blonde poker forum

Thought this was a really interesting Op-Ed

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2012/10/what-happened-to-poker-13603.htm

In it Donnie Peters argues that poker needs characters and televised entertainment to bring in new players to keep the game healthy.....and current stagnation is in part due to a televised approach that is too analytical, and the players themselves....


thoughts? 

I watched a hand one the big game where Tony G raises £5k blind and declares it so to the table ( not sure of the blinds but the pot always seems to start with €375??) and Torrelli then jams for £20k. G then gives him hell for being bad for the game and telling him that he personally will make sure he never gets an invite to play again.

Having said that I also saw Tony G look at his cards and tell Hellmuth he was blind and even tried to get Hachem to lie for him too.

What's with the Big Cash game and the Premier League having pretty much the same players in it.

The problem with poker is the number of people with personality's that are good for TV are very small. This means virtually all the Poker on TV either shows the same small number of players with personalities or dullards that make you want to switch off.

Both scenarios means people are bored of seeing the same people on TV or players that offer no entertainment beyond the joy of watching poker (which in reality is rather dull unless you have good commentators).


Go beyond the normal i.e commentators not being 100% technically correct, or showing bias but being entertaining is also jumped on negatively by the poker community, when they don't realize its not supposed to be aimed at them.

Has Donnie Peters met RastaFish?

What a refreshing article that is!

I watched the Berlin (?) EPT the other night on Ch 4 or whatever.

My friend & colleague James Hartigan was commentating, & I think he's excellent, some "sexy" players were featured, including Mr Blom, & it was a terrific Tourney by any standards. James co-commentator (clearly VERY knowledgeable) uttered the immortal phrase "standard" or "super-standard" more times than enough, which is not exactly original, or good TV, imo.

I could not help but thinking along the lines of Mr Peters article though.

Everyone scowling, hoodies up, no banter, craic & barely a smile. Understandably, too, it was a big money tourney, & those lads are not paid to entertain TV Viewers.

The poker hardcore crew would love it, quite right too, it is right up their street, but the wider poker & non-poker public - 95%+ of the viewers - surely can't enjoy that, can they? They neither know nor care what a 4 bet, or a float, is.  I think they want a bit of fun, laughter, chat, banter, people they can identify with, enjoying themselves.

The Online poker market is in serious decline (fact) & needs brightening up (imo), & breakjng the current TV "Big Game not Fun Game" mould may be part of the answer.

Terrific Post, spot on.

Give me the 'old donks' like on the first couple of seasons of high stakes poker any day of the week, far more entertaining.

Tikay, all, there is a pretty big recession going on around Europe yet stars still manage to attract these large fields. If you go to te event you will see there is a huge amount of young people in hoodies, maybe they are the target audience. Iw and they manage to get enough wannabe hoodies by having absolutely massive numbers week in week out.

Poker may not be big on some small networks but it's definitely not down to the way poker is portrayed on tv. If you don't think people watch tv poker and then play live poker,.. Go to any tournament in Europe and you will see people doing Tom dwans.

James is very entertaining but I feel he is somewhat shackled by TV, the EPT or whoever on the flavor of his commentary. It is very much aimed at the poker player, but then again who is going to watch an EPT at 1am with unknown random poker players in it.

What we know now, of course, is that back in the 'good old days' of televised poker it was a load of shady guys playing with money that wasn't theirs. About as relevant to real life as WWE.

Poker just benefited from the perfect storm of a) it filling up airtime relatively cheaply and b) poker companies with the desire and means (or so we thought) to sponsor/bankroll it.

The poker that we would want to see (deepstack, play through the streets, in-depth analysis from commentators) is very much a niche thing and would do very little to bring in new players. Especially if it's full of online players.

TV poker also got caught up in the 'bigger stakes = better TV' trap, when in fact that generally hurts it as everyone gets more serious (unless you're playing with someone else's money or chopping it up backstage afterwards).

One thing that would still work would be the cash game that Sky Poker did a while back - get a few lively players together and just play a £2/£5 cash game. Low stakes enough so that players can have a good time without massive pressure but deep enough that they can pull bluffs down the streets and stick it in people's eyes.

I saw this yesterday, and have read many similar blogs and heard pros say similar things for some time now. I do think it misses the point a little though.

Poker needs to stand alone as a 'fun' game or it has to fall. In my view it really is that simple and a million negreanus won't make any difference.

People stopped playing and watching poker because the GAME itself stopped being fun for them. That's my view on it anyway. And the industry has not helped that at all.

For years the marketing of the game has been around the 'fun' being in winning. Well 95% of players are losers. So good luck with that.

I am aware of the recession, & I'm aware of the mighty fine job that 'Stars do with the EPT. But mass audience potential? I don't think so.

The Hoodie Guys are NOT the target audience imo. An EPT attracts, what, 1,000 runners?

Television Audience measuring is pretty sophisticated these days, but it does not even register 4 figure viewership.

Poker is very insular, we need to look outside into the real & far bigger world.

The EPT Shows are good, I'm not saying otherwise, but the audience ratings for that sort of stuff is incredibly low. Why else would it be on at such low-traffic TV times?

A well-run Online Poker Site can & does still attract lots of sign-ups every single week, but they need to think a little different.

The Poker Hardcore Crew - the upper echelon, the "elite" who revel in watching EPT-type stuff, are an infinitesimally small section of the viewing public.  TV needs to get to the rest of the world, not it's existing & captive market.

The article  is splendid, & nails it. IMO, of course.
 

lol - one of the guys at our £30 game at G Stockton last week was watching the latest episodes of the WSOP ME on his tablet. Earphones in, head down stuff. Every decision took forever. We'd attract his attention; wait for him to pause the video; take a long look round the table to work out what had already happened; look at his cards; look back round the table; riffle chips and then finally make a decision. If that decision involved putting chips into the pot there was a further delay whilst he calculated how many and how to make it up - 200 chips might be 4x25+1x100, or sometimes 8x25; 2300 could involve all sorts of manipulation of 25s, 100s, 500s etc
It's a 25 minute clock...

Wow, Mr Peters has struck a chord, so many great Posts.

This is, sort of, what I am getting at. We're focusing on the wrong thing (imo). If the game can't sell itself then it's doomed. That's not to say we don't need better salesmen, as we do, but let's make sure what we're selling is a great product first and foremost.

Or, and here is a controversial one, should we accept that poker is never going to be a mass market proposition?

Lol, almost as if I planned it.

We record the next one shortly, & you'll be astonished at the players we have in mind, & lined up.

There'll be no scowlers, hoodies or shades though, believe me. It will be fun, viewers will see that poker is a fun game, & people can enjoy it. 

That too.

That's partly because channel 4 refuse to show it any earlier (or at least that used to be the case).

Ian Gascoigne is the future.

And they refuse to show it earlier because.......?

