When will the poker fad / bubble end?

[Publos Nemesis]

[Ghazban]

Why is there no choice between 5 years and never?

[USGrant]

I hear a lot about burst bubbles and tighter/smarter players on Party and the like, but when I started playing online during the spring of last year Party averaged about 30K players during its peak hours. It's now double that, so the pond is still stocked.

When it comes to "bubble" theories, I don't think the wisdom of long-time pro's or personal anecdotes from 2+2ers who say that the SNG's and micro cash games are getting tougher to beat is really the best information. I think the only way to measure the thinness of the bubble skin is to look at the # of players on Party and the other big sites (Party may not always be the biggest, but it still has the biggest marketing budget, so unless it makes a big business mistake it will remain the McDonald's of online sites) If these big sites are still at 60K and growing, than the tables are good to go. If they retreat back to their late '03/early '04 levels, then maybe the fish have all been scared off. Maybe in a year or two this will happen, but who knows, maybe not.

[Guthrie]

Next Wednesday at 3 p.m. Eastern.

[CrazyN8]

[ QUOTE ]
Next Wednesday at 3 p.m. Eastern.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
It's now double that, so the pond is still stocked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell, 2+2 is stocked - as of this writing, nearly one fifth of the poll's respondants said the bubble was never going to burst. Even if half of them were being facetious, that still leaves 9% who truly think it's never going to end!

Having the bubble burst doesn't mean that things go back to the scenario immediately before the hype started - if it did, the dot-com crash would have landed us all right back on 28.8 modems and being breathlessly enthralled with even the most pedestrian use of javascript. It simply means that the bubble or fad will die down, as all bubbles and fads do, and you won't see incredibly bad TV show ideas greenlighted simply because they involve poker in some capacity - you'll go back to seeing incredibly bad TV show ideas greenlighted for other reasons.

It seems to me pretty similar to the "chess fever" the nation experienced when Bobby Fischer had his historic championship match against Spassky; for a while, people couldn't get enough of chess - taking their kids to chess classes and tournaments, etc. And then the popularity of the game retreated - to a level higher than it was prior to the fad, of course, but nowhere near where it was at its peak.

So in short, the fact that people see a fad and honestly think "this will never end" worries me slightly.

[SoftcoreRevolt]

I'd say we have 2 good years left, then we need to reevaluate on the turn.

[Freudian]

In 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...

[augie00]

Wow, this isn't the most worn out 2+2 topic ever.

[ZBTHorton]

We have until all the fish go broke, obviously.

[TransientR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's now double that, so the pond is still stocked.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me pretty similar to the "chess fever" the nation experienced when Bobby Fischer had his historic championship match against Spassky; for a while, people couldn't get enough of chess - taking their kids to chess classes and tournaments, etc. And then the popularity of the game retreated - to a level higher than it was prior to the fad, of course, but nowhere near where it was at its peak.

So in short, the fact that people see a fad and honestly think "this will never end" worries me slightly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the poker boom has a good chance to last longer than the chess explosion created by Bobby Fischer. Why? There is no luck in chess. It is a game where the superior player will destroy the inferior player every time.

Now in poker, the superior player will eventually best the inferior player, but the luck element will often allow the inferior player to think he/she is superior, extending the illusion and thrill for the weaker player.

In addition, there is excitement/torment for all in the drop of a card. The eternal allure of gambling....

And poker has a higher psychology factor than other games that have become national fads like chess and backgammon. You can win at poker using psychological tactics in a way that is difficult in backgammon, and rarely possible in chess.

And let us not forget, poker has always been a hugely popular game, if often kept underground.

Frank

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

It seems to me pretty similar to the "chess fever" the nation experienced when Bobby Fischer had his historic championship match against Spassky; for a while, people couldn't get enough of chess - taking their kids to chess classes and tournaments, etc. And then the popularity of the game retreated - to a level higher than it was prior to the fad, of course, but nowhere near where it was at its peak.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt you are aware of how popular chess tournaments are in the U.S. Last year's World Open in Philadelphia drew 1,208 players. It's the biggest tournament of the year and has been regularly drawing 1,000+ players for a lot longer than poker has.

