Is the Poker Boom Over?

[spain]

I know a couple of guys who deal poker in Vegas; one at TI and one at The Palms. They both claim that the poker boom is over. They are in the poker room 8 hours a day while working and both play alot when not working. So even though many of usplay in B and M rooms alot(Tunica, Vegas, California, etc.) and even those who only play online, these guys are living it. That said, everytime I go to a poker room in Tunica there are lots of players there. Every trip I make to Vegas, all the good rooms are full of players. Do you think the poker boom is over? Where do you see the future of poker headed?

[Seattle LawDawg]

I know a couple of guys who deal poker in Vegas; one at TI and one at The Palms. They both claim that the poker boom is over. They are in the poker room 8 hours a day while working and both play alot when not working. So even though many of usplay in B and M rooms alot(Tunica, Vegas, California, etc.) and even those who only play online, these guys are living it. That said, everytime I go to a poker room in Tunica there are lots of players there. Every trip I make to Vegas, all the good rooms are full of players. Do you think the poker boom is over? Where do you see the future of poker headed?

 

 

I think it may have peaked for now but I don't expect it to decline to pre-boom numbers. Let's see how many people are in the WSOP main event. I'm taking a break from Hold'em right now but I'm definitely still playing poker.

[Swampnuts]

It would seem like the time is right for it to start fading. It came out nowhere, boomed, and now should decline somewhat.

 

It's still going to be a popular game, but I think it's unrealistic for anyone to think it would keep growing and growing.

[SheikYerbuti]

I know a couple of guys who deal poker in Vegas; one at TI and one at The Palms. They both claim that the poker boom is over. They are in the poker room 8 hours a day while working and both play alot when not working. So even though many of usplay in B and M rooms alot(Tunica, Vegas, California, etc.) and even those who only play online, these guys are living it. That said, everytime I go to a poker room in Tunica there are lots of players there. Every trip I make to Vegas, all the good rooms are full of players. Do you think the poker boom is over? Where do you see the future of poker headed?

 

 

 

Ever since the boom, the Borgata held a big WPT series twice a year, the Borgata Open (September) and the Borgata Winter Open (January). We had so much demand that we started a 3rd annual series, the Summer Open, which is not affiliated with the WPT. We figured it'd only stick around as long as the boom did, then we'd get rid of it. Last year's $1000 buy-in no limit event in the Summer Open had 201 players. We held the same event in this year's series yesterday. We had 350 players.

 

The boom is far from over.

[Timmypg]

The Borgata was pretty crowded. I think I saw you but you were busy so I didn't bother you.

[SheikYerbuti]

The Borgata was pretty crowded. I think I saw you but you were busy so I didn't bother you.

 

 

As George Costanza knows, it's very important to LOOK busy while at work. . . I'm never too busy to meet a FFB enthusiast. Next time chat me up!

 

Did you cash?

[AtomicCEO]

Thank God.

 

Tournament poker is a bastardization of a good game.

[Timmypg]

As George Costanza knows, it's very important to LOOK busy while at work. . . I'm never too busy to meet a FFB enthusiast. Next time chat me up!

 

Did you cash?

 

 

Yes, I grinded my way into 34th place. My poor brother got 46th after getting pocket aces cracked twice.

[whomper]

Not anymore Chief Dick is back from vacation

[Easy n Dirty]

I think it may have peaked for now but I don't expect it to decline to pre-boom numbers. Let's see how many people are in the WSOP main event. I'm taking a break from Hold'em right now but I'm definitely still playing poker.

 

 

I believe alot of online sites are now allowing players who earned WSOP entries via online satellites to take it in cash instead of using it for a main event entry. I'd expect based on that to see the number of main event entries to drop quite a bit from last year, because alot of players would take the $10k rather than go out to Vegas to play. There were 8.773 last year - I could see that number dropping dramatically, maybe even below 6,000, if online players are permitted to take their satellite winnings in cash instead.

[chester]

Thank God.

 

Tournament poker is a bastardization of a good game.

 

 

I agree 100%

[TimC]

Our monthly home game has seen it's numbers cut in half since the peak. We have a hard enough time now getting a full table for a small buy-in tourney...I couldn't even imagine these guys playing a cash game.

 

I agree with EnD that I think the WSOP main event will be a couple thousand less this year.

[Big Country]

I believe alot of online sites are now allowing players who earned WSOP entries via online satellites to take it in cash instead of using it for a main event entry.