(Rhetorical - you know the answer!)

Give me

Channing
Jackson
Rastafish
Sam Razavi
Albert Sapiano
Nik Persaud

playing £1-2 and and doing all sorts of odd stuff with plenty of laughs




Ahead of

Jungleman
Torelli
Siever
Katchalov

etc

who I saw on the Big game last night. Tony G (and to an extent Laak and Trickett) aside, its like watching paint dry

I suspect the casual punter would feel the same

I wonder if anyone out there might put such a line up on, at a reasonable viewing time?!

;)

Sign me up! Only if you play though...

Actually it was because it was gambling and they didn't want to show gambling in 'primetime' as they are a public service broadcaster. At least that's what I was told.

I believe that is incorrect, Alun.

Also they couldn't get advertisers to pay the pre-midnight rates for a poker show

Jonathan Raab would be able to explain more, but I believe a lot of the early UK poker such as GUKPTs etc was actually provided ffree to the TV companies, the tour received no fee at all from the broadcaster

id watch this.

You believe or you know?

TV Companies do not pay for Poker Shows, the Shows have to be provided for free, with the costs being met by the Sponsor.

I believe....!

I believe with quite a degree of confidence, though.

Is Horse Racing a gambling sport? They show plenty of that, mid-afternoons.

That is my understanding too. And then you have the problem of other poker sites advertising in the middle of your show!

People in poker vastly over estimate the size of the 'serious poker player' market. The 'hoodies who want great analysis' market is never going to be big enough to justify being on proper telly alone. I think you do need the characters, I'd wager a lot of us remember the Hendon Mob and the Devilfish on LNP as one of the catalysts for getting us into poker, and there is no doubt Hellmuth captured our attention whether we liked him or not.

The audience does not like to be confused, thats why QQ vs AK is always a winner on telly, even if it is the most standard hand in the world.

I think some shows can find the balance of being detailed and fun in a WWE kind of way. I actually quite liked the Party and PokerStars Big Games, I think the best show all round was always High Stakes Poker, which had some great play, good analysis, but also jaw dropping money, big characters and funny commentary from Gabe - all things a non poker player can pick up on.

I also quite liked the Sky cash game too, loved the banter between Channing and Carlo etc.

I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make. We need the characters I guess.

Horse Racing is a tad more established as a sport to be fair. You don't see the Queen playing a £50 freezeout at the Vic

Not read any of the previous responses but poker players DO NOT GET PAID to entertain the viewers. So i actually think players should be as unresponsive and as uncoopperative as possible towards any media. Unfortunately the egos mean that people happily do all this nonsense for nothing anyway

When TV companies want to pay poker players then im sure everyone will be grinning ear to ear

100% agree we need the characters. But are we putting the cart before the horse a bit here? We've all contributed to making poker more 'serious business' and then we're surprised that the people who play it take it seriously?

Agree with that too. And so it makes dreadful TV to 99% of the viewership. And 990% of the potential viewership.

The marketing created by televised events make the fields bigger and softer, and increase the likelihood of the players involved getting sponsored. Not as much as they did a few years ago perhaps, but they have certainly helped the WSOP/WPT/EPT.

So if they want to be uncooperative that's fine, but they are potentially shooting themselves in the foot.

Another cart before the horse. Why on earth should anyone pay you unless you are ALREADY entertaining?

I think you are far more likely to see the Queen playing a tournament at the Vic than you are to see her riding a horse in a race...

Or a little bloke riding her and whipping her

Good joke, bad comparison.

Playing a £50 freezeout is like riding a horse for pleasure/recreation. Pretty sure she's done that and maybe even still does.

They shouldnt. But dont moan if i dont want to do interviews and all that nonsense then

Fair is fair etc

Agreed. It's a two way street. And players shouldn't moan when sites likes Stars want to put on TV shows only featuring their own pros. They are paying for it after all.

The problem is a significant proportion of online players are not just boring to watch, they're actually deeply uninteresting individuals.

Little life experience, poor social skills and unable to hold meaningful conversations about anything other than poker.  Why anyone thinks these numbnuts would be good to watch is beyond me.  Most of them can't get down to the local pub without looking completely awkward and sociially deficient.

Come to think of it she would never play in the Vic, far better standards

I refused to do an interview on my 20 minute break and got called rude and the most obnoxious person someone had ever met.

The conversation was as follows- "Do you mind if we ask you a few questions about how you got your stack"

I simply replied "no thank you"

Why should I talk about poker on a 20min break for nothing? Give away hand analysis and details for no benefit of my own

The players who happily doing this are just "playing the game"- getting their name known, sucking up trying to land non existent sponsorship deals. The whole thing is just one big cringe fest- I personally dont think poker needs media at 99% of the tournaments. It would make tournaments where media were there far more "glamorous" and could maybe get some sponsorship money added to prizepools.

Great point, never thought about it before.

I agree with everything written here.

It's worth noting that most of the time the 'media' are paid reps for the tournament sponsor.

 :D

so you missed Flushy telling Tikay to sign him up?

Definitely this - there was a poker boom.

But it was a passing fashion. Now that the trend has died down what is left is just an accurate representation of it's popularity.

I agree that there are a lot of people taking the game far too seriously and boringly - but I don't think it's related to attracting or repelling new players.

I find some of the views in this thread extremely weird especially views on poker players being entertaining for the media etc.

What dubai says it's absolutely correct, the media have absolutely no right telling you how to behave at the poker table. If you're not a chatty/splashy player you have no obligation to play that way just to entertain folk on TV. After all, if you'd busted in 188th place unless you're a well known name in the poker scene they couldn't give a shit how or when you busted. THEY ARE THERE TO MAKE MONEY, JUST LIKE YOU.

TV Cash/Tournaments should be played as they are played, that's what people want, REALISM, otherwise they'll turn up and say "This isn't what happens on TV?!", tournament TV is different especially final tables as people are nursing shorter stacks and it's usually a lot of work pre. Cash is different due to deeper stacks and personally I find Cash TV poker much more entertaining as you don't have much room for manoeuvre with 20-30 big blinds, when you have 400 it's slightly different.

A few examples of entertaining players are very few and far between, Rastafish/Devilfish are the exceptions who prove the rule but this is their game, they're not bigging it up for the cameras just cause they're on TV/Stream. People have been silent during deepstacks I've watched on stream and still managed to be entertaining.

I've seen a lot of "entertaining" (read: Spew) on TV where I'm pretty sure the player wasn't told after the show. EG: Antonio solario with 72o trying to bluff quads. "Thanks that was really entertaining, here's the 75k you spewed back" it's their money they are playing with, they should be able to play with it how they want, that's why poker is a great game because of all the different styles.

