Personally, I like the condensed version of poker that ESPN shows. I don't want to watch fours of live play. We bought one pay-per-view live poker event a few weeks ago and it was AWFUL to watch. Went on all day. Plus, we didn't get to see the players hands. It was as boring. We'll never do that again.

I bring this up because a friend of mind was complaining about ESPN's coverage. That is was too edited and that it was sometimes interrupted by updates from other sports.

What do y'all think???

I'm not a huge fan of the ESPN coverage that simply concerns itself with highlights, because it is similar to PGA coverage and how they simply focus on Tiger all day. It becomes very monotonous just to watch the fun hands and is not very conducive to the way that poker is played. I would personally prefer to watch a table for about an hour because you learn a lot from watching the players play when they don't flop trips (which is exactly the moment that ESPN would turn it's coverage over to that player). I like watching the table for a period of time and trying to figure it all out and watch who has momentum.

I think that watching poker on tv can be fun depending on the coverage- I agree four hours or all day is way too long- booooring!

But apparently not everyone fels like watching poker for long periods is boring:

Poker News - Online Poker News - Internet Poker News

if you guys are ever up for it, Poker After Dark runs a really great show.

I dont care for ESPN's ceverage, however I can see why they do it. They are trying to cater to the average joe who really doesnt know much about poker. They have to condense it and only show highlights to attract different viewers. Not the best coverage, but they are a business trying to make money.