Jump to content

will poker ever be credible?


Recommended Posts

Poker, as gambling, seems to have an insurmountable psychological barrier it must overcome to be taken seriously by the general population. Even with all the new media attention and all of the literature dedicated to strategy, can it be taken seriously as a game of skill (I'm not necessarily saying sport, but a game such as chess)? I personally don't believe so. I think poker will continue to attract enough of the compulsive and addictive personalities to retain the perception of a game of chance, with some skill. Reading all of the posters on the "would you cheat if you could thread" made me wonder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno, but it's come a long way, hundreds of miles from where it was just a few years ago. It seems as certain professional players of high charactor (I'd insert the obvious name here but even I can't suck up that bad :club: ) have gotten more attention that it has helped improve the image of poker considerably.Yet there will always be doubters/haters/critics/ horrible players/etc. You'll never make everyone happy, so just ignore the nay sayers and press on I guess.And I agree that the earlier thread about cheating is very disturbing. I can only hope those folks were trying to be outrageous and funny. I'd rather lose my money than my integrity.Best...

Link to post
Share on other sites

well that thread was interesting, because it raises much the same ethical dilemma as stealing satellite signals or downloading movies/music does. You could argue that the other people come to the tables with a reasonable expectation that they will lose their money, so when they do, it's not as if something unexpected has happened. Obviously it's wrong, but there are varying degrees of wrong, and people are continually finding ways to justify immorality.Anyway, my original point was gambling attracts degenerative personalities moreso than other games do, and since poker is still gambling, it will always be associated with that degenerative and addictive personality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Poker won't be credible while the prize pools from tournaments are still made up of player buy-ins. Only when the money is provided from sponsorships and TV deals, so that pros don't have to risk there own money, will poker ever reach the respectibility of tennis or golf. The PPT is definitely a step in the right direction, if it ever gets a TV deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Poker won't be credible while the prize pools from tournaments are still made up of player buy-ins.  Only when the money is provided from sponsorships and TV deals, so that pros don't have to risk there own money, will poker ever reach the respectibility of tennis or golf.  The PPT is definitely a step in the right direction, if it ever gets a TV deal.
that kind of defeats the whole purpose of the game though...
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see Poker getting credibility in the way Chess does -- though more mainstream people are paying attention to poker now than Chess. But I don't see poker being considered a "thinking man's game" in the way chess is.But I don't really see this as a negative at all. If poker can just be upgraded from plain "gambling" to "gambling where better players have an advantage in the long run," that will be good enough for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Poker won't be credible while the prize pools from tournaments are still made up of player buy-ins. Only when the money is provided from sponsorships and TV deals, so that pros don't have to risk there own money, will poker ever reach the respectibility of tennis or golf. The PPT is definitely a step in the right direction, if it ever gets a TV deal.
that kind of defeats the whole purpose of the game though...
If the prize pools are made up totally of sponsorship money, I think it would be very difficult do decide who qualifies (and how) for what tournmanets? Would certain players have exemptions to tournies like Tiger Woods does in golf?I think that if sponsorship adds to the prizepool (which I think it should), then it should only enhance the size of the prize pool. The players should still buy in direct for 10k or win a satellite, but instead of 100 players going for a pool of 1 million, sponsorships might make it 1.5 million or more. It would create a nice overlay for all parties involved.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Poker won't be credible while the prize pools from tournaments are still made up of player buy-ins. Only when the money is provided from sponsorships and TV deals, so that pros don't have to risk there own money, will poker ever reach the respectibility of tennis or golf. The PPT is definitely a step in the right direction, if it ever gets a TV deal.
It's more like golf than you think..."Lipscomb followed the model of golf's PGA Tour. In golf, there are no teams or owners, just individual players who enter tournaments as they see fit and pay their own way. The prizes they compete for come mainly from sponsors, not the league itself. International events and players move in and out of the mix, and satellite tournaments have been developed in every corner of the globe."Hard to tell which game he's talking about isn't it?
Link to post
Share on other sites