 

 

This is not the sites allowing it, this is HArrah's forbidding the online sites from buying entries in the player's names, so they must now give the players cash to buy their own entry. The general feeling as I have read is that this will cause a bit of a decline in the number of online qualifiers that are in as many may take the cash and not enter, or, for those sites that were crediting the enty fee to the winner's online accounts, they either have used some of that money up playing online and now can't enter, or they don';t want ot go through the trouble of withdrawinf the funds, depositing it in their own account (and at that amont it means reporting it as income thus paying taxes), and then buying into the main event.

 

Harrah's says they are preparing for 10,000 players (though I think many have the over under at about 6K), and they have flattened the pay structure this year.

[Big Country]

Thank God.

 

Tournament poker is a bastardization of a good game.

 

 

 

I agree 100%

 

 

Care to elaborate?

[Seattle LawDawg]

I believe alot of online sites are now allowing players who earned WSOP entries via online satellites to take it in cash instead of using it for a main event entry. I'd expect based on that to see the number of main event entries to drop quite a bit from last year, because alot of players would take the $10k rather than go out to Vegas to play. There were 8.773 last year - I could see that number dropping dramatically, maybe even below 6,000, if online players are permitted to take their satellite winnings in cash instead.

 

 

Through most online poker sites, you could take the cash in previous years as well.

[Duchess Jack]

I agree 100%

 

 

I don't know if it is a bastardization of a good game but I find that less tables play dealers choice. When I invite new people to a game I find that I need to tell them when it is 'not' holdem when in the past dealers choice would have been assumed.

[Big Country]

I don't know if it is a bastardization of a good game but I find that less tables play dealers choice. When I invite new people to a game I find that I need to tell them when it is 'not' holdem when in the past dealers choice would have been assumed.

 

 

Tournament poker vs. cash game has nothing to do with game choice.

 

Most people new to the game only know what they see on TV, and Hold Em is the easiest form of poker to give a basic lesson on so that players can follow it, and it can make for good TV.

 

7-Stud is too difficult for most to follow on TV (or in play) as you must keep focus on not just what your board is and what yo ucan draw to, but the board cards of your opponents and what they ca ndraw to and what cards were on the boards of the players that have folded. I've not had a chance to play 7-stud in a while, but it is the first game I played when I really got into poker and I will take my chances in that game against any new breed learn from TV player any day of the week. THe knowledgeable players advantage is a lot larger in that game than it is in Hold Em.

 

Omaha confuses too many of the casual players, thus it is not on TV as much.

 

 

I really am curious to the reasons for Atomic's comment about tournament poker vs. cash games and chester's agreement. They are such different versions of the game.

[Azazello1313]

I really am curious to the reasons for Atomic's comment about tournament poker vs. cash games and chester's agreement. They are such different versions of the game.

 

 

i think he just meant the whole hold 'em phenomenon in general. it got old a long time ago. idjuts everywhere who think they're the chit 'cause they watch tv and use the lingo, but ask them to deal 7-card stud and they're like "what's that?" and since when they see it on TV it's no limit tournament-style with guys going "all-in" all the time, that is how all the schmucks always want to play it. at least, that's what i think atomic was getting at. not so much a distinction between tourney and cash, but between tourney-no-limit-hold'em (the fad) and cash-limit-dealer's-choice (the way weekend poker with your buddies USED to be).

[chester]

i think he just meant the whole hold 'em phenomenon in general. it got old a long time ago. idjuts everywhere who think they're the chit 'cause they watch tv and use the lingo, but ask them to deal 7-card stud and they're like "what's that?" and since when they see it on TV it's no limit tournament-style with guys going "all-in" all the time, that is how all the schmucks always want to play it. at least, that's what i think atomic was getting at. not so much a distinction between tourney and cash, but between tourney-no-limit-hold'em (the fad) and cash-limit-dealer's-choice (the way weekend poker with your buddies USED to be).

 

 

I guess that's basically what I feel (maybe the term bastardization is to harsh).

 

It probably starts with the fact that I hate hold em (I know that's not what your point is) and that's the only tourney poker you get around here - I would much prefer Omaha.

 

But I really dislike the win all or nothing format. I dislike the fact that you can be playing with friends and have to sit and watch for hours if you lose fast. I simply find tournaments very boring to watch and to play. (yeah, they might be exciting on ESPN when they only show the fun hands, not the other 90%.) I like to see actual money coming and going in front of me, not simply a % of the chips.

