What's happened to Poker?

[Tal]

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

[Amatay]

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

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

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

[Cf]

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 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.

[david3103]

Obviously the Full Tilt pros didn't in any of the televised games, but what about the others?

Not factually correct

In hindsight?

[TightEnd]

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 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.

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

[Mondeoman]

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.

[Acidmouse]

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....

[TightEnd]

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?

[MANTIS01]

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.

[TightEnd]

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

[AlunB]

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.

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.

[MANTIS01]

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.

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.

[AndrewT]

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.

[AlunB]

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.

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.

Casino and sports betting are growing almost across the board.

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

[AndrewT]

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.

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.