You could argue that the other people come to the tables with a reasonable expectation that they will lose their money, so when they do, it's not as if something unexpected has happened. But they expect that it should be a fair game; i.e. everyone adhering to the rules of the game. Cheating is against the rules, therefore, people are are not coming to the table expecting their opponents to cheat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see Poker getting credibility in the way Chess does -- though more mainstream people are paying attention to poker now than Chess. But I don't see poker being considered a "thinking man's game" in the way chess is.But I don't really see this as a negative at all. If poker can just be upgraded from plain "gambling" to "gambling where better players have an advantage in the long run," that will be good enough for me.
Umm.. why?Do you really prefer playing against people who think that better players have an advantage and hence read books and so on in order to get better, instead of players who think it's just like craps and gamble away based upon their "feeling" about what the next card will be?
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the prize pools are made up totally of sponsorship money, I think it would be very difficult do decide who qualifies (and how) for what tournmanets? Would certain players have exemptions to tournies like Tiger Woods does in golf? This is a trivial problem. Golf and tennis have elaborate qualifying systems and all the players accept them because they are fair.Tiger Woods is allowed to play in the PGA because of his past results. Long ago he earned his PGA card and of course he's done more than enough to maintain it. Every pro golfer has to achieve certain results over a period of time to maintain his card. Aspiring pros have to go to qualifying school where they get a card for the main tour (for a specified length of time) if they succeed.Entry into tennis touraments is based on ranking points accumulated in the past 12 months. For those a bit lower, there are qualifying rounds before every tournamnet. For those still lower, there is a satellite system that anyone can play to accumulate points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't really compare poker to chess because there's no luck in chess. You can never lose a chess match and say, "wow, he got lucky there." No, he kicked your ass there. That's all there is to it.Golf is much closer to poker. There are so many variables because of the fact that it's played outside, that luck really does come into play. The top golfers are like the top poker players in that they put themselves in position to have the best of it and hope that things go their way. Tiger has been the best for so long because of his ability to deal with the luck problem. If he misses the fairway, or has the ball bounce off the cartpath into the stands, he can recover.Poker has a ways to go before it's on the level of golf or tennis. It'll take a few more years to prove itself to not be a fad. But if it does become a corporate-sponsored event, you can kiss the HORSE dreams goodbye. "Poker" and "No Limit Texas Hold-Em" will become synonyms. But that seems to be happening, anyway, so it probably doesn't matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiger Woods is allowed to play in the PGA because of his past results. Long ago he earned his PGA card and of course he's done more than enough to maintain it. Every pro golfer has to achieve certain results over a period of time to maintain his card. Aspiring pros have to go to qualifying school where they get a card for the main tour (for a specified length of time) if they succeed.Its a top number of players on the money list who keep their card each yearYou can't really compare poker to chess because there's no luck in chess. You can never lose a chess match and say, "wow, he got lucky there." No, he kicked your ass there. That's all there is to it.Thank you,, i wondered why no one posted this yet

Link to post
Share on other sites
Poker won't be credible while the prize pools from tournaments are still made up of player buy-ins. Only when the money is provided from sponsorships and TV deals, so that pros don't have to risk there own money, will poker ever reach the respectibility of tennis or golf. The PPT is definitely a step in the right direction, if it ever gets a TV deal.
that kind of defeats the whole purpose of the game though...
If the prize pools are made up totally of sponsorship money, I think it would be very difficult do decide who qualifies (and how) for what tournmanets? Would certain players have exemptions to tournies like Tiger Woods does in golf?I think that if sponsorship adds to the prizepool (which I think it should), then it should only enhance the size of the prize pool. The players should still buy in direct for 10k or win a satellite, but instead of 100 players going for a pool of 1 million, sponsorships might make it 1.5 million or more. It would create a nice overlay for all parties involved.
As other people have said, why would this be difficult? The PPT has already done it. It's unfortunate that the PPT can't get on TV....I assume its due to the smaller prize pools, but you have to start somewhere. I do think there should be some seats in these events open to qualifiers, just like the US Open in golf allows anyone to compete for a spot by playing in local "satellites". But it should be a limited number of qualifier spots in each tournament..
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only difference with golf marketability and poker is the amount of money the sponors and companies make at the actual site. Think of all the 5 dollar beers you drank while watching Daly chain smoke on the course. Only a handful watch poker live, and i pity every one of them. Part of the drive for sponors is national viewers and the local effect. The money made from concessions and equipment sales alone is almost enough to draw companies in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Poker won't be credible while the prize pools from tournaments are still made up of player buy-ins. Only when the money is provided from sponsorships and TV deals, so that pros don't have to risk there own money, will poker ever reach the respectibility of tennis or golf. The PPT is definitely a step in the right direction, if it ever gets a TV deal.
It's more like golf than you think..."Lipscomb followed the model of golf's PGA Tour. In golf, there are no teams or owners, just individual players who enter tournaments as they see fit and pay their own way. The prizes they compete for come mainly from sponsors, not the league itself. International events and players move in and out of the mix, and satellite tournaments have been developed in every corner of the globe."Hard to tell which game he's talking about isn't it?
few people realize its a couple hundred dollars entry fee for every event on the PGA tour. The amount is less for the nationwide events, but that is not the norm for mini tours. To play on the hooters tour, i believe the membership fee's for the year are something ridiculous like 9K a year. Mini tours are essentially poker and gambling with a little more skill involved.
Link to post
Share on other sites