Personally I think unless the media are putting up either money for players (IE: Sponsorship) or money towards the prizepool so they can advertise and get the word out they don't have any right to be there. They're there for free, don't pay for interviews with players for analysis/views and it's normally only players they sponsor or who are sponsored they'll ask for views so there's very little chance for the average joe to get his/her name out into the poker world without binking the tournament in which case your name will be out there anyway.

And now to completely go against everything I've said in this thread media wise, I would happily do anything for blonde as I massively respect the work Tighty does during deepstack events to keep everyone updated. This isn't sucking up it's just "where my loyalties lie" as it were.

Be careful what you wish for

The problem lies with gambling companies (not just poker, but industry wide)

The way poker and gambling is marketed for the most part is really really bad, PKR for example I think are some of the biggest culprits, they ave a niche it that there software is unique, for casual inexperienced early punters PKR should be the go-to place, it's fun, quirky and has a bit of community feel to it, is this ever portrayed in the advertising?

No. It's just pictures of Jake/Vladimir/Scott etc all looking extremely serious and grumpy - it doesn't say "PKR, the most FUN place to play poker on the net" it says "come to PKR where these very serious sharks play and they will try take your money becuase they are the best"

Ladbrokes - they don't advertise for the new punters "Come have a bet with Ladbrokes, make saturday football more fun!" they say "Bill and Jenny from Warwick won £200,000 in a 3,000,000-1 shot come gamble maybe you'll do that too"

Pokerstars are the only company that really seem to "get-it" at all. Like Alun says all the emphasis is on "come do this you might win and look how good winning is" and less encouraging people to play poker or gamble for a recreation benefit...

THESE ARE GAMES PEOPLE. GAMES WHEN WILL PEOPLE REALISE THAT WE'RE ALL JUST PLAYING A GAME AND IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FUN!
The whole world needs to take it less seriously.

It's not the players faults, it's the companies promoting it, if they made poker into a platform for FUN and ENTERTAINMENT instead of a very dull serious business affair I'm sure players would naturally become more entertaining.

I like and respect Tom Dwan, and I know high stakes poker only shows the biggest hands where he tanks for ages over lots of decisions and does that stupid chip placing thing (obv they not showing 95% of the pots) but that has been unbelievably BAD for poker, watching these guys with big headphones on replicating it is so fkn cringe.

At the risk of sounding naive.

Did/do the pros in the game with The Loose Cannon actually play with their own money? Obviously the Full Tilt pros didn't in any of the televised games, but what about the others?

Yes they did. A lot would have sold action though. (I.e they are taking 2x $100k bullets, they'd sell 20% of the winnings for a max $40k liability)


I think they actually did for the most part, but by the sounds of it Ivey/Benyamine etc gave themselves a nice freeroll on a lot of them :P

Tony G checks to Sam Trickett. Expert analysis is "a lot of the time Sam checks this flop and a lot of the time he bets it" ??? Good job Jesse is keeping me interested

Watch million dollar cash game seasons 4/5, awful.

It's hard to be a good analyst but I think Stapes and Kaplan do a great job

Not factually correct

Nobody wants to be told you have to spend 2 years playing 50,000 hands a month and reading 1,000 posts a week on 2+2's hand analysis threads to make a decent living from the game.

This is why I enjoy watching a mixture of be-hooded internet experts and - if I can dare to coin this phrase - people people.

TV is an entertainment medium and some of the shows these days seem to have forgotten that

There must be at least one porno out there that has done something like this. I'll do some research.

I sort of feel this way about the DTD monthly tournaments. It used to be 1 update/big tournament per month. Now there's at least 2 updated per month and usually some sort of deepstack/event on every weekend. The monthly updated one just doesn't stand out anymore imo.

In hindsight?

There are at most 2 updated a month, not "at least"

Currently there is one, the major one first weekend of the month, as the other weekend events are one day tournaments at the moment

I'm a poker player not an entertainer.
I'm fed up with reading about young players in hoodies getting criticised for not being entertaining or having no personality.  They are not there to be entertaining they are there to play a game to win money.  If you want to be entertained by a clown or performing monkey go to your local circus.  Players in Epts are putting £5,000 of there own money up to play a competition.  That's a lot of money to most people - why shouldn't they take time over decisions and make "boring" optimal plays.
Don't turn up to an EPT and then get annoyed because the 21 year old Danish kid who's only ever played online isn't cracking funnies every five minutes.

If you want to make an entertaining TV show with loads of characters it's simple.  Approach whoever you want Roland Dewolf/Phil Laak/Devilfish/hellmuth etc and pay them a fee to play in the game.  
Let them know they are there to entertain as well as play poker.

Interviews
If you want to give interviews then fine do it - it can be fun for your mum to see you on the telly etc, but if you don't want to you have no obligation to give interviews.  All this stuff about having a responsibility to be media friendly for the overall good of the game is in my opinion rubbish.  The state of the game is not going to change if i don't give an interview.  People who are good at media interviews and are likely to inspire players to play are generally self selecting.  i.e. the natural showmen in the game such as Devilfish/Negreanu etc will give interviews because that's what they enjoy - it's part of what makes them tick.

Why must everything be dumbed down?
Reminds me of listening to Radio one newsbeat, it typically goes along the lines of "David Cameron, he's the prime minister, the man who make all the big decisions...."
So not only do you have to assume the average listener doesn't know who David Cameron is you also have to assume that the average listener needs explaining in terms a 4 year old might understand what the prime minister does!

I hear the same arguments in poker all the time "you can't talk about % of time somebody opens the cut-off as it goes above the head of the average viewer".  Really?  Does it?
I don't think it does but even if it does so what? Why does everything have to appeal to the dumbest person watching it.
In fact poker in general seems too complicated lets just all switch over to ITV at midnight a watch some moron flip a ball round a roulette - although the odds of 35-1 might be too complicated for your average viewer to understand.


"well I'd rather have an entertaining co commentater than some nerdy analyst"
It's a redundant argument, as you can have both an entertaining co commentater who also understands the current game.
I watched some poker show recently where Daniel Cates (Jungleman) was commentating and it was dreadful to listen to, despite being a great player he's obviously a terrible tv analyst.
But the solution isn't to get somebody on who talks absolute drivel that the "everyman" likes.

Characters in poker
The reason there aren't the characters there were 10 years ago is because the standard of the game has greatly improved.  Your average high stakes pro now has very good analytic and numeric skills.
Back in the day you could get by by being an aggressive alpha male.  You didn't have to be that smart you just had to know if you had the balls and kept on betting they'd usually fold at some point.
Now even very average players are much more aware of their hand strength's and the best tactics to employ verses certain types of opponents.
You don't see as many exciting plays on tv such as 3 barreling with 72 off because good players know that its not profitable to bluff with no equity and there opponents are much better at calling them down.
5 to 10 years ago it was much easier to punt large sums around because the games were so soft a good player new he could just print money online if needed to.
Finally a lot of these "characters" have gone broke because the skills that make a good poker player are deductive reasoning, empathy and self control - these are not always attributes you associate with larger than life characters.

