Who's put in about 20,000 hands over the last 2-3 weeks at the .50/$1 NL full ring tables? Why, umm, that'd be me.
It surprises me too. As far as the explanation for such insanity, well, I'm not sure there's a big honking direct one, but more an accumulation of lots of many smaller indirect ones.
I guess more than anything I just got weary of playing less-than-good poker. Lazy poker. Not bad poker necessarily but just poker in which I took no part of the process all that seriously, as far as the results, the effort I put into it, expectations, etc. Which honestly isn't a bad way to approach the game, if you're content with that, as it makes it a hell of a lot more enjoyable and less time-consuming.
But in the end I couldn't help but be a little disgusted with myself, especially given my competitive and stubborn side. Trips to cover assorted WPT tournaments also helped on the motivation side, as far as occasionally running into not-the-finest-specimens of either intelligence or general humanity who are able to consistently pull large sums of money out of the game of poker. I just felt more and more embarrassed as time went by that I'd not only stalled out poker-wise but laid down, taken a nap, stumbled back a few steps, took another nap, considered waking up, but decided to sleep some more.
So I signed up with Cardrunners a month or two ago and dusted off PokerTracker/PokerAce, and basically just tried to start fresh, seeing how many hands I can comfortably grind out, trying to unbreak myself of past bad habits, learn better new ones, all that happy fun crippety-crap.
Grinding .50/$1 was kind of hard at first as far as getting motivated about the stakes, but that's the old thinking rearing its ugly head, and if anything I should probably have stepped down another level while retooling things a bit and absorbing as much info as my tired old poker brain can handle. I've honestly been a bit surprised by the results even at .50/$1 NL, as I'm averaging $20-$25/hr (including rakeback) running 4-6 tables at a time, which isn't bad for those stakes.
No real goals in mind, as far as plans to crush X limit for Y big bets before moving up to Z limits, etc. Just trying to get back to not playing like a impatient monkey and hopefully making a little bit o' scratch at the tables. So far so good but we'll see if it takes or not.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
What I Would Do If I Owned a Company Called Harrah's/Caesar's and Wanted to Make Cash Off of Poker
So again, to recap my previous take(s) on Harrah's/Caesar's changes this year to the WSOP Main Event final table: boo.
With that out of the way, I definitely agree that changes were necessary, so I'm not coming from a belief that the WSOP is sacrosanct and that no sacred cows shall be touched. Last year I got the chance to kick around at five different WPT/WSOP events, from beginning to end, rubbing elbows with players, reporters, spectators, media, and tournament staff, and there were more than a few face-palm moments, where I could only shake my head at the future prospects of poker here in the US.
Tournament poker in the US is most definitely not headed in the right direction, as far as even maintaining the current level of popularity of poker, much less to spur growth to turn it into a spectator sport like NASCAR or horseracing or even, gasp, bowling. And, sadly, the problems are fundamental and running pretty deep, to the point that slapping a band-aid on it by trying to increase the hype surrounding the Main Event final table (which is all Harrah's format change is, even in a best case scenario) is pretty pointless.
The UIGEA restrictions are of course a huge handicap to poker's future (and Harrah's potential to profit from it) but that's outside Harrah's control (well, sort of, if you ignore the whole lobbying aspect), so I'm basically going to ignore that and try to focus on issues that Harrah's faces directly regarding poker that they can directly control.
Once cool thing about my gig with PokerRoom is that I get to hang out with the qualifiers they send to WPT and WSOP tournaments, as my job is more to chronicle the trip and market the experience as opposed to spending my time writing about the same hands and the same pros that other media outlets are doing. Most of the PokerRoom players are playing in their first major live event, so I get to see it through a unique lens, as well as getitng the chance to hear their thoughts on things, what their friends/family/spouses think about the whole thing, etc.
Over and over and over again (and then again, some more) I hear the same thing, which basically amounts to the following statement: "I'm amazed at how un-spectator friendly the entire tournament is." People are amazed that there's now way to see chip counts, no way to identify players and what table they're at, and no way at many tournaments for spectators to even enter the same room that the tournament is being held in. They're usually a little baffled that poker is as popular as it is in the US, as its not like any other sporting event they've ever been to, as far as how difficult it is on spectators and fans to follow the action.
To be fair, the above isn't the fault of Harrah's or the WPT. There's not a dedicated poker room existing in the world right now that can comfortably accommodate tournament fields in excess of 500 players (much less gargantuan WSOP fields), so casinos inevitably have to shoehorn big live tournaments wherever they can, whether that be in generic conference rooms/ballrooms, a mix of the Fontana Room/poker room at the Bellagio, etc. In some cases that space allows for spectators, who are able to watch tables closet to the ropes, but in other cases it doesn't, if the layout of the room prevents it.