[Big Country]

IMO, tournaments are stupid for your typical home game. You want ot be able to sit around and shoot the s for a while with your friends, so it should be a cash game at a comfortable limit for all involved, and, I to oprefer to play a variety of games, but, most new players only know or want to play hold em.

 

On the flip side, I really enjoy playing tournaments, because too me it is a very different game than cash poker. It is a different type of challenge with different aspects to be considered. To me, it is a more challenging form of poker.

 

Personally, with hold em, I prefer no limit for tournies, and limit for cash games. Limit cash games is a great way to bust the donks that just watch on TV and can not adjust properly to the different format/type of poker. No Limit cash games are a very new thing. It used to be unheard of to find a no limit cash game in many casinos.

 

I've tried convincing the guys that run the tourney I play in every 4-6 weeks to try out some different games. Those that know poker are more than willing to mix it up... those that only know Hold Em have no clue what they are missing.

[Ramhock]

Not everyone can win, so I think at some point, the less successful players will fall away and the remaining fields will become smaller & more competitive.

[SheikYerbuti]

Not everyone can win, so I think at some point, the less successful players will fall away and the remaining fields will become smaller & more competitive.

 

 

This has been the working theory since 2003, when Chris Moneymaker conviced every stiff in America that you can win millions playing poker. The less successful player do, in fact, fall away. But somehow, they're constantly being replaced with new stiffs with the exact same dream.

 

Remember that Doritos commercial from a few years ago? "Crunch all you want, we'll make more"? Every time a bad player goes broke and leaves the game, my wife and I turn to each other and say "Bust all you want, they'll make more".

[AtomicCEO]

Everybody basically hit on the points BC.

 

All the lingo and slang is gay.

Winner-take-all leaves most people sitting and watching for most of the night.

No-limit makes big stupid moves more important than the cards in your hand.

People think it's cool to be an ass to everyone.

Dealer's choice offers more variety and fun to the night.

 

I remember what "poker night" used to be, and now I know what it would mean if I called people and told them I was having a poker night. It's not the same, and I preferred the old game.

[Big Country]

Everybody basically hit on the points BC.

 

All the lingo and slang is gay.

Winner-take-all leaves most people sitting and watching for most of the night.

No-limit makes big stupid moves more important than the cards in your hand.

People think it's cool to be an ass to everyone.

Dealer's choice offers more variety and fun to the night.

 

I remember what "poker night" used to be, and now I know what it would mean if I called people and told them I was having a poker night. It's not the same, and I preferred the old game.

 

 

So, it is not tournament poker that you have an issue with, it is what the television coverage has done? If a player acts like an a$$ at one of my games, they won't be invited back, and I will tell them why. You don't like the lingo and slang, don't use it. Winner take all with more than 4 or 5 players is a stupid format (see below, but blame falls squarely on the host). No-Limit an Limit are very different games. If all you care about is playing the math for the most part, then stick to hosting a limit game. If you enjoy a more psychological game, then host a no-limit game. Or, do what the WSOP has done and have tourneys that are half no-limit, half limit.

 

IMO, it is up to the host to arrange the game. If you want poker night to be a fun mixed game night with your friends, have it be that. Somehow my dad is perfectly capable of doing that with all of his neighbors and friends, and they all are watching the same poker on TV as the rest of us.

 

Now, when the host of the game only knows what they see on TV, it is a different thing, as it is up to the host to decide what they want their game to be.

 

As yo usaw in my earlier posts, I fully agreed that tournaments are basically a very stupid idea for a home game if the goal is to get together with friends, have a few beers, share stories, harp on wives, etc. With the group I play with, there is a mix of those that only know poker from what they see on TV, and those that actually know poker. So, what we generally do is have a tourney (we get 12-16 players usually) and as players get knocked out, they start up a cash game. Best of both worlds. You get that potential big payout and the thrill of tourney poker where if you bust you are out, and you get the camraderie and the fun of a relaxing cash game.

 

Again, I fully believe the responsibility fully resides on the shoulders of the host to establish the game they want to play. You say you remember what poker night used to be like.... if you are the host, it is your responsibility to make it what you want.

[AtomicCEO]

I hate you and everything you stand for.

 

No, not really. You actually got pretty defensive about it there. I'm just pointing out that the standard idea of "poker" to the masses now has changed. I realize that I can control my own parties. I just prefer to serve wine and talk about my feelings now.