For poker to be accepted as a legitimate skill game, the first misconception that must be overcome is that playing poker is gambling. Wagering is an aspect of the game that exists, but its not gambling.Legally speaking, there is no one definition of gambling and how poker fits into these definitions. However, the general definitions go further to state that gambling is consideration ($) on the outcome of an event in which skill or chance is prevelant, for a reward ($). Generally speaking, I beleive it can be shown that poker is a game of skill and chance. The degree in which one outweighs the other is in direct proportion to the level that a player relies on to make his decisions. If you take the time to learn the game, play the game and excel, then you will have a higher +EV than a casual player. If you apporach the game like Daniel, then you have an expectation to win. Not because he's lucky, but because he's good at the variables that are important to the game.Now, having all that in mind, it doesn't seem to be that far off from another avenue. Let's take the stock market, where one is required to put up consideration ($) for the chance to win a reward on the unknown outcome of the event (the trading of said stocks). Sounds like gambling to me. But traders will tell you not everyone has equal footing in this game, that being succesful relys on a mix of understanding, knowledge and luck. Well, neither do we as poker players. How many people really truly believe they could consistently play at the level DN or any other well known, succesful player, without investing in their future. I look at poker as an investement of the best kind. The only way things can go south for an individual in poker is if they make the mistakes that send them that way. Only you can control how you play the game.For those of you who are interested, I am writing a paper on this very topic for presentation to the policy makers who govern gambling in my State. When it becomes public, I'll post an Adobe PDF link.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Poker won't be credible while the prize pools from tournaments are still made up of player buy-ins. Only when the money is provided from sponsorships and TV deals, so that pros don't have to risk there own money, will poker ever reach the respectibility of tennis or golf. The PPT is definitely a step in the right direction, if it ever gets a TV deal.
It's more like golf than you think..."Lipscomb followed the model of golf's PGA Tour. In golf, there are no teams or owners, just individual players who enter tournaments as they see fit and pay their own way. The prizes they compete for come mainly from sponsors, not the league itself. International events and players move in and out of the mix, and satellite tournaments have been developed in every corner of the globe."Hard to tell which game he's talking about isn't it?
few people realize its a couple hundred dollars entry fee for every event on the PGA tour. The amount is less for the nationwide events, but that is not the norm for mini tours. To play on the hooters tour, i believe the membership fee's for the year are something ridiculous like 9K a year. Mini tours are essentially poker and gambling with a little more skill involved.
THe entry fee for a PGA event is $2000.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Poker won't be credible while the prize pools from tournaments are still made up of player buy-ins. Only when the money is provided from sponsorships and TV deals, so that pros don't have to risk there own money, will poker ever reach the respectibility of tennis or golf. The PPT is definitely a step in the right direction, if it ever gets a TV deal.
It's more like golf than you think..."Lipscomb followed the model of golf's PGA Tour. In golf, there are no teams or owners, just individual players who enter tournaments as they see fit and pay their own way. The prizes they compete for come mainly from sponsors, not the league itself. International events and players move in and out of the mix, and satellite tournaments have been developed in every corner of the globe."Hard to tell which game he's talking about isn't it?
few people realize its a couple hundred dollars entry fee for every event on the PGA tour. The amount is less for the nationwide events, but that is not the norm for mini tours. To play on the hooters tour, i believe the membership fee's for the year are something ridiculous like 9K a year. Mini tours are essentially poker and gambling with a little more skill involved.
The main price to play on a tour is your travel expenses.Golf Digest had figures on average, and 5 years ago it would cost something like 30- 40k a year for a golf pro to play on the PGA entering a regular amount.You have caddi costs, travel, hotel, meals, entree, etc..
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read that it costs around 70 to 100 K a year to play the WTA or ATP (tennis). This includes hotels and travel, but also coaching, physiotherapy and related expenses. Only the top 100 or so men and top 70 women make enough on tour for it to be profitable. Significant endorsement money is made by the top ten players only.And most players can only survive for about 10 years on tour before age and injuries catch up to them.Poker players have it easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is certainly expensive to travel all over the world on a pro golf or tennis tour. But the key difference is that the winners of these tour events are not gaining their winnings at the expense of the other players. Golf and tennis are positive-sum games for all the competitors, as opposed to poker, which is negative-sum once you county entry fees, etc. Poker tournaments ARE gambling...you have to put up your own money for the chance of winning more. Some people have a better chance than others, but it is still a game of chance. And MOST people playing in poker tournaments will lose it all, as opposed to gold and tennis, where a very large portion of the field comes out of it with a profit.If poker wants to be "legit", its prizes need to come from sponsors and audiences and not the bank accounts of the lesser players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...