The model is the World Series of Poker TV coverage

[pweizer]

They are very different games. What makes poker work on TV is that the viewer can see the hole cards so they know what is happening as the hand unfolds. There is no similar comparison for racing. Watching races is very exciting. Watching a room full of people watch races is not. Watching a room of people where nearly every horse is covered by someone in any given race has little drama.

Paul

[Split Rock]

Originally Posted by pweizer

They are very different games. What makes poker work on TV is that the viewer can see the hole cards so they know what is happening as the hand unfolds. There is no similar comparison for racing. Watching races is very exciting. Watching a room full of people watch races is not. Watching a room of people where nearly every horse is covered by someone in any given race has little drama.

Paul

Agreed. However, if the show is telecast on delay and edited with narration, it might be a bit more interesting. However, to the non horse player, it probably wouldn't have the appeal the initial poster would have hoped for.

The main problem is that viewing poker and seeing the hole cards allow the home audience to strategize along with the players and live vicariously through the conclusion of the hand. Viewing racing without the specifics around why a horse will run or not run is rather uninteresting.

Saying it a bit differently, is there any difference between a $5,000 claiming race and the Kentucky Derby to the novice horse racing person watching a race on TV? Other than the excitement surrounding the race, that person wouldn't know the difference. So, unlike poker where you understand why certain things are happening, a faceless horse race has no meaning to most.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Split Rock

Agreed. However, if the show is telecast on delay and edited with narration, it might be a bit more interesting. However, to the non horse player, it probably wouldn't have the appeal the initial poster would have hoped for.

The main problem is that viewing poker and seeing the hole cards allow the home audience to strategize along with the players and live vicariously through the conclusion of the hand. Viewing racing without the specifics around why a horse will run or not run is rather uninteresting.

Saying it a bit differently, is there any difference between a $5,000 claiming race and the Kentucky Derby to the novice horse racing person watching a race on TV? Other than the excitement surrounding the race, that person wouldn't know the difference. So, unlike poker where you understand why certain things are happening, a faceless horse race has no meaning to most.

Good points by everyone. I guess one thing I think might help is that as leaders emerge in the competition, a brief synopsis of what the top 4 or so stand to win or lose at pivotal points in the competition might help, followed by a replay of the race itself and showing the subsequent reaction. Just as in the WSOP, by the time the editors get a hold of the footage, they know what happened and could present their best footage in the most exciting way.

Something like (in chart, with voiceover) "John Smith, in the lead with a $200 balance, is playing it safe, playing the favorite to win and place. Joe Brown has $180 and needs a contender not the favorite to come in, he's playing it all to win. Fred Nelson did well Day 1, but has lost a few today and at $150 he needs a big score. He has a live longshot that will push the cap of 20-1 and he's putting the most he can on it."

Cut to the race itself (either in whole or in part, depending on what the best format is for viewing) then the reactions from the winners and losers, not necessarily interviews, just good footage, how loud the room gets, the whole thing -- like you are there, but without the long intervals where nothing is happening.

This is something like having the percentages on the hands. Can't have percentages on what's likely to happen as they are not universally agreed upon.