Scholastic tournaments are far more popular now than they have ever been.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt you are aware of how popular chess tournaments are in the U.S. Last year's World Open in Philadelphia drew 1,208 players. It's the biggest tournament of the year and has been regularly drawing 1,000+ players for a lot longer than poker has.

Scholastic tournaments are far more popular now than they have ever been.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am aware of how many people partcipate in chess tournaments - I think the difficulty arises because we are referring to different concepts of popularity. I'm referring to popularity in the sense of "presence in the public consciousness" - even though there are more people playing chess tournaments today, I would argue that the average player is much stronger than they were in the Fischer-Spassky phase, when chess was more popular in the sense that I originally used the word, since more 'fish' were playing then. The same with poker - more fish are playing now, and tournament fields will continue to grow. I argue that it does not necessarily follow from these two facts that the ratio of fish to sharks will remain the same or even increase; as poker has less of a presence in the public eye, I think this ratio will in fact decrease.

Of course, this can also be seen by simple common sense. Many, many people play bridge, but that doesn't mean that whatever tournament decides who the bridge champion(s) of the year are is filled with fish, simply because there's no "World Bridge Tour" on TV and much less of an opportunity for someone who has no chance in the tournament to get the bright idea and motivation to enter.

And that's what the bubble is, after all, from a practical standpoint at least - the fact that right now, the poker waters are the fishiest they have ever been. The bubble is not the fact that gazillions of people play poker now, because gazillions of people play other specific games, and I doubt that anyone would speak with a straight face about "the Monopoly bubble".

[PokrLikeItsProse]

I think that the poker fad will end about one year after porn stops being so popular.

[boondoggle]

As a former chess player I find this amusing. Chess is all but dead. There is no money in chess. Chess has never been a spectator sport nor will it ever be one.

In case you didnt hear the first time...chess is dead.

If I could go back in time, I would go back to watch the greatest ever play, Capa. No one came close to his natural talent--no one. If Capa and fischer play during their primes, Capa wins easily.

He was good. He was the best.

Capablanca lost only 36 games out of 567 in his whole career. He did not lose a single game from 1916 to 1924. Capablanca never had a chess set at home.

You can have fischer.

cheers
Boon

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt you are aware of how popular chess tournaments are in the U.S. Last year's World Open in Philadelphia drew 1,208 players. It's the biggest tournament of the year and has been regularly drawing 1,000+ players for a lot longer than poker has.

Scholastic tournaments are far more popular now than they have ever been.

[/ QUOTE ]

True.

But someone from Ellix Powers' background has never been anywhere near winning a chess tourney.

Poker is the opiate of the masses - Karl Binion

Regards,
Woodguy

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

But someone from Ellix Powers' background has never been anywhere near winning a chess tourney.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I often played with a homeless guy at the Boylston Chess Club in Boston. He was about 1900-2000 USCF strength. He was an even better blitz player.

[Daniel Hoerr]

This is something I think about and say "eh.. Give it another couple years..."

But then I hear all these stories from my friends whose young children watch WPT religiously and have chipsets to organize neighborhood games. We played Legos and Erector Sets at that age and the OLD PEOPLE played card games for the most part. Sure, I was playing family holiday poker games by age 16 or so, but I was a minority and it certainly wasn't something that all the neighborhood kids got together to do.

Last week we were in Idaho visiting some of my wifes family and old friends. I went into her best friends 9 year old sons room and among hand cut-outs of the solar system pasted up everywhere, he had a picture of Phil Ivey and a picture of Chris Ferguson on the wall. I was amazed. We sat and talked about poker and WPT for a good hour. He knew episodes, records, seasons. It was sick. Not only that but he showed me some things he'd learned, like checking a flopped set to a preflop raiser "but only when there's no danger of a straight or a flush"... I was now awed.

