The Main Event of the 2005 WSOP began airing on ESPN this week, and my friend Chris The Poker Geek has created some an absolutely hilarious-because-it's-true series of WSOP over/unders at his blog Chicks Dig Poker Geeks.

For example:
- Arguments shown involving a Floorman: 2.5
- Arguments shown involving a Floorman involving Annie Duke: 2.5
- Televised hands that Phil Hellmuth loses and whines: 8
- Shots of Tobey Maguire: 4
- Shots of Shannon Elizabeth: Never Enough

What do you think of ESPN's coverage of the WSOP? I'm not that impressed. Segments like The Nuts and the player profiles add entertainment value to the show, and I think it's fair to trade some playing time for those features, but I think they manufacture unnecessary drama between players, at the expense of letting the audience really get into the way hands play out, which is often dramatic enough on its own. I mean, would you rather see Hellmuth freak out again, or giggle as Matusow drops an F bomb, or would you rather watch TJ or Raymer outplay someone (possibly one of them?)

Lon McEachern and Norman Chad seem like genuinely nice guys, but their commentary just isn't that good. "He can not lose unless he folds" just isn't insightful. Phil Gordon can talk circles around these guys, and he's commenting on bullshit celebrity players. Can you imagine what Phil would be able to do if he was commenting on world class players? Why can't ESPN find someone equally insightful for the biggest event of the year? Gabe Kaplan kicked all sorts of ass when he was doing it way back when, and though he certainly doesn't need the money (he's been cashing like a madman recently) I'd certainly like to welcome him back.

I can't believe I just said that. Sorry, Gabe. I'm going to sign off, now.

You can read the rest of Chris' list in the link below, and feel free to add your own in comments here.