Current poker boom - how long can it last?

[Clarkmeister]

Just wondering. I suppose when the fad is over, poker games will still be much better than they were 3 years ago, but not nearly as good as today. I'd guess we are either at the peak right now, or within one year of the peak. Maybe 2-3 years left until the fad is totally over and we settle in at what could be termed "the new norm" and level out. In other words, enjoy it while it lasts but I'd guess we will all need to improve to continue surviving at whatever level each of us is currently at as the games get tougher.

[Ruddiger]

I agree, but I also know there are a lot of people who are still interested in learning about and playing poker but aren't yet, if they can be brought in someway things will continue to be good for much longer.

[DcifrThs]

i've been thinking about this a lot lately and have concluded that it depends on the average rate of bankroll loss as a result of play that is so bad itmakes even the most marginal player who plays tight and decently on the flop and river into a winner. the faster the rate the sooner the plateau, imo...

so maybe a year, maybe two, maybe more but certainly not more than 5...how long has reality TV been around, and mutated, etc. etc. etc....nothing lasts forever, but at least we are in ther here and now, right?

-Barron

[Joe Tall]

Interesting conversation came up in my home game a few weeks ago.

First some history: I've been playing poker since I was kid with the same 5 guys. Then, through our teens, my brother and his friends joined. Routinely we have played every other month (as we rotate 12 guys through) for last 22 years.

Foxwoods casino has been open for 12 years. It opened the year we all turned 21, making us old enough to go. All of us have routinely traveled down to Foxwoods over this time. Losing thousands playing blackjack/craps/roulette, etc.

Yet, no one stepped into the Poker room until late last year.

How could this be?

Well, there was this 'mystique' to the poker room, this sound of chips and old men grumbling. We had a fear of it.

Now we don't.

You can draw your own conclusions, but I see no reason the boom will subside for quite some time as these dozen will never play blackjack/roulette or craps as long as there is a poker room. I'm sure my situation does not stand alone.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[Cptkernow]

I dont have enough books to lend my mates/ acquaintances who in the last few months decided that they want to play poker online.

This is a combination of poker entering the zeitgiest and them observing me become quite significantly more wealth due to online poker.

This has helped some of them overcome intial sceptecism about "Gambling", and decide to get involved in the action.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd guess we will all need to improve to continue surviving at whatever level each of us is currently at as the games get tougher.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't help when <font color="red"> certain people </font> (AHEM!) go telling the whole world on Amazon about new books that will make them better /images/graemlins/shocked.gif Can't anyone keep a secret around here /images/graemlins/confused.gif

But seriously, folks. I think that we are still on the up-side of the growth curve for many reasons. I think that there is still a large untapped market that has not yet, but will, try poker, or will move up from home games to B&amp;M or internet games. Poker is apparently very hot in college these days. These players will, we hope, graduate, get jobs and try to move up.

Part of this is a variation on the idea that if you build it, they will come. As B&amp;M games become more available for various reasons, more people will play. More importantly, as the general population becomes more confident of the reliability and honest of on-line games, more will play.

And I think that in the relatively near future, the legal issue of internet gambling in this country will be addressed. The ultimate solution is predictable. The government cannot stop it, so they will attempt to regulate it and to tax it. As LBJ said, it's better to have them inside the tent peeing out, than outside peeing in. Here in Minnesota, the legislature just concluded a session in which they accomplished absolutely nothing. But the proposed laws regarding poker would have expanded the game and increased the taxes on it. Typical.

As poker grows, the marketing of the game will become more wide spread and more sophisticated, particularly if on-line is legal here. Despite what would look like market saturation, -EV games like Lotto continue to grow with good marketing. Look what has happened to slots in B&amp;Ms over the last 10-20 years, speaking of -EV and growth. I would see the same for poker.

As more and more players are attracted to the game, the obvious break-down will occur. A few will become very good, a few more will regularly make money, the majority will hover right at/below break-even, and a few will bust out and leave forever. Many of those just below break-even will continue to play, either because it is cheap entertainment, or through self-delusion about results or ability, or because they are getting better.

In short, I think that the rate of growth will slow down, but in absolute terms, the market will continue to grow for quite a while. The fishiness may peak soon, but the fish are always with us.

[David Steele]

The poker room space is just a drop in the bucket compared to all the other crummy gambling games they push in casinos.

