Pejman asks:
A couple of weeks ago, I was with a law school friend of mine, and we wondered at the sudden popularity of poker. Various tournaments are now shown on TV, with Texas Hold’Em being the most popular version of the game. What accounted for the poker renaissance?
He then links to this Justin Peters Washington Monthly feature which contains awhole bunch of generational psycho-babble gobbledy-gook.
I can tell Pejman what has caused the increase in popularity in poker in several words (and, in fairness, Peters does reference one aspect deep in his piece):
Keyhole Cameras and Satellite Freeze-outs
Poker has been televised for years, starting with the Texas crew and Binion’s World Series of Poker. The problem was, it was about as exciting as watching the America’s Cup. You had no idea what was going on, but with the keyhole camera, you know what people have when they are playing, and it makes the show exciting and dynamic.
Satellite freeze-outs made it exciting for everyone to play, because instead of the old stylewith the cronies playing for a few days and then voting on a winner, you played until someone had all the chips. Add to that the concept of anyone being able to somehow make it to the top (see Moneymaker, Chris), and you start to catch the drift.
I am as big a fan of the internet as anyone, but claiming the internet caused the increase in popularity is as silly as the rest of the psychological nonsense in Peters piece. The interest was caused by the television, and ther internet merely provided an outlet to fulfill the thirst for the game.
And, btw, the reason Hold ‘Em is the most popular is because it is the purest form of poker. It really is that simple.
M. Scott Eiland
Tournament Hold’Em also has a feature to prevent the really “tight” players from staying out of too many pots: the blind bets and (later) the antes go up every so often–if you don’t start playing more hands, that’s going to eat up your stake before long.
The freeze-out feature has been around for a while–the first WSOP conducted under that format (involving six players) was in 1971. The hole card camera is definitely the best new feature–there were some great hands last year when players pulled off some great bluffs (I remember Scotty Nguyen pulling in a $200,000 pot holding an 8-3 offsuit when his opponent folded a far better hand), and being able to see the cards they were working with definitely made the viewing experience more interesting.
Matthew
What is the freeze out feature?
rkb
I don’t watch online or televised poker, but had to chuckle at the thought that it is somehow especially characteristic of this generation of young adults.
Waaayyyy back in the early 70’s there were regular poker and hearts games, for money, at my undergrad school. I played in either, although more often in hearts.
Then, in a long run, I managed to a) lose next semester’s tuition money (from a loan) and then b) win it back with one week to go before the current term ended.
Last time I ever played cards for money. LOL
M. Scott Eiland
“What is the freeze out feature?”
It means that everyone starts with the same amount of money (in the case of the main no-limit event of the World Series of Poker, it’s $10,000), and when you lose it you’re out, with no chance for further buy-ins. IIRC, about eight hundred people paid the $10,000 entry price for the WSOP main event last year–most go home without a cent of that money. Chris Moneymaker–an accountant who won his entry fee by winning a $40 buy-in online tournament–won last year’s main event and over $2 million. Not too shabby for someone who was considered “dead money” when he walked into Binion’s.
ape
i think the reason hold ’em is the most popular is that it works best when you’re playing for a pot.. the choices at the start are pretty limited and relate greatly to chip distribution – but after a point you HAVE to play, chancing it on the ‘river’.
weirdly though (ive seen stats on this) the best players still accumulate fairly steadily and only play hands they can win.
this all said, i hate the game and will don’t see how it’s more ‘pure’ than 5 card draw. that’s the best for the normal social situation where people come with their own amount of money and might wish to have the choice to take few risks and go home with what they came with. hold ’em is also very tedious in a social game if you fold at the outset.
Scott Chaffin
John, I didn’t know you were a poker-head. You should check out some of the poker bloggers, if you like that stuff.
Ape, hold-em is the Cadillac of poker (so says Doyle), not of social games. I agree stud and draw and Anaconda and Mexican sweat are more fun at a loose home game. Don’t play hold-em if you’re looking to have a good time drinking beer with your buddies. (I don’t.) Do play hold-em if you want to see how good you and they are at poker (they never want to do that.)
That’s a dumb article, too. All right, then…