Since the spaces used are typically generic and multi-function spaces, there's no infrastructure in place to improve the experience at all for spectators, such as monitors or display screens of any sort to show a camera feed of tables, display chip counts, etc. Likewise, these spaces don't allow for multiple camera feeds of different tables, audio feeds from the tables, or any sort of multimedia experience. They're just big empty spaces that are used for trade shows and conferences or are bars/restaurants that just moonlight as a poker tournament room.
With that in mind, are there solutions to those problems that would make live poker tournaments much more spectator friendly? Well, sure. Chip counts are easy as far as using RFID technology, and slapping up monitors is simple enough to display both chip counts and live camera feeds of multiple tables. Audio feeds are simple enough as well, as far as being able to hear table chatter. Piping all of that to a comfortable location where spectators can enjoy it is, again, pretty trivial. Think sportsbook, but just for poker, with the ability to tune into the table of your choice, kick back, relax, drink a beer, and watch the action. Allowing spectators access to every table in a physical sense is a logistical nightmare but I don't think that's what spectators are really after. Yes, it's really cool to stand a few feet behind Doyle and watch him play, live, in the flesh. But after 15 minutes of that, well, been there, done that, and I think most people would gladly trade standing there for sitting back in a comfortable chair with the ability to watch the action of any table in the tournament.
Yes, it'd just be a live feed without hole cards. Yes, that kind of sucks. But it wouldn't suck that much, and to a random person who walked into that room who'd played poker in college but had never watched a WPT/WSOP broadcast, they'd think it was pretty damn cool.
The above issues are pretty obvious ones to anyone that attends a WPT/WSOP event. Just as the root causes are, as well as the solutions. And again, to be clear, I'm really not blaming most of the casinos for the situation, as they do the best they can given the circumstances. If you host a big live tournament once or twice a year, you make do as best you can to find space for it. It doesn't make any sense for a casino like Fallsview in Niagara Falls to roll out some fancy-dancy set-up such as outlined above if they only host one WPT event a year. It'd make more sense at a place like Bellagio, given the number of tournaments they run each year, but that's a hard, hard sell, given comparatively how little money they make from poker as opposed to a bank of slot machines in the same physical space. Casinos just aren't going to sacrifice the necessary space for such an undertaking when they have more profitable ways of using that real estate.
So is my argument torpedoed then and there, as far as focusing efforts on making live tournament poker more spectator friendly, and focusing on that as far as encouraging future growth instead of random changes to the Main Event final table format? Cool idea but no practical way to implement it? I don't think so, as there's another option. While it's a pretty radical proposal, I think tournament poker would greatly benefit from getting out of the casinos altogether.
I hate to hold up the ill-fated PokerDome as an example of what I'm suggesting, but it's not far off (minus the cheesiness). I'm too lazy to do the math but the majority of big live events are held in Las Vegas, and the trend seems to be heading more and more in that direction. So you're basically talking about creating a space (whether built from the ground up or reconfiguring an existing space somewhere) that's built with poker in mind, and is capable of holding a major live poker event (up to the size of the Main Event) but still provides a comfortable experience for both spectators and players. You'd need raised arena seating where spectators can watch a live featured table, as well as a sportsbook-style lounge where feeds are available for all of the action, free WiFi for poker junkies with laptops, etc. You'd also need the physical space to accomodate a field of 2,000 players, so space for 200 tables, and cameras and mics in place to cover each and every table. You'd need restrooms, food and drink facilities, gaming licenses, and likely nine thousands other things I'm forgetting.
Tall order, indeed. But not impossibly tall, especially considering the resources a company like Harrah's possesses. As far as spectators, you're probably talking about max capacity of at most 2,000-3,000 spectators, as you're simply never going to draw a huge crowd of 50,000+ people to come watch a live poker event. That means you're not talking an impossible large/expensive arena that needs to be created for spectators, or an overall ginormous space, even when you factor in space for the tournament tables. We're used to thinking of it in terms of the cavernous Amazon room packed to the gills with a full starting day field during the Main Event, but there's no reason all the tables have to be in a single big honking room. It's an awe-inspiring sight, true, but you could easily go vertical, and have four or five floors, each with 40-50 tables. That space could be entirely behind the magic curtain and not physically accessed by spectators, with easy access for players to bathrooms and smoking lounges on each level, drink service, monitors with sports of all sorts for the degenerate action junkies, a craps table for TJ, etc.
