The Rise and Fall of Poker
We all know that the game is enjoying unprecedented popularity at the present time, spurred mostly I think by the World Poker Tour, which led to increased interest in the World Series of Poker. Of course, one thing is always certain with the fickle public -- what goes up must come down, eventually. I think that poker is probably at or near its height of popularity right now, and that at some point that popularity will fade significantly. I do think poker's place in the public eye will remain higher than it was just a few years ago, but I just don't think the current degree of interest can be sustained over the long term.
For one, I think we are approaching the saturation point. It's the American way to take something good and publicize it until most people get sick of it, and I think we're getting to the point where there will be a backlash. We're already seeing the beginning of it with reports of "concerned authorities" who fret and frown that teenagers may be getting caught up in "gambling." Well, I've played in some home games where some teenagers have shown up to play, and their style of play certainly should be characterized as gambling, so maybe there's some truth to that.
And then there's the whole gimmick factor. When the network execs start thinking that maybe their latest fad is starting to grow a tad stale with the fickle public, so they start adding little twists to keep it fresh. The first of these in the poker craze was Celebrity Poker Showdown ("Watch has-been celebrities play really bad poker!"). And then there are the specials -- "Ladies Night" or "The Young Guns of Poker."
But then I turned on Poker Royale a couple of weeks ago and was pleasantly surprised. No theatrics, no heightened drama, just 18 people, pros and amateurs alike, playing cards. That's what I like. The cards have enough drama by themselves. I don't need a lot of sideline distractions to keep me interested.
And now I'm disappointed again. A press release this morning has announced that the next incarnation of Poker Royale will be "Poker Royale: Battle of the Sexes." Oh, for crying out loud. Didn't we grow out of this "girls vs. boys" stuff shortly after middle school? The good news about it is that it looks like a pretty good lineup, genitalia notwithstanding. I just dread hearing the stupid comments from the announcers -- "Can the ladies teach the men a thing or two about poker?" Poker Gazette has already reported about this, and since I don't want to pollute my blog with this such crap, you can find it here.
What's next? A heads up contest where the winner gets a million dollars and the loser has to eat a live rat?
TOURNAMENT UPDATE: The first event in the Jack Binion World Poker Open got underway yesterday, the $500 PL Omaha rebuy event. I had eagerly anticipated how the tournament would fare, especially with the WSOP Circuit starting at the same time and the Pokerstars Caribbean Adventure also going on. Well, all of the competition did not decrease the field any. Last year, the same event attracted 259 players, who made a total of 326 rebuys. This year, the event had 281 players, who made a total of 431 rebuys. I don't know what to make of those figures. My gut tells me that the increasing popularity of poker has created a bigger field so that attendance actually increased a little, but that the caliber of the field is somewhat weakened, as evidenced by 105 additional rebuys with only 22 more players. They played the event down to its final 10 last night, and I don't readily recognize any of the names on the list. They are Luis Velador, Ray Weaver, Joe Rutledge, Manelic Minaya, Tommy Grimes, Billy Duarte, B. Nijran, Gene Frank and Randy Edmonson.
FREE MONEY UPDATE: Last night, I was in desperate need of a catch-up night of sleep, so still haven't invested much time in my free money offer at Party Poker. I did play about 60 hands, but didn't catch anything like the cards I did the first night, when I only played 30 hands. In fact, the only truly premium hand I caught all night was KK, at the same time a (thankfully) very short stack caught AA. I didn't improve any, and he didn't need to.
But there was one hand near the end of my play for the night that I am truly proud of. There was one player in the game who was frequently raising. Not too frequently, so as to identify him as a maniac, but frequently enough that I was quite suspicious. For one, I can't remember seeing him win a showdown. He might have, but I don't remember it. Mostly, he was making his money with a pot-sized preflop bet, followed by a pot-sized flop bet, followed by everybody folding. Finally, holding Ad7d, I decided to call one of his pot-sized preflop bets. (I know, not exactly a good hand to get involved in for a huge pot, but I'd had enough of this guy and was willing to gamble on catching a flush or at the very least that he was holding two high cards and I could beat him if I paired my 7.) Everybody else called his preflop bet as well, which would the pot at over $11 after the rake. Sure enough, the flop came all low cards and I paired my 7. (I think it was 479.) So now I'm thinking that if he was holding AK or something similar, I had him beat. The only problem was that the flop was all suited, and it wasn't my diamonds. Leading off, he fired in another pot-sized bet, $11 and change. I only had $21 left in front of me, but when everyone else in the hand folded, I decided I had to make a move and went all-in. He went deep into the tank, using up nearly all of his time before making a decision. At the same time, some other player was urging him to call, saying I was bluffing, even going as far as telling him that she had folded the flush preflop. God, that's tacky. I don't know why she had it in for me. I had made no moves the entire time I was at the table and certainly wasn't ahead. The guy then said in the chat box, "I have rockets." Oh lord, that scared me. There aren't too many players at low limits who are going to fold rockets, no matter what, and I was certain he would call, especially if one of his aces gave him a flush draw. But, with but a couple of seconds left on the timer, he finally folded. Did he really have AA? I don't know, but I would like to think so because it feels pretty damn good to think I bluffed someone off of pocket rockets. That pot put me up $20 for the night, and represents the only profits I made the entire night.
Another thing I wonder -- if he really did have AA, did he make the right call with the information he had? Certainly, if he thought there was a good chance I had a flush and he didn't have a flush draw, then yes, he did make the right call. If one of his aces gave him the flush draw, though, I don't think I could have made that laydown. It was a $10 raise of his $11 bet. The pot was $44, giving him 4:1 on a flush draw with two cards to come. I think he would have to have made that call if he had the flush draw, so I can only assume he didn't. Whatever the case, I am damn glad he folded!
