What's happened to Poker?

[TightEnd]

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? 

[smashedagain]

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.

[Acidmouse]

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.

[david3103]

Has Donnie Peters met RastaFish?

[tikay]

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.

[tikay]

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.

Terrific Post, spot on.

[Woodsey]

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.

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

[pleno1]

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.

[Acidmouse]

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.

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.

[AndrewT]

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.

[AlunB]

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.

[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.
 

[david3103]

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.

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...

[tikay]

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

[AlunB]

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.

Terrific Post, spot on.

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.