Another plus is that with a dedicated space it'd be much easier to market poker to the random person that wanders in, ranging from the cheesy sort of thing as far as final table of wax poker legends that you can st with and have your picture taken to a poker Hall of Fame exhibit with assorted memorabilia, as well as informational stuff about satellites, about the game itself (selling the skill versus luck argument), about current legalization efforts and the true realities behind them, etc.
There's also nothing stopping you (aside from gaming regulations and licensing, which I'm glossing over and which could potentially be a roadblock) from running cash games and satellites there as well when there's no big tournament in action, or hosting the final tables of events held at casinos around town (or the US, for that matter, if this delayed Main Event final table format does fly.) Convince some of the big high stakes players to play in a regular big game. Offer space for poker boot camps, tradeshows, and what-not. The facility doesn't necessarily shut down and go dark when there's no major live tournament action going on.
An extra side benefit is that such a setup would make the poker media's job infinitely easier when covering events, which can only be good for the long-term prospects of poker. Any person who has ever covered a poker tournament as media would instantly salivate at being able to tune into a live feed of any table and to know instantly the chip counts and names of every player in the field. What's good for the spectator is good for the media, which can only be good for the game.
As far as drawbacks, well, first and foremost is that it'd be pretty damn expensive. No dodging that, so it'd take someone with deep pockets and a vested interest in poker to make it a reality. It'd also have to be a company with experience of jumping through all the regulatory hoops to make it fly, as well as experience running major live poker tournaments. Someone like, oh, I don't know, Harrah's maybe?
You can argue that basing it outside of existing casinos will make it impossible for the target audience to wander in (casual fan who played poker back in the day but has no idea of the riches that could await them now), but I'm not sure I buy that. Do people somehow wander to the Rio (which isn't exactly located in a prime Strip area) then also walk nine miles down a long hallway away from all bright lights and slot machines only to happen upon, finally, weary and near-death, at this big huge poker tournament that they didn't know about before? I just don't think so, so I think the impact is minimal as far as locating a poker facility outside of an existing casino. It'd be slightly inconvenient to players as it'd be impossible to stumble out of your room and catch an elevator down to the tournament room, but that's already the case for many players, as not all players stay at the Rio, the Bellagio, etc.
So that's my very long-winded completely unsolicited advice to Harrah's. If you want to build up the visibility and popularity of poker in the long run, invest some cash in the short run to make it slick, appealing, and spectator-friendly. Convert all those casual fans to dedicated long-term customers. Stop cramming major live poker tournaments into sterile, unfriendly environments. Do the legwork to build and grow a fanbase instead of milking the WSOP for whatever short-term bang you think you can get. Las Vegas provides you with an unending pipeline of ripe prospects for the picking, who you can easily hook on poker, all of whom go home and then continue to consume your product in televised form (cha-ching). You're currently trying to sell a half-finished product and aren't meeting with the success you'd like. Instead of slapping lipstick on it, take a step back, give it a complete makeover, then take three steps forward.
You're simply never going to see the success you'd like without improving the product and experience itself, which improves its marketability, which increases the chances that television viewership will increase, which improves the odds that more sponsors will sign on, which finally puts you on track to see the sort of revenue and profits that other sports enjoy that offer an intergrated enjoyable experience for fans and players alike. Arbitrary changes such as the new final table format may very well boost interest in the short-term, but that's doomed to fade again in a few years if you don't address some of the root issues plaguing tournament poker at the moment.
With that out of the way, I definitely agree that changes were necessary, so I'm not coming from a belief that the WSOP is sacrosanct and that no sacred cows shall be touched. Last year I got the chance to kick around at five different WPT/WSOP events, from beginning to end, rubbing elbows with players, reporters, spectators, media, and tournament staff, and there were more than a few face-palm moments, where I could only shake my head at the future prospects of poker here in the US.
Tournament poker in the US is most definitely not headed in the right direction, as far as even maintaining the current level of popularity of poker, much less to spur growth to turn it into a spectator sport like NASCAR or horseracing or even, gasp, bowling. And, sadly, the problems are fundamental and running pretty deep, to the point that slapping a band-aid on it by trying to increase the hype surrounding the Main Event final table (which is all Harrah's format change is, even in a best case scenario) is pretty pointless.
The UIGEA restrictions are of course a huge handicap to poker's future (and Harrah's potential to profit from it) but that's outside Harrah's control (well, sort of, if you ignore the whole lobbying aspect), so I'm basically going to ignore that and try to focus on issues that Harrah's faces directly regarding poker that they can directly control.
Once cool thing about my gig with PokerRoom is that I get to hang out with the qualifiers they send to WPT and WSOP tournaments, as my job is more to chronicle the trip and market the experience as opposed to spending my time writing about the same hands and the same pros that other media outlets are doing. Most of the PokerRoom players are playing in their first major live event, so I get to see it through a unique lens, as well as getitng the chance to hear their thoughts on things, what their friends/family/spouses think about the whole thing, etc.