Final point, poker has gone through a boom it will probably never go through again, it is not a mainstream activity.  The average persons concept of poker probably doesn't go past what they once saw in a western movie.
You're never going to get poker shows on at mainstream times because it's not a mainstream activity.

No ones saying most poker players should develop personalities good for TV, just stating that's the case and why poker mainstream is dullard.

lol at people making long posts defending modern poker players....

the article states

"Over the past few years, the poker industry as a whole has been at a standstill. It's extremely stale. There aren't hoards of new players flocking to the game, and in my opinion, that's simply because it's not seen as “fun” to them anymore. There are a lot of reasons for this, and most of them can be dealt with and changed for the better of the game."

reasons include

- recession
- industry marketing strategies (play to win not play for fun)
- change of emphasis televised poker
- greater competition for leisure time from other activities

some of these things are cyclical, some not. Of those that are strategic, surely two things that could be changed are marketing strategies and a different emphasis in televised poker towards "fun" personalities and formats and away from the analytical and (for the layman) non personality players

Or is this all baloney?

Is poker really stagnating tho? As players we have a wide choice of live comps from a variety of different venues, even a choice of big live events at the same time. Anytime you want to play you can get a game. As for online poker, well Full Tilt is testament to how resilient it is. I mean even after the scandal of stealing all our money still most of us can't wait for the doors to open again. The attendances at all live comps from local to wsop still seem high to me, even in tough economic times.

I suppose the game has stagnated from a viewing entertainment perspective but that isn't much of concern for players. The banter is a bonus but in reality the fun and entertainment comes from winning money. I mean naturally as the game becomes more analytical it will attract a certain style of player shall we say. And sitting nine silent maths geeks around a table isn't gonna make for exciting or interesting tv nomatter how you dress it up.

all fair stuff

I worry that the UK live scene is saturated, particularly at £300+ buy in level. Albeit numbers don't reflect that worry too much yet, the scene supported as it is by backing

Online, Stars and some specialists/stand alones aside the player number trends are worse than stagnant

He means from a pure bums on seats perspective. Numbers at most major live comps are static or down and online poker is not growing much.

And it is a concern for the players as without fresh blood coming in (or keeping existing 'fish' entertained) then it's an ever decreasing circle.

Sure but very few businesses/indusrtries are currently growing out there. Poker can't buck the trend because it's linked to disposable income so will undoubtedly see some reduction in the market. However, all things considered I think it's weathering the economy and the scandals pretty well.

The thing that is killing poker was when it became a widespread notion among kids that playing poker for a living was a job.

More players who had a clue played, win rates dropped, therefore grinding increased, so games became less fun, driving away rec/fish, games became worse and tougher to beat, hitting win rates etc etc.

Now (I assume) many of the online grinders who used to win on t'internet back in the day have moved to live play to try and be a winner again, and the same cycle will perpetuate.

Casino and sports betting are growing almost across the board.

They focus on making losers happy. Poker has traditionally focused on making winners happy.

Other forms of gambling are doing well though - online casinos and betting sites, those machines in betting shops, Grosvenor were up 4% on like-for-like revenues from their casinos in their latest results.

I totally agree with Dubai and Mondeoman though that players shouldn't be obliged to be 'characters' or do interviews.

If EPTs or UKIPTs are not providing sufficient entertainment for TV then find a format that is. You can't depend on players to make it entertaining for you.

Credit to Stars they are doing just this with the super high rollers.

Yo but who cares if casino betting is growing across the board? Only industry professionals. Almost every poker player wont care if the poker industry is down 4% or up 2%. All they care about is whether they can play in a good comp at the weekend, and they can. The current level of saturation is just fine for players. If we are asking players to buck up their ideas at the table and find a personality for the good of poker I think that's ambitious. I keep forgetting to take my bag for life to the shops for starters.

That's a fair point. But that's because people are still investing in poker. If it begins to decline then people will stop doing so. Most online companies already have stopped.

The vast majority of Tilt pro's paid their own buyins for the TV tournaments.

Out of stolen money, I think is the point being made.

Indeed.

Oh, and vast majority?

tbf I had forgotten that Royal Flush was briefly a Full Tilt pro and wouldn't dream of suggesting he was anything other than an honest and upright citizen. Sincere apologies if such are needed.

I think there is a great deal of validity in what Mondeoman says. I also think there is a great deal of truth in what the article says.

My personal belief is that the 'rules' for tournament poker are rather different from cash game poker. Tournaments are the sporting version of poker. They should be played with high intensity and competitive spirit. And this should be celebrated. Not that I think ridiculous and unnecessary tanking over every decision is a good thing. Of course it isn't - it is ruining the game for everyone. But I have no problem at all with players in a tournament being highly intense and focusing purely on the game. The few times I enter tournaments I find it a big relief that I can just sit there in silence and try my best without having to worry about all the other stuff. That's what any sport is about... playing at the highest level that you possibly can. When you watch a football match you don't watch it for the amazing goal celebrations when someone scores or the personality of, and banter between, the players. You watch it for the sporting drama and the skillful play on show.

The problem is that - unlike most sports - well-played, high-intensity poker simply does not make for very good spectator viewing. I enjoy watching this sort of stuff, and I imagine most readers of blonde do too. But we are poker afficionados, we are naturally inclined to enjoy watching high level poker play for itself, even without cool characters and dancing monkeys. But for the average viewer who may or may not decide to take up poker, watching a superbly skilled young player making intricate moves through the streets in stony silence is not particularly appealing.

However, I don't believe there is too much we can do about this. That's just the way poker is... it is a niche game which is not especially accessible or exciting to the layman. Of course, using commentators who can bring the game to life without dumbing it down (and there are a few of them) makes a huge difference. Of course giving more air-time to those players who are interesting/cool/entertaining makes a difference too. And of course, selecting 'exciting' hands to put on air makes a difference. But all these things are the responsibility of the production company, not the players themselves. As Keith says, stumping up £5k for an EPT buy-in is a pretty big deal for most players, so they should be allowed to focus purely on giving their best performance. Just without all that unnecessary tanking.

The truth is that poker is just not a very good spectator sport for the layman. And trying to make it so is going to be pretty tough. I don't disagree with the article, and I think a lot of the wider points are valid. But I think tournament poker is a medium in which players should be able to 'just play poker' to a great extent. Obviously, I don't feel the same way about cash game poker...

+1 to everything Dubai said in this thread.

Add 10% to the prizepool and I'll jump through hoops wearing a mankini for the sponsor if they want me to. (Well, I won't but you get my drift)

Add zero and I'll keep myself to myself thankyou very much. As Mondeoman said, I'm a poker player not an entertainer.

