For good or bad, ESPN decided that this year the final table of the WSOP Main Event was going to be played out four months after the rest of the tournament. The idea was to bring some excitement back to tournament poker, but how effective was it?

In a desperate attempt to boost ratings, ESPN changed the whole format of tournament poker, playing down to a final nine before stopping for four months and eventually resuming play as some sort of weird sit-and-go.

In their vision, ESPN wanted the four-month delay to give the poker-playing public ample time to watch the lead-up episodes of the coverage and get to know the players before it played down to a winner.

They felt that it would make it more interesting because you would be watching to see who wins the WSOP, not how they won it.

Yet in ESPN's plan the final table would still play out before it was aired. The "November Nine" played down to a winner two days before it was aired. Ample time to stumble across the results on the Internet.

If that wasn't bad enough, ESPN scrolled the winner across the bottom of their screen all day. So anyone that somehow avoided the results online would have it spoiled by the very channel that wanted you to go in blind.

What is the point of delaying the final table for four months and changing the way tournaments have been played since their invention if they just planned on spoiling it for everyone ahead of time anyway? It doesn't make any sense.

Who wants to watch KK bust?

I mean, I can see what they were trying to accomplish, and I personally thought it was a good idea. I actually succeeded in watching the final table the way it was intended to be. And that was no simple task.

For two days, I avoided my computer, I didn't check any of my blogs or regular Web sites, or my e-mail; I didn't start my instant message programs; I couldn't even play poker because I was worried that the final table would be spoiled for me.

For two days I sat in the dark with earplugs in just so I could watch completely unaware to the end result. I would sweat each flop, each turn card, each hopeless bluff. The way ESPN wanted me to.

In the end was it worth it? Absolutely not. Although I knew nothing of the results and did get to sweat every all-in confrontation, I was largely disappointed with ESPN's coverage.

It felt cheap to me - it was like whoever put together the entire last two episodes was completely clueless about the game of poker. I'd be surprised if they knew a value bet from a bluff (Tiffany Michelle, I'm also looking in your direction).

Now, I know that ESPN is trying to reach a wider audience with the WSOP and not all viewers are going to be savvy poker players. I know that, so I don't mind that they don't show the countless blind steals and hands that don't go to showdown. That makes sense to me.

What doesn't make sense is there are only nine players at the table and you completely skip over Kelly Kim's bust-out hand? It just comes back from commercial and he is packing up his stuff.

...or wants to see this?

That is the dumbest thing ever. I don't care if he is all-in on the big blind; there are only nine players, SHOW HIS BUST. I'm sure you could have cut out a Norman Chad "Demon Deacon" joke to fit the hand in.

As for the play I thought it was for the most part pretty good. I mean ignore the fact that three of nine players bluffed off all their chips in hopeless spots. It's easy to Monday-morning quarterback that and say it is moronic.

In reality they obviously can't see the hole cards, and you don't know the prior history to those plays. If they weren't unlucky enough for their opponents to always have monsters, the plays would look genius. So it's hard to know ballsy moves like that.

My biggest problem with the whole broadcast was when it finally gets to heads-up with the two best players at the table (and my picks to go heads-up - NBD right?), they show … TWO HANDS? Are you kidding me?

If I were Demidov, I would be pissed. The way ESPN cut it it looked like Eastgate walked all over him the first two hands and it was over.

In reality they played over 100 hands in a back-and-forth slobber-knocker. The first hand was a pot worth over 20 million chips that gave Demidov the chip lead. And they don't show any of it?

The shot ESPN missed.

They show Eastgate stomping two hands and then bam, it's over and off to Sports Center - no money presentation, no interview, just over.

If ESPN was going to half-ass the coverage as bad as they did, I would have preferred it the other way. I would have paid my $25, watched 16 hours of Pay Per View coverage and been done with the whole tournament.

I will say again, that I like the idea that ESPN had, and there were some awesome moments (Demidov's K-7 fold, etc). I know what they wanted to accomplish with the delay. I tried my best (with great effort and difficulty) to go into the final table how they wanted me to. But ultimately they dropped the ball.

How can they spoil the outcome after four months by having a ticker telling you who won WHILE THE SHOW IS AIRING FOR THE FIRST TIME?

The whole idea of the "November Nine" was that the average fan would have no idea of the outcome and would be watching it like a live event, to see the results. But ESPN blew that, and ultimately put together a really weak final-two-episode conclusion to the biggest poker tournament in the world.

Color Dan unimpressed.