spots in the program.

As far as announcers go, there is a drastic gap in expertise. There are a few announcers like Mike Sexton and Ali Nejad that actually have a lot of experience playing professionally in high stakes games. However, the vast majority of poker announcers are hired for their color commentary rather than their poker expertise. I think it is a shame to hear these casual players discussing strategy with thousands of people watching without clarifying that they are not experts. I can’t remember the last time I watched a poker program without cringing at least once at some inaccurate analysis of strategy.

Perhaps my biggest pet peeve is that there’s very little shown on TV to distinguish the famous poker players from the great poker players. You could say the WPT is to blame for creating the fi rst group of famous poker players. These players often burst onto the scene with a sensational tournament win and tend to make for good television. Unfortunately, in the quest to make poker interesting to casual TV viewers, they have been given huge amounts of extra airtime for the sake of showing familiar faces. This might led the casual poker player to believe that these guys are the best players in the world. I should clarify that some of them actually are. Barry Greenstein and Daniel Negreanu come to mind as two players that are as good as they are famous, but many of the other guys are practically laughing stocks of the professional community. Here’s a general rule of thumb that most professional players go by: Anyone can get lucky and win a few tournaments, but the guys that are consistently beating the high stakes cash games are truly the best players in the world.

And this brings me to a misconception that the online community has. I do tend to believe that the average online player is better than the average live player. An online $3/$6 No Limit game is actually not that easy to be a winner in, whereas a live game of the same stakes is practically free money to anyone with a starting hand requirement chart. Many online players believe that virtually every good player in the world is an online player. Jennifer Harmon is my favorite example of this. Many online players would never consider her to be one of the best players in the world. She simply isn’t up to their standards in No Limit cash games. However, they don’t realize that No Limit is one of her worst games.

This stems from the fact that the high stakes No Limit games online have evolved to a state where the play is simply on a much higher level than the poker world has ever seen in any game. But there are still many excellent players whose best game is not No Limit and who do well consistently in other games, live and online. Just because No Limit is the most popular game does not make it the standard of measure for all players.

This brings me to another misconception. Many casual players think that style of play is mostly personal preference. However, in any situation, there is always a single correct style of play. The high stakes No Limit games online are the best example of this. A few years ago, there were big winners that were loose and aggressive and big winners that were super tight. In today’s game, the vast majority of successful players play an extremely tight style before the fl op. This is because the games have gotten so tough over time that even good post-fl op players can’t make up for poor pre-fl op play.

The only other game that has been studied (note that I am not using phrases like “mastered” or “perfected”) to the extent that No Limit Hold’em has been is Limit Hold’em, specifi cally heads up. There are even bots that have been programmed that are starting to give good players a run for their money, although they are still no match for the best players. Most other games aren’t even close. Take PLO for example. I’ve talked to some of the biggest winners of online PLO and they tend to agree that they aren’t even really sure what they’re doing. Basically they’re winning because their opponents (successful high stakes cash game players in most cases) are even more clueless than they are.

Personally, I would love to see a push for more accuracy in the poker media. Some sources, like BLUFF for example, are able to do this because they have more knowledgeable readers. However, many TV viewers still lag behind. Fortunately, the growing popularity of poker programs like Poker After Dark that have fewer gimmicks and less editing is a good sign. It would be best for the poker industry if the viewers actually gained more insight into what the poker world was really about. That is why I’m sharing this. Even if you knew about all the misconceptions that I wrote about, I hope this article makes you think twice about the way some of poker’s media sources aren’t completely honest. Personally, I would love to see poker reach the levels of public understanding that most popular sports have. I think that is truly in the best interest of the game.