Why has televised poker got to be dumbed down?

Why has everything always got to appeal to the lowest common denominator?

I would rather watch  a well, run, politely played game with Haxton, Seiver, Mercier and Timoshenko than the egotists waving their metaphorical dicks.

Because it is the only way it will appeal to a large audience, get airtime and advertisers. We would all love to watch a high quality polite game with six poker geniuses and world class analysis in the commentary booth, but we only make up a very small percentage of the TV poker audience, the viewing figures would be awful for such a show.

Don't forget also that dumbed down poker shows do bring new players to the game, not as much as in the glory days but it still does. I think if we want that to continue we have to be prepared to watched dumbed down poker, or just not watch poker on TV at all.

I agree completely Keith. However, remember that you are a poker enthusiast with specialist knowledge. The average guy watching poker is not. I guess the trick is for the production companies to be competent enough to be able to present their poker content in a way that is both entertaining to the non-specialist and is not dumbed down. It's not like every poker show on telly has been either one or the other, there has been some great stuff aired over the years that would appeal to both types of viewer.

I don't think this is the responsibility of the players though. Their only responsibility in a tournament is to play their best. If they can be polite, friendly and welcoming to others on their table then this would be good too. But there should not be any onus on them to entertain potential TV viewers. This is the job of the production company. Of course, if the TV company are going to put money into the prize pool then all players would have a responsibility to 'entertain', since this would be part of the deal. But this is not currently the case.

Just to repeat as this has been said a few times before, but is worth repeating.

TV companies are PAID to make the shows. If anyone is going to put money in it would be the online sites funding the shows. But seeing as they are already paying millions to make a TV show they are obviously loath to do that.

The simple fact is, the well has pretty much run dry of new blood.

The boom has long since finished.

Chess doesn't need gimmicks to remain popular, why should our game?

Better to appeal to poker enthusiasts, than a non existent new audience.

If you want poker to continue to keep you in the manner to which you have become accustomed into your dotage you better hope that doesn't happen.

It already has happened. The games are pretty much terrible (with a few exceptions) and there is no prospect of them getting better.

Poker just isn't in vogue any more.

Poker sites are far better off spending their marketing money trying to lure back former players back or encouraging infrequent players to play more often than attracting new ones to the game.

100% agree. That's been a real area of weakness in poker to-date.

BUT that also requires making poker seem fun. Most people who stopped playing poker, in my experience, did so because they were losing and/or stopped finding it fun.

You can't really stop people losing, it's the nature of the game that someone has to. But you can try and make it more fun.

In other words it's a different audience, but a similar problem.

Poker is booming in pubs, don't expect to see many of them online but loads will move on to play live.

You don't have to appeal to the Xfactor audience though, how about going for the Only Connect audience instead?

Poker is a game of skill, so why not market it as such?

The old way worked in the aftermath of Moneymaker winning the WSOP, but the market is more mature now.

How many times do you want to see AQ v TT all in preflop?

The obvious answer to that is that X Factor gets 9 million viewers while Only Connect gets 900,000

Your point is a good one though, in that there should be more variety and imagination in how poker is marketed.

Yeah, but the XFactor audience are going to get bored and play online roulette after a couple of losing deposits while the OC viewers are more likely to get hooked and try to learn the game.

If Daniel Cates did a BBC4 show for an hour, explaining his decision making and thought process for six hands of a 500/1000 heads up encounter with Tom Dean, how many people would watch it?

And how many of those would tell others about it?

The game needs new blood and it can appeal to a wide market without sacrificing ability for shoddy entertainment.

Is Tony G confirming that he played it like a set such a bad thing? Still makes me laugh. Sorry!

The answer to your questions is probably hardly anybody and even less.

Oh wait, sorry I see that's what you meant!  ;ashamed;

Show me where this army of new players are hiding and I'll agree with you.

You are much better off with one dedicated player than 10 people who play once, don't enjoy it and never come back.

Everyone who has any inclination to play poker has played it by now.

Possibly, although I very much doubt that's true.

But there are an awful lot of people who have tried poker, maybe even played a lot of poker, and don't play now. And a (big) part of that is that poker just doesn't seem much fun anymore.

BTW auto correct is a beautiful beast sometimes: Tom Dean. Marv.

So many of us were inspired, intrigued and interested in this game by Late Night Poker

Basically the game will never be as good as it once was.

Far too much written, discussed and analysed.

Accept this and accept that there isn't going to be a magic influx of new players ever again.

Who cares - for your average live fish it's all irrelevant.

Pre 2008 most casino tournaments were low buy in rebuy events with only the odd festivals offering big buy in freeze outs. Rebuy tournaments were fun and suited the recreational majority.

They suited the rec because they could budget for a few buyins and be guaranteed to have a game of poker for a few hours. Freeze outs stopped this because now the rec may spend the same money but it may only means he plays for 10 minutes. There's more emphasis on playing well and maybe not gamble so much as he could do in a RB.

Its not so much about losing its about the enjoyment whilst losing.

Cash games are the same, too many people taking it too seriously. I'm not saying that that is not correct I'm saying it takes the enjoyment out of it for the recs.

I have been playing this game for longer than I care to remember. I have never wanted to make poker my living just my hobby. Sometimes I win sometimes I lose.

I never play small buying freeze outs and I never play holdem cash games for the reasons above.

I love to play PLO cash because its fun.

Just my thoughts.

saw that myself...Tony G seemed pissed up and was trying to show off to the table then got a right arse on when he was shoved all in...not long after that he also had a right go at another player for rebuying with the minimum $5000

made himself look a complete twat if you ask me.

This is something that is vastly overlooked by 99% of online poker rooms/industry people/poker media in the UK. I am yet to see someone really try and convert pub players to online players.  

Keith you are right. The game will never again be as good as it was a while back. And there is no army of potential new players waiting to be enticed into poker.

But surely this fact makes it even more important than before that poker players discuss openly what they can do to help their game survive and thrive. When poker was booming it was not as important to worry about this stuff, there was an automatic momentum created by the Moneymaker Effect and poker grew without much effort or thinking from the players (in fact to some extent it grew despite the actions and attitudes of many players). But it's not like that now as you have so clearly stated. Which means that the poker community needs to start explicitly discussing and thinking about these issues. It doesn't really matter whether people are putting forward good ideas or bad ideas... the important thing is that these ideas are now being discussed. The debate needs to continue, the good ideas will be refined and perceptions within the poker community will slowly change for the better. Not everyone agreed with what I wrote re nurturing cash games, and not everyone agrees with that article. But the important thing is that the discussion is taking place and thinking is being done. I think the article will have a positive effect on the future of poker, just for the fact that it has got people thinking about the right sort of things.