Online, what are people going to do instead? The other gambling games all suck.

There may be less TV poker shows but other factors may keep things level or more likely just a slower growth.

D.

[mike l.]

will something come along and replace or at least compete with hold em? cause man im sick of hold em. i mean i love having all this money, but i want to play another game.

i think padoogi (or however it's spelled) is the game of the future. it's 4 card triple draw lowball. ive never played it but would like to. do they spread it online anywhere?

[Ulysses]

Here's one random datapoint. I used to watch most of the poker shows on TV. Now I'm starting to get bored of them and don't watch most of them.

[JimRivett]

The biggest change I've seen in Poker in Los Angeles seems to be the popularity of these low buy-in ($100 or $200) no limit games. The bike has just finished expanding its poker room to accomodate the extra games being spread.

I felt the games were pretty good 3 years ago, and will still be good in the future. You have to remember that poker has been played for a long time both at home and in casinos. A popular item that Sears used to sell, around the the early 1900's, via its catalogues was - poker chips.

[FeliciaLee]

[ QUOTE ]
will something come along and replace or at least compete with hold em? cause man im sick of hold em. i mean i love having all this money, but i want to play another game.

[/ QUOTE ]
Amen. I posted something in the Stud forum last week along the lines of, "If I were a board game fanatic, and suddenly Monopoly was the only game being played, it would get old, fast. That is what HE is to me...old, fast."

I've been playing some oddball games at this new cardroom in Laughlin. The CRM is from the Silver Star in Mississippi, and supposedly spread these games there. The EV is really good, as the locals here have no idea how to play these games.

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif
www.felicialee.net (http://www.felicialee.net)

[Zeno]

Some fads, unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your outlook), have historically ended or dropped rather quickly. Whether this will be true of poker only time will tell. I brought this up in a thread on the Pot-, No-limit forum. The current boom in NL limited buy in poker was being discussed.

As a somewhat side note: The boom appears to be mainly in Hold'em - NL, limit, and in tournaments. Has this affected the Stud and Omaha games? Or is the influx so broad that all games are increasing, with Hold'em simply outpacing the others?

The sustainability of the curve cannot, logically, continue at the current pace indefinitely. When it slows, what will be the deflection? And if the curve plateaus, for how long? And if it starts to fall, at what rate?

-Zeno

[Joe Tall]

I have been anxiously awaiting Sklansky's Poker Challange, which is "soon to appear in casinos" but maybe it has not made it out east yet. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Peace,
Joe Tall

[The Armchair]

It's going to last for a long time. But after a while, online will dry up in favor of B&amp;M.

Poker is a wickedly enticing game. It has the allure of every other game of skill, but without the feeling that you're getting outplayed -- just outdrawn. Because of the odd pockets they wish to play, they tend to have violent bankroll swings to boot. (A board of AJ964 is huge for the guy with A6 when the other guy has been pushing AK through the roof.) The allure of such a hand lends itself, credibly, to the notion that a poor player is actually a great one -- after all, he "outplayed" AK.

Most of the players out there are social, occassional players, who do so mainly with friends and on the odd trip to the casino. When they win, they play more, but I do not think it necessarily follows that they'll play less when they lose.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

The problem with comparing poker to other casino games/gambling is that it lacks the things that make these things so popular. Everybody knows slots are -EV, but their draw is the lottery-like chance to hit it huge with one spin. Add to that their (what I assume is) low cost to the casino and their ability to pack a ton of them into a given space and you have a very popular product. Roulette is very similar, but with a somewhat sofisticated air to it. Craps and blackjack are/can be quite social games that are or at least seem to be a 50/50 proposition if you play them right. They're something you can go play with your buddies and not have to be playing against them and taking their money.

Poker, on the other hand, is scary to a lot of people. Even if you play home games or fool around with your friends, the poker room looks daunting and you're sure there's a shark at every table waiting to gobble you up. How many people have you heard say they like playing poker, but they'd "never play it in a casino"? It's a game where you don't have a set mathematical chance of winning. The skill involved and the wide variety of people who play it provide the possibility that you are so outclassed that you have very little chance of even hitting something lucky and breaking even. What's more, there's very little chance even if you're good of hitting a big payday just walking through the casino and sitting down to a cash game. It's a grind and most people don't get excited at the proposition of maybe grinding out $100 after a few hours in a low/micro limit game.

