What made POKER take off?
- Thread starter Jaden
- Start date
Personally I think the hole cams made poker what it is today. Sure Moneymaker helped but poker was so boring to watch before you could see the cards.
Because of the amount of luck involved in poker you can have a lot of famous people get into tournaments and with a little coaching a few of them can get pretty deep into tournaments. This is a huge draw for the average player seeing people he recognizes making it far into tournamants. Most of them don't have a clue when it gets short handed so you hardly ever see any of them win a large tournament, but some make the final tables.
I like poker better, because I can beat up on the same guy week after week and he will keep playing. In pool if I beat up on someone over and over he is going to quit or ask for too much weight really quick.
There is a lot of luck in poker but the better player will almost always come out on top if you play enough.
Because of the amount of luck involved in poker you can have a lot of famous people get into tournaments and with a little coaching a few of them can get pretty deep into tournaments. This is a huge draw for the average player seeing people he recognizes making it far into tournamants. Most of them don't have a clue when it gets short handed so you hardly ever see any of them win a large tournament, but some make the final tables.
I like poker better, because I can beat up on the same guy week after week and he will keep playing. In pool if I beat up on someone over and over he is going to quit or ask for too much weight really quick.
There is a lot of luck in poker but the better player will almost always come out on top if you play enough.
A lot of you proved my point.
The fact that so many of you are under the mistaken impression that some lame ass hack can win the WSOP without any skill whatsoever or making a bunch of mistakes and just getting lucky is exactly why poker took off and pool hasn't.
Anyone who really knows how to play poker and has played in top events like the world series ( I have by the way and was enven mentioned in Card Player magazine in 2006) knows that you have to know the game and make the right decisions to win.
They have showcased the bad beats and the bluffs on TV and that has given many the false impression that they can win even though they have almost no chance whatsoever.
MY point is that in pool the opposite is the case. They showcase only the best play and edit out the errors and until that changes and the average joe can watch it and atleast try to convince himself that he has a chance if he practices hard, pool will stay in the funk that it is in.
Jaden.
The fact that so many of you are under the mistaken impression that some lame ass hack can win the WSOP without any skill whatsoever or making a bunch of mistakes and just getting lucky is exactly why poker took off and pool hasn't.
Anyone who really knows how to play poker and has played in top events like the world series ( I have by the way and was enven mentioned in Card Player magazine in 2006) knows that you have to know the game and make the right decisions to win.
They have showcased the bad beats and the bluffs on TV and that has given many the false impression that they can win even though they have almost no chance whatsoever.
MY point is that in pool the opposite is the case. They showcase only the best play and edit out the errors and until that changes and the average joe can watch it and atleast try to convince himself that he has a chance if he practices hard, pool will stay in the funk that it is in.
Jaden.
It helps that poker does not spotlight all the bad that goes with poker. I mean think about it, there are probably thousands and thousands of people who have lost everything trying to win big and you never see it.
Seeing a blank like Chris Moneymaker winning millions.. 
1997 WSOP had about 900 players and paid 1 million for first... Try fadin 5k players now.. Talk about how lucky you gotta be to win it with those numbers.
How amazing would it be if pool payed out what poker does? That would be a dream come true.
1997 WSOP had about 900 players and paid 1 million for first... Try fadin 5k players now.. Talk about how lucky you gotta be to win it with those numbers.
How amazing would it be if pool payed out what poker does? That would be a dream come true.
socks said:
Negative... Pool is blah for money because it lacks the rich upper class.. Pool, The hustlers game.. Yeah, Let's have them all dress like bums.. Give them the look that most who look down upon the game vision when they think of pool players anyway.. We are sure to attract big money then.
Just my opinion..
derekdisco said:
Aren't we all.
But can you win money when you're not catching cards? That is the mark of a really good player.
I like all the answers, so I'll add to the discussion. It wasn't just one thing or even two things. For someone like me, I've waited to watch whatever poker was could be televised since the first time I realized they had televised poker. That would be the 80's. They showed the final table of WSOP for several years as well as a handful of other events.Jaden said:
People talk about the hole cam, but in those early years, the commentators knew what the cards were, but not all the time. I think they had the hole cams, but they were either not as sophisticated, or they didn't have them at each station. Sometimes, they'd get one card, and have a question mark on the second card, so I don't think it was a post production thing.
Anyway, I think that the commentary improvements is one of the things that make viewere come back. Previously, the commentary was lack luster with little explanation. But nutbags like me would still keep coming back to watch. We had Dick Van Patten (father of Vince) and Gabe Kaplan as the celebrity commentators on different years. But neither add the depth that Mike Sexton does nor the color that Norm Chad does.
And though people keep bringing up Chris Moneymaker, I think from a production standpoint, it was Robert Varkonyi's year that made more viewer's take notice. That was really the first year that a left-field amateur "lucked" his way into winning the entire event with some very odd plays.
Beyond that, in Moneymaker's and maybe in Raimer's year, there were a lot of women champions in open events during the WSOP. Annie Duke by herself brought in so many women into the game by her great showing in those years, as did her contemporaries like Kathy Lieberman (who won a million dollar first place riverboat event years earlier) and Jennifer Harmon (probably the greatest female player ever).
So, Varkonyi followed by Moneymaker, internet play, hole cam, amateur luck, great commentary, female champions in a typically men's game, and overall better production.