There are going to be new players coming into the game in the future, just as there were before the poker boom. And there will also be players returning to the game. We don't need to be completely downhearted about things. But we do have to discuss some of these issues as a community, and think what we can all do both individually and collectively to keep the game we love surviving and thriving.

This.

The game is huge compared to what it was when I started playing.

But the fish have even less chance of winning now though.

Deep stack tournaments against much more talented players means the recreational players basically have no shot at winning.

Wtf? "poker is mature" "there won't be another boom"??? Last time I checked poker was illegal in the USA and ~200million potential recs were unable to play online...

So much other stuff being missed itt too. Gonna write a longer reply in a bit.

He did that to rile his opponent like he did to robl on the big game. He was not genuinely pissed off, it's to tilt his opponents into making mistakes, I'm convinced of it

I was talking about televised poker. It isn't the job of the players to make the game seem more interesting, it's the job of the tv companies and the commentators.

In the live arena, yes I absolutely agree with you.

I hate playing with dullards who take 5 minutes to make the simplest decision, with hoodie pulled right over their faces who berate opponents for playing like fish.

Everyone should feel like they've enjoyed the game, win or lose.

Was talking about the UK obviously.

Poker is far more engrained in the culture in the USA than over here. And there may well be an uptick if and when online poker is legalised in the States.

Although there will never be a time like the months/years of post Moneymaker.

Yes you are partly right IMO. We will likely have a second online 'mini-boom' at some point. I have always assumed so anyway. Three things will lead to this:
1. USA being allowed to play poker again
2. Coming out of global recession
3. Expansion of poker into Asia

Before the recession and Black Friday it looked to me like we were very close to having the Asian boom. The poker sites were starting to push into Asia (Asian Poker Tour, loads of Korean red pros etc etc), and of course there is a big gambling culture in many parts of Asia. I was all ready for the second golden egg, and expecting it to happen. Of course, it never did happen, mainly due to the recession and the US thing. But hopefully it is only on hold and will occur in the future.

That said, I doubt it's going to be as big a boom as before. And it won't last as long. It might give us a second bite of the cherry though. Hope so.


Cool. Be nice though ;)

Sounds like we are 100% singing from the same hymn sheet.

One thing I'm surprised an online poker site has never done:

Make some tables for one or two tablers only.

It is incredibly frustrating for the recreational player to be sat on a six max cash table against 5 guys who are 12 tabling taking ages to fold even though it's a "turbo" table.

I think you may have just nailed where the majority of online losses go.

I was truly staggered when I learnt a little bit about just how much of the money turned over for poker/sports etc. gets syphoned off by the online casinos before it ever sees the light of day again.

I can assure you that the actual figures amazed me and I don't amaze that easily.*


* The Camel jumping through hoops in a mankini excepted.

It is to Pokerstars eternal credit that they have never had an online casino attached to the poker site.

Amazing really.

It's truly staggering how much the addition of an online casino and a single wallet fundamentally changed partygaming's business.

Plenty of people are still trying, but it's a tough market and poker just isn't that appealing (or so I'm told).

There are already a lot of major online businesses out there that you just don't know about. Chances are if there is a poker boom there it won't be the western sites that benefit from it.

I don't watch TV poker because I can't relate to it.  

I don't want to watch players playing for thousands, especially player you know who aren't rolled for the game.  

Personally I would much rather watch a decent £2/5 of £5/£10 game with a few decent players who are regular to each other, as this helps with table banter and dynamics.  

Someone mentioned earlier about horse racing and tried to draw a comparison.   I think the best comparison to draw from it is the channels that dedicate time to showing horse racing hire some numpties to discuss the goings on and offer tips and analysis.  People who punt are never going to learn anything from the vast majority of these people.  For me, what would make it better would be to have people on tv who actually know about the subject they are discussing and offer some indepth analysis.  

I'm pretty tired, so not sure that makes sense but if anyone needs me to explain in more detail what I mean just say and I will try.  

Bodog had a 4 table limit, and I think there is one room (can't remember which) that has tables where, if you're playing at one of them, you can't play at any others.

Essentially, it as multi-tabling that hurt online poker - meant the shark/fish ratio at each table got all out of kilter.

If this is true then... sigh. I have no specialist knowledge of it personally, it was just a supposition that I made a few years ago when I saw the main poker sites very obviously making concerted moves into the Asian market.

With regards to poker commentary always thought it would be a good idea to have a choice between
two sets of commentators with say a red button option between the two.

One for the hardened knowledgeable players with expert analysis and the main hosts with more focus on
beginners with explanations for the plays, table position and poker terms.

Not sure if it's been mentioned in the thread but I was listening to the 2p2 pokercast today and they had Norman Chad one of the two WSOP commentators. It was interesting to hear how he has always tried at least (despite his production directors wishes) to keep the WSOP broadcasts less analytic and strategical and focusing more on the players stories, drama, backgrounds etc. His claim like some in this thread is that the casual viewer wants the fun and excitement but doesn't want to hear about optimal 3betting spots and frequencies and that the move by a lot of televised poker into extremely analytic shows is off-putting for the casual viewer especially as a show like the WSOP which is aired on ESPN is really targetting the mass-market rather than the absolute poker enthusiast. Quite an interesting interview if people want to listen to it.

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hiwcOg0Wvs

Daniel talks about his role with the poker media 9:00. Pretty interesting his view on it.

The WSOP main event is the only poker show i'll go out of my way to watch these days. I don't want to hear about any of the optimal 3betting stuff you mentioned either. I seriously doubt there are many serious poker players who tune into tv poker for educational value, the whole thing should be pure entertainment.

*Coughs* I wrote about this months ago but got pooh poohed... *Coughs*


 

I agree with so much written on the thread, but have to strongly disagree with the notion of the newer type of players taking longer over hands than the old school.

I would bet that the average online nerd spends alot less time on average on a hand, and they definitely waste less time needlessly.

Whilst the Dwan dwell up is very annoying, it has never become as popular as the old school dwell up, which goes something  like; retrieve cards from under card protector, check that they have no intention to do anything but fold, stare the kid down, maybe shoot a disparaging glance at the dealer, maybe a boring comment like "I'll catch you next time kid," and eventually fold.

I never really got why people though this was relevant. High stakes poker for example, they were playing $400/$800 with a $200 ante and stacks off $200-$500k I'll tell you right now you can count the amount of pro poker players "rolled" for that game in the world on one hand, and the vast majority of players would have had less than 50% of their own action on that series for defo.

When they did the $500k min buyin show Doyle even said in the pre-show bit that Guy was the only one there who could actually afford to play this high.

I still found it way the best TV poker show ever made though, basically cos of this....