That being said, once you do sit down and get into the game, that's all turned around. It's not so scary any more and you realize that maybe you are the shark. The increased complexity and subtleties over any other casino game make it so much more fun to sit in a poker game. Hours pass like minutes and all of a suddent, six or eight hours doesn't seem like such a long time any more. I used to count cards and liked playing blackjack. I can't stand it anymore - poker has ruined it for me.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's one random datapoint. I used to watch most of the poker shows on TV. Now I'm starting to get bored of them and don't watch most of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm the same way, but I don't think this is meaningful. The shows are boring to us because we actually play some high limit poker. I've 3 bet Phil Ivey on the turn. I've knocked Eric Seidel out of a tourney. I'm just not that excited to watch these guys on TV anymore. For low limit players and newbies, the big name players are exciting to watch.

[Ed S.]

[ QUOTE ]
will something come along and replace or at least compete with hold em? cause man im sick of hold em. i mean i love having all this money, but i want to play another game.

i think padoogi (or however it's spelled) is the game of the future. it's 4 card triple draw lowball. ive never played it but would like to. do they spread it online anywhere?




[/ QUOTE ]


Are you ready for Euchre then? Euchre is not a new card game its been around for some time. But it has been gaining ground and popularity with the advent of the Internet. There currently is a WSO Euchre that has been going on for the past 5 years or so. It's called the Grand Prix Nationals event but I think this year will be its first use of The World Series of Euchre. This will be held in Chicago,IL .

I myself am an avid euchre player. Some would say Im a World Class Euchre Player. But if you are looking for a fast paced game with alot of intuitive and second guessing call playing and all the tricky ness you have in poker well almost all of it, then Euchre is your game.


If you would like more info about the game of euchre and how to get to The Grand Prix National/WSOE event message me here or email me at,

tbolt_65@yahoo.com



Sidenote: Just like in Poker the cash games are usually more lucrative since the current Euchre tourney format IMHO sucks b-a-l-l-z.

Ed S.

[MaxPower]

About an hour ago, I was in a pizza place down the street. When I walked in the 2 counter guys and one of the customers were engaged in a serious conversation about Texas Holdem. It was the typical moronic conversation that you would expect. I had to stop myself from laughing at the stuff they were saying.

They were talking about the ESPN coverage of the World Series. I think this year's WSOP converage will continue to grow the game. We are approacing the peak, but we are not there yet. I give it about 2 more years.

[banditbdl]

The only time I ever play Euchre is when I'm too drunk to play 500.

[Ulysses]

I understand your point, but the point I was trying to make was that for me, someone very interested in poker, poker shows have started to get boring. Of course, I watched a lot more of these than most probably would when they first started coming on. I suspect that it will take even less viewings for the average casual fan/player to start getting bored of these. Since these shows are clearly part of what's driving the popularity of poker, I think it's logical to assume that once people start getting tired of these shows, the growth of poker will start to slow or reverse - at least to some degree.

At a more general level, I have no worries of games getting bad anytime soon up to about the 20-40 level. I'm not sure how long great 40-80 and higher games will last.

[Cptkernow]

Euchre ?

Are you serious.

Euchre is a masively common/popular game here in cornwall and knowing how to play the game is a sure sighn of being "proper" cornish. Alot of pubs have a euchre team.

The thing is the Euchre I know is played for points like bridge and dosnt involve rounds of betting like poker.

When gambling on Euchre one of course sets a money amount for each point. Also, like Bridge it is played with a partner.

[Ray Zee]

considering that the game that each of us may play in will rake over 250,000 per year off the table for that particular crew of players, means that the money will run out. it always does and after a year or two those same players begin to accept their sitting in ever increasing smaller stakes games. it always happens in all places.

[astroglide]

the money still gets funneled in from jobs. most people aren't aware of the signifigance of the rake.

[glen]

mike,

they don't have four card triple draw, btu they have 5 card A-5 and 2-7 triple draw at ultimatebet - both very fun games. . .

[midas]

I think the boom will continue because of the following factors:

1. Kids are playing more than ever - my 13 yr old cousin has regular NL games with his buddies.

2. TV coverage will demystify the poker room bringing more walk-ons from the traditional casino games.

3. Internet will continue to hook people who don't have B&amp;M access.

On the flipside - if internet poker is ever shut down in the U.S. - the boom is over.