Fred
stuckart said:
LOL LOL LOL That was a good one.....................
The difference between poker and pool is that even a novice poker player can look like he knows what's going on after reading a book and watching espn or the other 12 networks that broadcast card games.
In pool, people look like goobers for a very long time, and most people hate that. Too much dedication to get better in pool. Card playing is 95% mental, and 5% wearing shades and a hat, pool is very mental but also takes a lot of physical work to improve.
They also have that card cam thing and people get all exited knowing what cards people have. Why poker got huge all of a sudden and pool didn't, no clue. Both are "gambler" games, both have so-so histories and reputations. Maybe they can put together a hall of fame shootout where a HOF pool player and a HOF card palyer square off in both pool and cards. I'm willing to bet the pool player wins. Cards involve luck too much, where there is no way a lower player can beat a pro in pool unless they play only a couple of games.
In pool, people look like goobers for a very long time, and most people hate that. Too much dedication to get better in pool. Card playing is 95% mental, and 5% wearing shades and a hat, pool is very mental but also takes a lot of physical work to improve.
They also have that card cam thing and people get all exited knowing what cards people have. Why poker got huge all of a sudden and pool didn't, no clue. Both are "gambler" games, both have so-so histories and reputations. Maybe they can put together a hall of fame shootout where a HOF pool player and a HOF card palyer square off in both pool and cards. I'm willing to bet the pool player wins. Cards involve luck too much, where there is no way a lower player can beat a pro in pool unless they play only a couple of games.
Hole Card Cam
I think all those that have mentioned the hole card cam are right on. When you see an old poker tournament on TV (before the advent of the hole card cam) you still watch it but it is boring compared to watching a tournament now and knowing what the players are holding.
Now, if pool can just figure out a way to let the viewer know who has the advantage half way through the game (and put a percentage on it) and a way for the other player to bluff him out of the game!
I think all those that have mentioned the hole card cam are right on. When you see an old poker tournament on TV (before the advent of the hole card cam) you still watch it but it is boring compared to watching a tournament now and knowing what the players are holding.
Now, if pool can just figure out a way to let the viewer know who has the advantage half way through the game (and put a percentage on it) and a way for the other player to bluff him out of the game!
jay helfert said:I'm headed for the WSOP in eight days to play some of the preliminary events. There are something like 50 tournaments scheduled this year. Even the "small" tournaments generate prize pools in the millions. Wish me luck!
Jay,
Good luck at the series. How about you doing an update thread once you get there?
I am trying to get into the main event through the steps on Poker Stars, made step 5 twice. Who knows, maybe I will see you there as I still have time
lodini said:
This is partly ture. Most Pro players consider a tourney with a 10K buy in to be a major tourney and it is usually a main event at a series of tourneys. Many Top Pros will not play events with a buy-in under $10K
However, I believe that in most 10K buy-in events, more than 50% of the entrants do not pay $10K but they get a 10K seat by playing in smaller buy-in tourneys that award a seat.
In contrast, the US Open 9 Ball is a $500 Buy In. The question is, if the US Open was a 10K buy in, how many players would pay 10K and how many would play smaller buy in qualifiers to get a seat in the 10K pool tournament?
If my bankroll supported it, I would buy in directly into a 10K entry poker tournament but I would not buy into a 10K entry pool tournament. The reason is I feel that I have a better shot of making money in a 10K entry poker tournament then in a 10K entry pool tournament.
shanesinnott said:Jay,
Good luck at the series. How about you doing an update thread once you get there?
I am trying to get into the main event through the steps on Poker Stars, made step 5 twice. Who knows, maybe I will see you there as I still have time
I'm not sure that belongs on here or NPR. What do u think?
I haven't read through the whole thread... not enough time at the moment - will do so later.M HOUSE said:
But I agree, the hole cam is a major factor, along with the way they able to jump around to various tables, as to why poker has become more popular to watch on TV. The hole cam makes the bluffs and the strong hands more interesting to watch. It even makes the timely fold quite a bit more interesting, often times leaving you with the "how'd he know" or "wow! that was a brave bet!". Without the hole cam, those interactions look very boring.
Poker's edge over most every other game/sport is that most any novice has at least a remote chance. So it's able to get a larger appeal.
Pool requires a level of skill. The likelihood of a novice beating top pool players is significantly remote to where it's basically a guaranteed bet. Luck can factor into pool, but only if the two players are at least relatively close in skill.
Now, other games/sports also require skill - beit golf, tennis, or even Nascar. And they are able to attract a fan base.
I think if pool were presented the right way, it could at least increase it's fan base. But like the hole cam, it's gonna take at least a bit of work. I have some ideas on how that can be done (as I'm sure others do as well), but the process of converting legitimate ideas to reality is not always easy to do.
Just my $.02 worth...
Russ Chewning said:
U can take offense to that statement if u like russ, but i stand by it. Thats the way the "average joe" me included, sees the WSOP and thats why its still so popular. Everyone thinks they have a chance. Whereas in pool it only take 5 minutes of watching a pro tourney for most people to realize their out of their depth.
And for the record, I dont hate poker. it does nothing for me either way
Last edited:
jay helfert said:
Pretty sure a Poker thread would be NPR
and I am guessing there are many people on this board that would enjoy the updates (in NPR)