Norm noticed me and my wedding ring in its box as a card protector on day 1a of the 2009 wsop and asked about my story. We did a small piece for the camera ( even got to sit in the wsop chair they use for there interviews ) and when I returned on day 2a with the ring on my finger he was waiting with the cameras at my table and first hand I flop a set of jacks V AA and then we did another piece. He said he loved the stories that the wsop through up but sadly my moment of fame ended up on the cutting room floor.

agree with this

i still play live when i can mainly to relax and enjoy myself . A few years ago i could go online of a friday night splash around and not be up against probably 4 or 5 regular players waiting for my mistakes and 2 out of 5 nights i might even win.

The times i dip into online now to be honest i get bored.

I'm glad you posted this Keith ,I was gonna buy in to the main at Luton gukpt ,till I read this post , having deceided im a rec fish / weekend hacker ,thanks I'm a grand better off now

Keith Hawkins kills UK poker.

Lol lol

It's not quite true, no-one ever has -100% ROI as even the very worst of the worst can get lucky occasionally and get a cash. Just look at some of the main event winners in the last few years or players like Darvin Moon who came 2nd a year or so back. The main event has one of the best structures of any tournament and although this does favor a stronger player it certainly doesn't mean that recreational players have no shot at winning. Even this years PCA was a pretty tough final table and a self-confessed recreational player was the one that came out on top for the 7 figure payday.

Just received an email from PokerPlayer, the first paragraph reads:


I'm interested in what sort of returns that will bring for the companies in question.  Help them retain players? Help them get new players?  :dontask:

FTP wants to be the home of nosebleed stakes again, Dwan and Blom are pretty necessary to be seen to be on the site for that to happen

(presumably FTP TV formats are on their way, starring these guys, as an acquisition tool)

Yeah Blom and Dwan are no brainers for FTP's brand.

Haxton is Team Online, which is quite different to Team Pro.

Now I know nothing about poker.

But I think some of you proper players are getting this from the wrong angle.

If any sport is televised it helps the image of the whole game to have cheery, perky doods in front of camera. You might not get paid for it, but the more interesting poker is seen to be on TV, the more it will attract new blood. Look at how important image right are to football clubs attracting young kids to their clubs - little Johnny doesn't necessarily support his Dad's team anymore, it's all about Supporting Rooney or Walcott (even if he can't actually play the game) because they are the guys they see on TV, in the mags, posing in the adverts, and in the shop windows.

And to say there is no new potential out there is wrong, wrong wrong. How many teenagers play video games? How many nowadays do it interactively online?

They would love to play online poker, they just don't know it yet.

And as a recreational player, I love watching the 'set up' TV shows, and recently the best of those has been Pokerstars' Big Game, with the loose cannon. Minimise the analysis, mike up the players and encourage the banter, let the game speak for itself, and

best of all, you have the minnow with that once in a lifetime chance to make a fortune.

You might call it dumbing down, I find it compulsive viewing.

Ok so they are the American staple players, but Doyle, Negreanu, Hellmuth and Tony G, with youngsters like Galfond and Scott Sievers, and a sprinkling of William Reynolds and Lex Veldhuis and you have good poker AND plenty of characters. Oh, and Rousso adds another dimension as well

There must be a similar makeup of talent available over here - They have Doyle, we have Tikay, you lot supply the rest. (I'd vote for Liv Boeree as one option ) Then let me sit with them, make an arse of myself, so comparing their good play with my donkey moves can be entertaining and informative.

Then give the teenagers/early 20s the chance to win online to get on TV with a £20K stake or whatever..........then you have

Good TV, good poker, good banter, and you are attracting new blood as well.

Cue the cheerleaders.

 ;cheerleader;  ;cheerleader;  ;cheerleader;

I don't really see the value in in signing Blom. Anyone who knows who he is already has a Stars and Tilt account and have already made their decision of where to play. The same can be said of 99.99% of sponsored pros, but at least Dwan is on TV a lot and does interviews etc.

Yes Blom attracts rail birds but they are railing the nosebleed games no matter what and most if them are broke anyway.

I think it's probably more of a brand decision than a strict ROI one, but I have no knowledge either way. Also it's worth noting the Scandi market is still a huge one.

maybe this question needs a thread of its own but surely i can not be the only one thinking it.

Why the f@#k have pokerstars bought fulltilt????

it just doesn't make business sense...online poker players don't have one account, they have several...so when fulltilt went tits up the following happened...1) they joined other sites namely the most reknown that was pokerstars or 2) they went bust and didn't play.

so what can pokerstars possibly hope to achieve by stumping up the cash to reimberse fulltilt players???

what'sthe odds that 90% of fulltilt players also use pokerstars and also what are the odds that those with big deposits just withdraw them and raise a glass saying 'praise the lord' i didn't expect to see that again.


no matter how i look at it i can't see why on earth they did it...buy a competitor and honour the deposits just (it seems) to get a list of players that they are likely to find is much the same as their own.

And if it was to persuade the American government to legalise the game then surely this could have happened with or without this crazy move.

ffs so this is the type of player MC is up against for Team Online.

Genuine shortage of interesting creative commentators who can make the game come alive and keep the audience entertained.

:) you did a most excellent job. I am really suprised how good Tighty is in the Jesse May / anchorman role. He has been excellent with every guest, of which there had been quite a mix.

Subtlety ftw

Two major reasons you touched upon, firstly to get favour with the US government. More importantly though imo they have bought the only site that has come close to them, much rather they own it that someone else comes along and buys the number 2 brand with (what a large majority of players believe) to be the market leading software.

As Johnson once said about Hoover, "It's probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in."

For poker to evolve and to attract a consistent audience worldwide then the way broadcasting works must change. Sponsors (who will be vital in ensuring a financial future) will need to see much better value from their investment and the public must receive a more entertaining experience. This will not come from within the industry (Pokerstars may be the exception but even this is unlikely). As I am sure everyone is aware the investment in players, tours, broadcasting and in poker in general has been massively reduced and even if the US switches on there will not be a large cash injection in poker anytime soon. The money from Full Tilt will give a short term boost but is unlikely to change the general direction that the industry is presently going.
The balance between skilfully played hands, table chatter and crazy antics is difficult to capture and though I agree that the game has been dumbed down to much the antics of Hevad Khan went way too far.
There are many people in the industry that produce entertaining shows, though many of these are targeted at a core audience that is steadily shrinking and comprises more of the devout than the recreational player.
However there are many companies working on new initiatives and trying to attract new players and sponsors into the game. This is a massive industry that has been badly managed and portrayed, the constant flow of negative press over the last five years and the poorly managed PR by many of the main operators has put off many organisations from considering associating their brands with the game. In the last year however attitudes have started to change and some of these organisations are now in discussions with several different parties with a view to supporting certain events and broadcasts. The quality of on line viewing and the reduction in costs of producing a show has encouraged investment and will result in several groups trying to produce new content via WebTV. This in turn will reach a wider audience and encourage new players and followers. TV shows are not likely to grow as the rate of change to viewing via your Ipad or PC has meant that everyone has had to adapt quicker than originally forecast. This has opened up the opportunity for more liberal shows were player’s comments and style will not be censored in the same way as if it were showed through TV.
I believe that there is a great future in the industry and hope that the coming year sees poker grow again. I am confident that new characters will emerge and that this helps encourage a new wave of players that play both recreationally and professionally.