[scotnt73]

i agree that the boom will be around for a while. i have several friends who frequently goto a new underground(illegal) poker hall for a wed, fri, and sat 50$ buy in tourney. a year ago they laughed at me when i told them it was a beatable game. now theyve all got the bug from watching holdem on tv and im like the big fish in the small pond with my measly 2 years experience. the last 2 christmas my family has played a little 5$(about 10 people) nl holdem tourney. the tourney wasnt even my idea. my cousins newthat id been playing for a while so when i showed up for dinner i had several of them wanting to play. they all suck but we have alot of fun and i play real loose because i feel like an ass playing real tight against them. the older folks(im 31) are real religious and would never goto a casino but they dont bat an eye at us playing poker for money at the dining room tabe thanks to tv.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Kids are playing more than ever - my 13 yr old cousin has regular NL games with his buddies.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point. The whole "everyone plays in college now and college kids get jobs" thing is tough to argue against too. Many of those people will stop playing after college, but it's reasonable to assume that some non-trivial percentage of them will continue playing, and for higher stakes.

[J.A.Sucker]

I think that Ray is right here. I made a post last week about the big games that used to be in the Bay Area, and they're all gone now. The rake really adds up, and it grinds down the break-even players. The really rich losers get broke eventually, between the rake and their bad play. Furthermore, the casinos keep raising rakes faster than inflation, which can't be good. Perhaps the only place where poker games will stay good for so long is LA, since there seems to be a huge amount of disposable income around. However, even this has its limits.

If you have a job that pays 100K a year, you really can't afford to lose much more than 20K (post-tax!) dollars. This is 500 a week for a regular player. Not a lot, even in a 20 game. People lose a lot more than this, and I don't think that they can afford it.

[JTG51]

[ QUOTE ]
considering that the game that each of us may play in will rake over 250,000 per year off the table for that particular crew of players, means that the money will run out. it always does and after a year or two those same players begin to accept their sitting in ever increasing smaller stakes games. it always happens in all places.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have the blackjack, craps, and roulette games dried up in casinos around the country?

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
If you have a job that pays 100K a year, you really can't afford to lose much more than 20K (post-tax!) dollars.

[/ QUOTE ]

There it is right there. Which is also why I said I think smaller games will go on for quite some time, but the medium to big games will be much tougher to sustain.

In a 40-80 game where people are paying, say, $15/hr to play, for someone to make $80/hr, someone else has to lose $110/hr. If the winning player wants to play 40hrs/week, people have to lose $4400. Add in a few bucks an hour for tips, food, whatever, and you're talking about $5k that people need to lose to support that one player. At $1000/wk, every week, that's 5 regular $50k/yr losers needed to support that one full-time 40/80 player.

This dynamic is so much better on the Internet and in smaller games where countless numbers of people can lose a couple hundred here and there, plus the huge field low buyin tourneys also help things out a lot.

[chezlaw]

Whilst new players join faster than the old players go bust I don't seen how the rake taking money out of the game matters very much.

The size of the pool of potential players is so massive compared to the pool of existing players that there is no serious fear of it drying up for a long time especially as it is probably being replenished by children (with a good chance of becoming players) coming of age faster than players are going broke.

I also don't think its a fad. People love to play poker and did long before it was on TV. It just used to be difficult for most people to find a regular game especially outside the US.

Thoughts from an optimist /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Chezlaw

[djack]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a good point. The whole "everyone plays in college now and college kids get jobs" thing is tough to argue against too. Many of those people will stop playing after college, but it's reasonable to assume that some non-trivial percentage of them will continue playing, and for higher stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really is true. At Rice, everyone plays, and still most of them are pretty bad.

I've played with kids who are brilliant, but haven't figured out this poker thing yet.

[Phat Mack]

Euchre is a fun game. I think it's Parlett who says that euchre was the most popular american card game at the turn of the 20th century. In fact, the word "joker" comes from the German spelling of the game. The joker was originally used as the highest trump, followed by the right and left bower, although I've never played it that way.

[Clarkmeister]

Prior to poker I used to crush both Yahoo and Cases Ladder euchre ladders. I love that game.

