What's happened to Poker?

[DaveShoelace]

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

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.  

[Honeybadger]

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.

[The Camel]

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

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.

[skolsuper]

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.

[corkeye]

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.

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.

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

[The Camel]

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.

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.

[The Camel]

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.

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.

[Honeybadger]

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...

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.

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

Cool. Be nice though

[Honeybadger]

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.

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

[The Camel]

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.

[Karabiner]

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

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.

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.

[The Camel]

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

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.

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.

[AlunB]

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

[AlunB]

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.

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.

[AceHighSuited]

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.