There have always been 'many companies working on new initiatives and trying to attract new players and sponsors into the game' - they generally fail.

Come back to us when someone has arranged the Tesco Big Poker Tournament - till then it's just hot air.

Come to Prague and see for yourself

Why, what's happening.

LOL Thinking about it probably nothing you would be interested in, but if you do show up I would be happy to give you a guided tour.

seriously, no idea what's going on in Prague......

???

Dave you should have called it 'The Rachel Riley from Countdown Festival (plus poker and other things)'

Sounds like your poker organising is pretty awesome, even if I am tilted a little by your quoting skills.

I'll be looking into it myself, sounds awesome.

Thank you, sir.

Sorry about messing up the quoting, the marketing team don't let me post very much nowadays for this very reason :)  I hope to see you in Prague

Monopoly.

Yeah I don't really understand how people can't see the obvious benefits in it for them. Even just on a basic level of buying a profitable business at a decent multiple never mind the huge benefits of settling with the DoJ, having a dual brand to limit churn, dominating the market, preventing competition etc etc

I feel like pokerstars are just going to rule the world one day :P

I always felt like FTP was the place that wanted to drive huge cash action, sponsor cash games and really set itself aside as "The" high stakes place, whereas Stars always liked doing Tours and tournament series' - now they can both do these and still own the mast majority of the pie.

Wonder if we're going to see some ludicrous stakes online games spilling in from Macau to FTP...

Just a few thoughts

So basically this is what the online poker industry looks like: We have one player -- PokerStars -- which, following the Full Tilt acquisition, will have in the neighbourhood of 50% to 70% market share of the dot-com online poker market. PokerStars benefits greatly from strong network effects where online players will continually gravitate to one large site with the greatest volume and the greatest variety of games and offerings, in much the same way that eBay benefits from network effects where buyers and sellers ultimately gravitate to one site.

And then we have everybody else at less than 6% market share each.

We have an industry plagued by rising player acquisition costs and marketing costs as a percentage of revenues. Things like sign-up bonuses, rakeback programs, and affiliate programs used to acquire new players and drive traffic to a given site are expensive marketing tools that I am pretty sure have slim to negative value, particularly since a player has effectively no switching costs to move from site to site once a promotion has been exhausted. This is similar to slot free-play and table games match-play offers often used by bricks-and-mortar casinos, which are promotional offers that generally have negative value with little to no long-term benefit to the casino.

We also have countries like Spain, Italy, and France that have left the dot-com space and installed new regulations where players in each of those countries can only play poker online with players located in the same country (i.e., a player in Spain can only play with another player in Spain, and not against a player in France or Germany) on their respective .es, .it, and .fr sites. These regulations served to remove liquidity from these markets, made the markets less attractive, and effectively chased IGT from Europe.
And then, for online poker room operators other than PokerStars, poker revenue typically accounts for only a fraction of total online gaming revenues for each of these companies.

A self-defeating game: The skill gap problem

There's another aspect of online poker that is often overlooked in these types of discussions, and that is an increasing skill gap problem.
Bwin.party's investor presentation contains a slide entitled "Dotcom poker in structural decline," which includes a chart showing that the average hourly number of players in the dot-com space has fallen from over 80,000 players per hour in January 2011 to around 50,000 players per hour in July 2012, which bwin.party attributes to five things:
1.       Poker maturing in European markets
2.       Regulation fracturing dot-com liquidity (referring to the switch in countries like Italy and France from .com to .it and .fr)
3.       Tax leakage
4.       Full Tilt removing $180 million from the market
5.       More sharks = fish eaten quicker
Bwin.party then goes on to list six steps to "optimize the poker ecology," which include:
1.       Rebalance player pool in favor of more casual players.
2.       Focus on driving and retaining net depositing players.
3.       Removal of highest stakes tables.
4.       Protecting recreational players from "fish hunting."
5.       Rebalance bonus packages in favor of recreational players.
6.       Introduce new features to lobby and interface to benefit casual player.
Get it?

There are too many professionals in the online space, and not enough fish. Thus, the game has gotten too tough to be interesting for the casual player, resulting in less overall activity.
Walk into any locals poker room in the country, and you are bound to find seven or eight regulars at the table. Back in 2006, when the average skill level of such regulars wasn't that high, this would be no problem for any reasonably skilled player. But in 2012, everybody is better, and the average skill level of the regulars has risen considerably, to the point that I think the average professional-level player in 2006 would be a fish in these games without having made similar advancements in his/her own game.

Consequently, the games today have become uninteresting to many former professionals -- even to those good enough to still beat these games -- because no matter how good you are, win rates will decline because the regulars aren't as bad as they used to be, and the fish are in shorter supply.
Meanwhile, the casual player today has no chance.

There is an underlying irony here, and it is that the professionals and other regulars in online poker space are generally the most valuable players on any given site. This is because these players put in the longest hours, and often play four, eight, or even 16 or more tables at a time.
The more players you have playing multiple tables, the more tables run. And the more tables that run, the more hands that get dealt. And the more hands that get dealt, the more revenue that is generated as rake.
But in a sense, poker is a self-defeating game where the most valuable players are also the ones killing it. And if you're a poker player looking for a return to the PartyPoker of 2006, you're not going to get it.

However with the emergence of WebTV and the evolution of Mind Sports the future may hold more surprises than forecast. The continued growth in on line gaming will evolve through new broadcast technology and different real life experiences in 2013. The conventional wisdom on who will lead and what on line will look like will in my opinion be very different from what is being portrayed by the industry at this time.

You forgot the link

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/10/22/sorry-mr-online-poker-nobody-cares-about-you.aspx

I dont post links as I have been told you need permission and I couldn't paste the entire article...that being said I think its the best article I have read on the industry and is in line with all the work we are doing in the US. I believe that a new player will emerge in the on line space probably from a bricks and mortar casino such as LVS, Wynn or Genting who will likely purchase an existing operator such as Bwin and use the combined player bases to introduce new technology such as WebTV and this will provide the next generation in social networking.

You need permission to post links, but none to lift someone else's work?

Not sure if you are serious?

Linking to articles to show your source is fine.

Of course you can post links to sites that aren't in direct competition to the forum or its sponsors.  Most threads on here have external links to sources.

Plagiarism isn't encouraged though.

I'm not sure you read that article properly.

Reading articles is time-consuming and for losers - much quicker and better to just copy and paste.

In case anyone didn't bother to read the article, the final paragraph in dave 1961's post is not from the link. That's his own addition.