[lunchmeat]

At Foxwoods there are usually more stud games going than hold 'em games, but the recent poker boom has pretty much been limited to hold 'em. The stud games at FW are widely known to be soft, yet the new players don't seem to be flocking to them. So if the stud games can remain juicy without lots of new players, it stands to reason that the hold 'em games will stay nice once the allure of tv poker wears off.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
I've played with kids who are brilliant, but haven't figured out this poker thing yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. This is important. People can 'improve' at poker almost indefinitely without actually getting good. How many table coaches have you met who say wildly inaccurate things almost non-stop? These people lose more slowly, perhaps even break almost even because they start to understand how the game flows, but they still lose to the good players consistently.

The important thing is the ratio of good players to poor players. I would posit that the influx of bad players combines with the mediocre players to dilute the overall quality and therefore lessen the drain on sustainability. What's important is that the vast majority of the players are at a comparably poor level.

I don't know how much sense this makes but intuitively it seems to address the concern that regular players will kill off the fish... in other words, you could sit at three different tables for a few hours each at some places and run into one good player, or none. However, there are probably far fewer truly solid players at the small-stakes games I play, giving me a false sense of security about how many fish are actually in the sea. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Just my .02, I'm really just speculating.

NT

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Have the blackjack, craps, and roulette games dried up in casinos around the country?


[/ QUOTE ]


exactly.

if you are going to talk about the poker-boom fading you also have to acknowledge the more general GAMBLING boom.

i've made this argument before...but i'll repeat it just for kicks...

when AC legalized gambling (early 80's i think) there were many who said it wouldn't work...because people liked to go to Vegas to gamble and there just weren't enough gamblers on both coasts.

when the riverboats started in Mississippi there were many nay-sayers who said LV and AC had the gambling market cornered. there just aren't enough southern/midwestern gamblers who would want to play on the boats because they like the bigger vacations of going to LV or AC.

the same thing happened when they opened casinos in a variety of other states including CT, IN, IL, IA, MO, MI, WI, MN, WA, NY (turning stone) etc etc.

25 years ago....ANYONE would have looked at this propsective map of casinos and said 'This will never work!! People just don't have THAT much money that they can reasonably afford to lose.'
if you said that 25 years ago 'what would the affect be if these midwest boats just packed in so many gamblers that they could hardly keep up??' your reaction might have been 'i bet this takes SOOOO much away from LV that the whole town will wind up in ruins.'


well...as we all know...for the most part...the more casinos they build, the more they want to play.
LV tourism is bigger than ever.


for this reason...i just don't buy the argument that 'the players are going to run out of money eventually'.
they are learning to enjoy poker...just like they learned to enjoy BJ, roulette, slots, craps, etc.

and time after time after time the general public has proven that they don't really seem to give THAT much of a damn how much money they are losing.
there are always plenty of players willing to go back and lose more and more.
there are just too many people out there who are too irresponsible with their money and/or have a high amount of disposable income.

[JoeU]

Joe,

This is unbelieveably well put. I remember some of my first trips to Foxwoods, walking downstairs into the poker room (where it was originally)to use the bathroom and thinking "I could never play here. Everyone here is a PROFESSIONAL! I'd get killed!". Then I took the time to learn the game after seeing the WSOP on the Discovery Channel. Today, I have absolutely no fear walking into a poker room and playing. I'm sure "reality tv" has taken some of the blackjack/roulette/craps players from those games and moved them to poker. Most "gamblers" don't stop when the bankroll runs dry (unfortunately), so I suspect that this boom is more like a large wave, and a significant portion of the crowd is here to stay.

Joe

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Clark wrote:
"In other words, enjoy it while it lasts but I'd guess we will all need to improve to continue surviving at whatever level each of us is currently at as the games get tougher.

You think the games are "tougher"? Huh? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

There are people playing 20-40 who NEVER PLAYED A LIVE GAME BEFORE but saw it on TV and thought they would spend a few hours hanging out at the Mirage on dayshift.

There are people who think it might be fun to play shorthanded against Clarkmeister in the 40-80 game cuz they are too stubborn to GO HOME /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

There are people who want to become "pros" cuz they won 8 sessions in a row at 15-30. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

The pool of the tougher opponents you describe is very shallow my dear Best Boy. It's only the really really good players that you want to be concerned about.

The games in the last year are tremendous and I play DAYSHIFT. I can't even imagine how good they are on the other shifts.

LGPG,

Babe /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Bubbagump]

I think a lot of people are over analyzing the current situation. I've posted on this subject before and my take on this is that there were good games to be found before the poker boom and there will be good game to be found after.