Who knows, perhaps we're not watching a fad...

[USGrant]

Holy Smokes, that is a scary story. Nine years old? If Gambler's Anonymous was publicly traded I'd dump everything (including my poker bankroll) into its stock.

[amoeba]

that kid will be taking my money 10 years down the road.

[LargeCents]

[ QUOTE ]
I hear a lot about burst bubbles and tighter/smarter players on Party and the like, but when I started playing online during the spring of last year Party averaged about 30K players during its peak hours. It's now double that, so the pond is still stocked.

When it comes to "bubble" theories, I don't think the wisdom of long-time pro's or personal anecdotes from 2+2ers who say that the SNG's and micro cash games are getting tougher to beat is really the best information. I think the only way to measure the thinness of the bubble skin is to look at the # of players on Party and the other big sites (Party may not always be the biggest, but it still has the biggest marketing budget, so unless it makes a big business mistake it will remain the McDonald's of online sites) If these big sites are still at 60K and growing, than the tables are good to go. If they retreat back to their late '03/early '04 levels, then maybe the fish have all been scared off. Maybe in a year or two this will happen, but who knows, maybe not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love the McDonald's analogy. I actually think there is a perfect similarity. Fast food is a quick fix/hit that "everyone" knows is bad for you. Poker is about the same. I think the fish, deep down, know that poker is as "unhealthy" as any gambling habit, entertainment value or not. I say it's an even money bet which bubble will burst first, fast food or poker. I know neither will burst within my lifetime, so the point is kinda moot for me.

The online/B&M cardrooms/casinos will be virtually as powerful as McDonald's and the other fast food chains with time. If business lags, there's enough money to get some good brains thinking some progressive ideas to bring the customers back. There is too much money involved, now. Poker isn't going away.

[TomBrooks]

I think it will peak in 2007 or 2008, then slowly decline.

[Mike Cuneo]

yesterday

[Walter Pullis]

The bubble will burst at the first sign of overt crookedness, or huge "winner-take-all" TV tourneys where
we find out the final table just chopped it up.

[1p0kerb0y]

[ QUOTE ]


I doubt you are aware of how popular chess tournaments are in the U.S. Last year's World Open in Philadelphia drew 1,208 players. It's the biggest tournament of the year and has been regularly drawing 1,000+ players for a lot longer than poker has.

[/ QUOTE ]

I noticed some chess tournaments have payouts and some do not. Do these work the same way as a poker tournament, where the entrants "buy-in" to the event?

[LargeCents]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I doubt you are aware of how popular chess tournaments are in the U.S. Last year's World Open in Philadelphia drew 1,208 players. It's the biggest tournament of the year and has been regularly drawing 1,000+ players for a lot longer than poker has.

[/ QUOTE ]

I noticed some chess tournaments have payouts and some do not. Do these work the same way as a poker tournament, where the entrants "buy-in" to the event?

[/ QUOTE ]

"basically", yes.

For U.S. tournaments, you must pay membership dues to gain tournament entry, which is maybe 50 bucks a year for adults. These dues subsize the tournaments. You get a monthly magazine, which is terrible, compared to free online chess news sites. So, you are basically paying for the right to play in USCF tournaments.

The entry fees can range from $20 for small tourneys, where the payouts are only like $100 for first place, to $200 for the U.S. Open, where the payout is closer to $10k for first place. I am ballparking, I haven't been involved in tournaments in almost a decade now. Sometimes there is "some" sponser kick in, for the bigger tournaments, but it's still at least 70-80% subsidized by the players.

So, yes, tournament chess is basically "gambling", in the same way as a tournamnet poker, IMO. Poker has a MUCH higher variance though. Heads-up, a top professional poker player is 2-1 at BEST against a mediocre amateur. In chess, a top professional chess player is 1k-1, if not 10k-1 against a mediocre amateur.

[autobet]

That could only mean chess has taken the world by storm.

[deepdowntruth]

Sometime after Beanie Babies.

Oh.