Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="zachvac, post: 1230743, member: 26306"] Easy, being on TV and popular is more prestigious. Here's where I believe you're wrong or at least not seeing the full picture. How is poker self-supporting? First you have all the people who make money from the game and play it for money. Then you have recreational players who make it possible for those people to make money. Without the recreational players poker dies. It doesn't support itself because no one wants to play it anymore. It would be just like chess for money. So the way to keep it self-supporting is to keep pumping in recreational players with their dead money. No TV and what incentive does someone have to put up 50k to play in a game they have no edge? Again it'd be like if there were a world series of chess where you pay 50k to play against a grandmaster. Why would you do it unless you knew you had the advantage? Out of the fun of chess? Now change it to being on TV and knowing if you get lucky you could tell all your friends about it and they'd see in the media and all that. All of a sudden it's a lot more appealing to them. So that's part of it being self-supporting, is people being willing to pay 50k for an event they are not +ev in. If they weren't the game would die, pure and simple. Here's the problem. Anyone with any knowledge of poker at all knows there's a ton of luck in tournaments. The winner of the HORSE event is never regarded as the best HORSE player. In fact ask people who don't play poker how much a bracelet means and I'm guessing they think it means a hell of a lot more than someone who does play thinks it does. The prestige is in the air time. All the casual gamblers seeing you on TV and thinking you must be the best. Case in point Allen Cunningham was the best player at the final table a few years ago for the WSOP ME hands down imo. Yet Jamie Gold won the thing. If it were not on TV Gold wouldn't even be known we'd think "wow what a luckbox we'll never see him again". But because of TV now everyone knows him. The prestige of the event in it being on TV and heavily advertised is why Jamie Gold is famous. Here's a good example, how many people in the US know who won the world cup for soccer last year? How many know who won the Little League World Series? How many know who won the D3 college world series? My guess is about a million times more know who won the 2nd than know the 1st or 3rd even though it's the least prestegious event on its merits. But it's on espn and the other 2 are not (or if the world cup is it's not nearly as publicized). Take nlhe out of the final table of HORSE and it turns into something like the D3 world series. All the hard-core poker players will know who won and stuff but there's no fame involved while if it is changed to nlhe and televised it could quite possibly be that the winner is more highly regarded by the casual poker audience than the winner of the ME. I wasn't saying poker would take a hit with the HORSE event not being televised, I said the HORSE event would take a hit. In a few years it'd be like the WSOP used to be, 10 people playing for the bracelet because no one wants to play in a field full of really really solid pros other than the really really solid pros themselves and there are no fish to increase the prize pool. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us