The 5-10 hold'em game at foxwoods is a perfect example. Anybody who has played in this game knows that this is currently a really juicy game, and that is largely attributed to the boom. But if you were to sit in this game4 years ago, I would challenge you to find a tighter game anywhere in the country at similar stakes. That said, this game was still beatable when it was a rock garden.

I am not worried about what will happen when the boom is over. There will always be bad players at all levels. My advice to everybody is to take advantage of the current popularity of poker and continue to work on your game. But don't fear that at some point in the near future that all the games are going to dry up and nobody is going to be able to beat the game. This is Hog-wash.

My .02

Bubbagump

[mike l.]

ray this is off topic but if youre in a good 20-40 game do you muck KTs utg? please give me a straightforward answer.

thanks, mike

[mike l.]

"I've been playing some oddball games at this new cardroom in Laughlin. The CRM is from the Silver Star in Mississippi, and supposedly spread these games there. The EV is really good, as the locals here have no idea how to play these games."

could you please tell me about some of the games you are playing there and the limits. the chance to play strange poker games may get me out there yet.

thanks, mike

[mike l.]

"they don't have four card triple draw, btu they have 5 card A-5 and 2-7 triple draw at ultimatebet - both very fun games. . ."

are the games good and how do i play?

thanks, mike

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Clark wrote:
"In other words, enjoy it while it lasts but I'd guess we will all need to improve to continue surviving at whatever level each of us is currently at as the games get tougher.

You think the games are "tougher"? Huh?

[/ QUOTE ]



read the rest of his post.
he did not say that the games are tougher now. he is saying the the fishyness of today's games will eventually peak-out...thus they WILL be getting a bit tougher again in the future.
thus, as the games get tougher, you will need to be prepared to be able to beat those games.


this is why he says 'enjoy it while it lasts'....
this refers to 'enjoy the fishy games while they last'.

[FeliciaLee]

[ QUOTE ]
could you please tell me about some of the games you are playing there and the limits. the chance to play strange poker games may get me out there yet.

thanks, mike

[/ QUOTE ]
He can't get anyone to play a cash game, lol. Right now it's just tournaments. Stud 8 with a two pair qualifier for high. LHE with a Stud river card. Stud 8 (which is an oddball game in Laughlin, believe it or not).

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Hi microbob

Yes, I read the post too quickly. Thanks for pointing it out.

Babe. /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I read the post too quickly

[/ QUOTE ]



something i do almost daily.

i was going to see a doctor about my problem with 'premature response' but i just decided to order the drugs online from canada.
i don't have nearly as many problems with 'premature response' anymore.

[sucka]

I dunno how long it will last, but I played at the Sandia Casino in Albuquerque, NM this last week and half the table knew everything about all the big name poker players but couldn't play their way out of a paper bag. 4 of them sat on the end of the table seeing every flop and arguing about who had the most bracelets, who was the best player, who they liked best, blah blah...

Thank god for the Travel Channel and ESPN's coverage of the WSOP. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[andyfox]

I agree with Ray here. Add to this the fact that the boom is being fueled by no-limit poker, as Jim Rivett indicated in his post. I know a lot of people who didn't play poker at all before who are playing in small buy-in no limit games/tournaments. Most of them are going to lose their poker money pretty quick in no-limit.

[andyfox]

I'd watch 'em all if Penn was on. He's one wild and crazy guy.

[3rdCheckRaise]

I think the ratio of winning player to a losing player is a lot bigger then 5:1 in lower mid limits. Most of the people do not keep accurate records of their winnings and loses( and loses are more important). One winning night in 8-10 sessions makes them come back night after night for more. Lossing 10-15 BB a night is something they can easily do and not notice a serious damage in their budget...

[djack]

I'll go on record as saying that I don't think the peak has hit us yet.

I got good at poker right before the 2003 WSOP, so when it started airing, it was golden for me. I could tell that the games online got softer. But I don't really know what poker games were like a few years ago.

There are tons and tons of college kids playing out there who can't wait to turn 21 so they can go play poker. This will keep the games decent for a long time, I think.

I think the fadness will wear off at some point, but I think poker on tv is hear to stay.

And that's why I just may buy some WPT stock. Caveat: I haven't really analyzed the IPO yet.