For one, I think we are approaching the saturation point. It's the American way to take something good and publicize it until most people get sick of it, and I think we're getting to the point where there will be a backlash. We're already seeing the beginning of it with reports of "concerned authorities" who fret and frown that teenagers may be getting caught up in "gambling." Well, I've played in some home games where some teenagers have shown up to play, and their style of play certainly should be characterized as gambling, so maybe there's some truth to that.
And then there's the whole gimmick factor. When the network execs start thinking that maybe their latest fad is starting to grow a tad stale with the fickle public, so they start adding little twists to keep it fresh. The first of these in the poker craze was Celebrity Poker Showdown ("Watch has-been celebrities play really bad poker!"). And then there are the specials -- "Ladies Night" or "The Young Guns of Poker."
But then I turned on Poker Royale a couple of weeks ago and was pleasantly surprised. No theatrics, no heightened drama, just 18 people, pros and amateurs alike, playing cards. That's what I like. The cards have enough drama by themselves. I don't need a lot of sideline distractions to keep me interested.
And now I'm disappointed again. A press release this morning has announced that the next incarnation of Poker Royale will be "Poker Royale: Battle of the Sexes." Oh, for crying out loud. Didn't we grow out of this "girls vs. boys" stuff shortly after middle school? The good news about it is that it looks like a pretty good lineup, genitalia notwithstanding. I just dread hearing the stupid comments from the announcers -- "Can the ladies teach the men a thing or two about poker?" Poker Gazette has already reported about this, and since I don't want to pollute my blog with this such crap, you can find it here.
What's next? A heads up contest where the winner gets a million dollars and the loser has to eat a live rat?
TOURNAMENT UPDATE: The first event in the Jack Binion World Poker Open got underway yesterday, the $500 PL Omaha rebuy event. I had eagerly anticipated how the tournament would fare, especially with the WSOP Circuit starting at the same time and the Pokerstars Caribbean Adventure also going on. Well, all of the competition did not decrease the field any. Last year, the same event attracted 259 players, who made a total of 326 rebuys. This year, the event had 281 players, who made a total of 431 rebuys. I don't know what to make of those figures. My gut tells me that the increasing popularity of poker has created a bigger field so that attendance actually increased a little, but that the caliber of the field is somewhat weakened, as evidenced by 105 additional rebuys with only 22 more players. They played the event down to its final 10 last night, and I don't readily recognize any of the names on the list. They are Luis Velador, Ray Weaver, Joe Rutledge, Manelic Minaya, Tommy Grimes, Billy Duarte, B. Nijran, Gene Frank and Randy Edmonson.
FREE MONEY UPDATE: Last night, I was in desperate need of a catch-up night of sleep, so still haven't invested much time in my free money offer at Party Poker. I did play about 60 hands, but didn't catch anything like the cards I did the first night, when I only played 30 hands. In fact, the only truly premium hand I caught all night was KK, at the same time a (thankfully) very short stack caught AA. I didn't improve any, and he didn't need to.
But there was one hand near the end of my play for the night that I am truly proud of. There was one player in the game who was frequently raising. Not too frequently, so as to identify him as a maniac, but frequently enough that I was quite suspicious. For one, I can't remember seeing him win a showdown. He might have, but I don't remember it. Mostly, he was making his money with a pot-sized preflop bet, followed by a pot-sized flop bet, followed by everybody folding. Finally, holding Ad7d, I decided to call one of his pot-sized preflop bets. (I know, not exactly a good hand to get involved in for a huge pot, but I'd had enough of this guy and was willing to gamble on catching a flush or at the very least that he was holding two high cards and I could beat him if I paired my 7.) Everybody else called his preflop bet as well, which would the pot at over $11 after the rake. Sure enough, the flop came all low cards and I paired my 7. (I think it was 479.) So now I'm thinking that if he was holding AK or something similar, I had him beat. The only problem was that the flop was all suited, and it wasn't my diamonds. Leading off, he fired in another pot-sized bet, $11 and change. I only had $21 left in front of me, but when everyone else in the hand folded, I decided I had to make a move and went all-in. He went deep into the tank, using up nearly all of his time before making a decision. At the same time, some other player was urging him to call, saying I was bluffing, even going as far as telling him that she had folded the flush preflop. God, that's tacky. I don't know why she had it in for me. I had made no moves the entire time I was at the table and certainly wasn't ahead. The guy then said in the chat box, "I have rockets." Oh lord, that scared me. There aren't too many players at low limits who are going to fold rockets, no matter what, and I was certain he would call, especially if one of his aces gave him a flush draw. But, with but a couple of seconds left on the timer, he finally folded. Did he really have AA? I don't know, but I would like to think so because it feels pretty damn good to think I bluffed someone off of pocket rockets. That pot put me up $20 for the night, and represents the only profits I made the entire night.
Another thing I wonder -- if he really did have AA, did he make the right call with the information he had? Certainly, if he thought there was a good chance I had a flush and he didn't have a flush draw, then yes, he did make the right call. If one of his aces gave him the flush draw, though, I don't think I could have made that laydown. It was a $10 raise of his $11 bet. The pot was $44, giving him 4:1 on a flush draw with two cards to come. I think he would have to have made that call if he had the flush draw, so I can only assume he didn't. Whatever the case, I am damn glad he folded!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home