#1
|
|||
|
|||
Philosophizing about Rounders
Maybe this is a dumb idea to post, but I just want to throw it out there:
Poker would never be what it is today without "Rounders." Is this a blatantly obvious point, an overstatement, or something that gets overlooked amid the ESPN coverage? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Philosophizing about Rounders
While it did contribute, I think the ESPN and WPT have had way more of an impact.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Philosophizing about Rounders
I think Rounders may have scared away some fish who thought that you had to be Will Hunting to play winning poker. I think the WSOP and WPT makes poker look much easier than it is which has been were the boom came from IMO.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Philosophizing about Rounders
Speaking from my own experience I would never have come to poker if it wasnt for Rounders. Could it be the way the movie approached poker as a skill game, grinding it out, good players winning in the end etc. etc. attracts people who would make good poker players? I dunno, but that seems right to me.
-SmileyEH |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Philosophizing about Rounders
Poker was way popular before Rounders. I did not hear about Rounders until after I started playing poker.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Philosophizing about Rounders
Overstatement to the nth degree. If Rounders was so great for poker, why did all those poker rooms close down in the late 90's and on into 2000-1? Rounders was nowhere near a box-office hit anyway. There's just no comparison between it and what has happened in the past couple years.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Philosophizing about Rounders
rounders was the reason but the boom didn't happen for 4 or 5 years after it came out?? I don't buy it.
I saw Rounders a couple of times BEFORE I knew how to play poker...and thought it was a great movie. And I was more afraid to try to play than anything else because I knew I would get eaten alive in a game I knew nothing about. FWIW - I have yet to see Rounders SINCE knowing what I'm doing as a poker player and would be interested to see what I think of the film now. Internet poker...specifically Party's marketing (as well as the other rooms to a lesser extent) and the acceptance and increasing comfortability of having one's money out there in cyber-space are the big reasons why. WSOP on ESPN and the Chris Moneymaker story (as well as the WPT) are a very close second to the internet-poker marketing to explain the 'poker-boom'. 2 years ago when I started I didn't know if I could trust the sites so I deposited the minimum $50. I had no idea if they would actually give me my money back when I cashed-out. More and more it is increasingly understood that at the major rooms your money is safe. This helps a ton. The internet is far more common-place now then it was even 4 years ago as is the idea of putting your credit-card number online and leaving your money floating in some binary-code virtual-universe. I just don't think Rounders had much to do with it. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Philosophizing about Rounders
I think Rounders had some to do with it, but mostly in an awareness kind of way - it got poker on the minds of the general public and it intrigued many people. I think that WSOP 2002 really got the ball rolling with a good, professional, entertaining broadcast and a new guy winning, although he was the classic uber-geek. Then, WSOP 2003 just blew the top off - the same great coverage on ESPN plus a young, likeable, normal guy who apparently picked up a poker book the day before and turned his $40 online into millions. This was essentially the perfect storm for poker. Not only did it make it look like any Joe Schmoe could do it, but it gave online poker a boost too, since MM came from $40 on a satellite tourney online. Online games gained a lot of credibility here and were very good at seizing the opportunity. I can't imagine a more perfect scenario for poker's popularity than WSOP 2003.
|
|
|