[daveymck]

I think we are a long way from the peak of popularity, I cant talk about in the States but here in the UK we are starting to get a number of the main poker programming WPT etc plus some UK based tournies on TV with the final of the poker million being on two weeks ago live on the main UK sports channel.

There is no real casino culture over here with very few people ever visiting one (I have been to one but didnt play as I thought BJ was a mugs game even back then). Deregulation here might help but I suspect we will see the Gutshot model taking off round the UK. A cardroom with also a nice bar, coffee food and internet room but no other casino games. No oppressive casino atsmosphere and they are getting in a young professional crowd, in the last two weeks the beginner night has gone from 70 up to 170 last week, god knows how many will be in tonight.

There is talk of a European Poker Tour and sponsership coming into the game.

I think though it will affect the bottom end of the market some people will graduate to the higher limits but I suspect most will stick to recreational play messing around at the lower limits like at the moment with football they kick a ball round in the park with their mates.

Form the UK perspective I suspect the fact that a number of celebrities (and ones with a clean reputation like Steve Davis who no american will know) are seen to be playing on these tournies on TV takes away the seedyness of it although I still have had to explain to a number of relatives that I am not gambling in the normal sense.

[Sheriff Fatman]

[ QUOTE ]
Form the UK perspective I suspect the fact that a number of celebrities (and ones with a clean reputation like Steve Davis who no american will know)

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily - he plays the Pool circuit nowadays.

[TylerD]

Yea but is anyone actually watching these shows (apart from "us"), I would be really interested in seeing some viewing figures.

[MarkD]

I know lots of non-poker playing people at my work are watching poker on TV. Alas, I don't get the right channels so I am not able to watch it very much but I think it's a good sign that non-players are interested in the game now.

[SinCityGuy]

I've been thinking about this lately. Thirty years ago, a person making 1BB/hr in a 15/30 game was making a decent wage. Today, $30/hr is probably a lower middle-class wage. Twenty or thirty years from now, it might even be close to minimum wage.

In normal occupations, jobs periodically get cost-of-living increases. This doesn't happen in poker. If you don't move up in limits, you will not be able to keep up with the cost of living in the long run.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
Have the blackjack, craps, and roulette games dried up in casinos around the country?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is a difference. Those are pure action games. In comparision poker is woefully slowpaced. Plus at a place like the Bellagio you often have to wait 30 to 60 minutes just to get in a game. Plus there is the stigma of real professionals. I know people who won't go near a poker room for this fact alone. They (rightfully) feel they will be picked clean. The poker fish don't feel this way but lots of people who gamble do. They will risk dropping lots of money at blackjack or craps but won't risk looking like an idiot in poker.

[Ulysses]

People who think gambling at poker is like gambling at blackjack and craps most likely haven't played very much blackjack or craps.

[Ed S.]

[ QUOTE ]
Prior to poker I used to crush both Yahoo and Cases Ladder euchre ladders. I love that game

[/ QUOTE ]


I still play every now and then at yahoo. But it's been mainly online poker. But I'd be interested what your username was while you played. If you played in cases ladder and played yahoo ladders then odds are that there is a great likelyhood I would know you or know of you.


/images/graemlins/wink.gif


Ed S.

[playerfl]

I think that the total number of long term poker players has been more or less permanently increased.

Most people who play poker do it occasionally for fun and don't really expect to win, and don't even have a bankroll to begin with, so losing a bankroll is not on their minds. If they can have fun while losing $5/hr they will do it on an occassional basis indefinitely as long as they have some winning sessions.

Ultimately I think that online limit poker will be taken over by bots and collusion teams, but otherwise I'm optimistic.

[playerfl]

Omaha has shown a large pickup in interest over the past few weeks due to tv coverage.

[Coilean]

[ QUOTE ]
Thirty years ago, a person making 1BB/hr in a 15/30 game was making a decent wage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thirty years ago there were probably far fewer 15-30 games spread in the country than there are 80-160 games spread today. I've heard a few of the old codgers around here talk about when the 10-20 game at the Nugget was one of the biggest regularly spread LHE games in the country back in the day (they were talking about the early 70's IIRC). So, I would contend the stakes of your average poker games already go up proportionally to the rate of inflation.

[baggins]

[ QUOTE ]
Prior to poker I used to crush both Yahoo and Cases Ladder euchre ladders. I love that game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I used to play Yahoo's Euchre ladder. When I was playing consistently, I was in the top 200.

