What's happened to Poker?

[AlunB]

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.

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.
 

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

[tikay]

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.

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. 

[tikay]

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.

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.
 

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

That too.

[AlunB]

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?

 

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

[kinboshi]

Ian Gascoigne is the future.

[tikay]

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?

 

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

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

(Rhetorical - you know the answer!)

[TightEnd]

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?!

[tikay]

[Royal Flush]

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.

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.  

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

[AlunB]

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?

 

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

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

(Rhetorical - you know the answer!)

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.

[tikay]

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?

 

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

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

(Rhetorical - you know the answer!)

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.

[TightEnd]

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?

 

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

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

(Rhetorical - you know the answer!)

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.

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

[youthnkzR]

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

id watch this.

[AlunB]

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?

 

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

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

(Rhetorical - you know the answer!)

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.

You believe or you know?

[tikay]

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?

 

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

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

(Rhetorical - you know the answer!)

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.

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

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