I love Euchre. I love it second only to poker. and only because I can make money easily at Euchre. I have yet to play Euchre for cash.

[hillbilly]

mike, you can't give uncle ray's buddies a hard time (you know, like telling guys that have a combined gajillion hands, books, experience, and whatnot, that they are wrong alot) and then expect him to answer a simple question that clarkmeister already gave you an answer to....it just doesn't work that way...

but the short answer is yes, if the game is right and you play poker well...there is more in hpfap on this...try the loose games section..

you're sic of holdem anyways maybe order ray's hi-lo book direct from him and terrorize the 8 or better games awhile and all will be forgiven...

[Joe Tall]

Flipping between the Red Sox and Sportscenter right now, ESPN has a countdown clock to the next World Series of Poker episode, 2:56:17 and counting.

Crazy it is,
Joe Tall

[adios]

Low buy in tournaments will last for quite some time methinks. I've seen poker when it was new to an area and people got busted fairly fast but oh were the games good while it lasted. I think your time table is about right. I'd be thinking about cashing in on some on some of the no limit action that seems to becoming more popular.

[mike l.]

"maybe order ray's hi-lo book"

you dont think ive read and reread that? puh-leeze...

anyway ray said it was okay to fold it if i want to, but that i would make money if they game was just right (loose passive, duh i knew that). he said if they are somewhat aggressive preflop (they are) i should dump. so there.

so bottom line: i know what im doing, im a genius (please check my post "more expert play" currently on mid stakes for details), and clarkmeister is wrong.

i think gabe liked my fold too although he has too much of a poker face for me to really know.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

Thirty years ago, a person making 1BB/hr in a 15/30 game was making a decent wage.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Thirty years ago there were probably far fewer 15-30 games spread in the country than there are 80-160 games spread today.

[/ QUOTE ]


i agree.

just reading some of the slightly older books where they talk about playing 1/2 or 2/4 hold-em. not many B&amp;M csinos even spread these games anymore. usually 3/6 or 4/8 is the smallest HE table (although i know there are SOME 2/4 games out there..just not as many).


$30/hr is still a decent income. not HUGE or anything...but certainly not low-middle imo.

$30/hr X 40 hrs wk = $1200/wk X 50 weeks = $60k/yr

i don't think a $60k/yr job is anything to sneeze at.
$60k today isn't what it was 20 years ago obviously...but it's not exactly minimum-wage.

[Big O]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's one random datapoint. I used to watch most of the poker shows on TV. Now I'm starting to get bored of them and don't watch most of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to aggree. I watch the whole last season of WPT now I catch it if I am around and interested.

[glen]

"are the games good and how do i play?"

Well, they usually are not full games, and they are not as good as holdem games for the limits, but just start an account at ultimatebet, and we'll get the guys and get fun game going, like our commerce game, but online /images/graemlins/smile.gif. . . .it's a nice change of pace from holdem and it's just fun to try to just one's poker skills in a new game. You will especially like the numerous opportunities for river check-raises, bluff raises, and river bluff check-raises. . .

[tolbiny]

is 25 years a big enough sample? During those 25 years the average amount of debt that an american carries has increased dramatically. This is probably the bubble that will cause things to backslide- a period of low to negative economic growth when banks/credit cards are unwilling to take the losses (individual, not overall) that are likely to come.

[JTG51]

That is of course true. I wasn't really trying to imply that poker is like those games, just that I don't think the money will dry up as fast as others do.

[EWillers]

[ QUOTE ]
And I think that in the relatively near future, the legal issue of internet gambling in this country will be addressed. The ultimate solution is predictable. The government cannot stop it, so they will attempt to regulate it and to tax it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just like was done with (currently) illicit drugs and prostituion?

I'm not sure what the rationale is for our (US) government when it comes to "allowing" what some may consider to be sinful behaviour. One thing I believe is certain, I can find no rationale.

I think there is a decent chance that some of the more Puritanical forces at work in the US goverment may win out ultimately and the overt legalisation of on-line gaming in the US may have to wait until after passage of the "Patriotic Crack Revitialisation Act".

[CORed]

I hope the poker fad lasts a while longer, but reality TV can't go away soon enough for me. Five minutes of "Fear Factor" or "The Batchelor" makes me nostalgic about such gems as "Gilligan's Island", "My Mother the Car" and "Mr. Ed".