Over and over and over again (and then again, some more) I hear the same thing, which basically amounts to the following statement: "I'm amazed at how un-spectator friendly the entire tournament is." People are amazed that there's now way to see chip counts, no way to identify players and what table they're at, and no way at many tournaments for spectators to even enter the same room that the tournament is being held in. They're usually a little baffled that poker is as popular as it is in the US, as its not like any other sporting event they've ever been to, as far as how difficult it is on spectators and fans to follow the action.
To be fair, the above isn't the fault of Harrah's or the WPT. There's not a dedicated poker room existing in the world right now that can comfortably accommodate tournament fields in excess of 500 players (much less gargantuan WSOP fields), so casinos inevitably have to shoehorn big live tournaments wherever they can, whether that be in generic conference rooms/ballrooms, a mix of the Fontana Room/poker room at the Bellagio, etc. In some cases that space allows for spectators, who are able to watch tables closet to the ropes, but in other cases it doesn't, if the layout of the room prevents it.
Since the spaces used are typically generic and multi-function spaces, there's no infrastructure in place to improve the experience at all for spectators, such as monitors or display screens of any sort to show a camera feed of tables, display chip counts, etc. Likewise, these spaces don't allow for multiple camera feeds of different tables, audio feeds from the tables, or any sort of multimedia experience. They're just big empty spaces that are used for trade shows and conferences or are bars/restaurants that just moonlight as a poker tournament room.
With that in mind, are there solutions to those problems that would make live poker tournaments much more spectator friendly? Well, sure. Chip counts are easy as far as using RFID technology, and slapping up monitors is simple enough to display both chip counts and live camera feeds of multiple tables. Audio feeds are simple enough as well, as far as being able to hear table chatter. Piping all of that to a comfortable location where spectators can enjoy it is, again, pretty trivial. Think sportsbook, but just for poker, with the ability to tune into the table of your choice, kick back, relax, drink a beer, and watch the action. Allowing spectators access to every table in a physical sense is a logistical nightmare but I don't think that's what spectators are really after. Yes, it's really cool to stand a few feet behind Doyle and watch him play, live, in the flesh. But after 15 minutes of that, well, been there, done that, and I think most people would gladly trade standing there for sitting back in a comfortable chair with the ability to watch the action of any table in the tournament.
Yes, it'd just be a live feed without hole cards. Yes, that kind of sucks. But it wouldn't suck that much, and to a random person who walked into that room who'd played poker in college but had never watched a WPT/WSOP broadcast, they'd think it was pretty damn cool.
The above issues are pretty obvious ones to anyone that attends a WPT/WSOP event. Just as the root causes are, as well as the solutions. And again, to be clear, I'm really not blaming most of the casinos for the situation, as they do the best they can given the circumstances. If you host a big live tournament once or twice a year, you make do as best you can to find space for it. It doesn't make any sense for a casino like Fallsview in Niagara Falls to roll out some fancy-dancy set-up such as outlined above if they only host one WPT event a year. It'd make more sense at a place like Bellagio, given the number of tournaments they run each year, but that's a hard, hard sell, given comparatively how little money they make from poker as opposed to a bank of slot machines in the same physical space. Casinos just aren't going to sacrifice the necessary space for such an undertaking when they have more profitable ways of using that real estate.
So is my argument torpedoed then and there, as far as focusing efforts on making live tournament poker more spectator friendly, and focusing on that as far as encouraging future growth instead of random changes to the Main Event final table format? Cool idea but no practical way to implement it? I don't think so, as there's another option. While it's a pretty radical proposal, I think tournament poker would greatly benefit from getting out of the casinos altogether.
I hate to hold up the ill-fated PokerDome as an example of what I'm suggesting, but it's not far off (minus the cheesiness). I'm too lazy to do the math but the majority of big live events are held in Las Vegas, and the trend seems to be heading more and more in that direction. So you're basically talking about creating a space (whether built from the ground up or reconfiguring an existing space somewhere) that's built with poker in mind, and is capable of holding a major live poker event (up to the size of the Main Event) but still provides a comfortable experience for both spectators and players. You'd need raised arena seating where spectators can watch a live featured table, as well as a sportsbook-style lounge where feeds are available for all of the action, free WiFi for poker junkies with laptops, etc. You'd also need the physical space to accomodate a field of 2,000 players, so space for 200 tables, and cameras and mics in place to cover each and every table. You'd need restrooms, food and drink facilities, gaming licenses, and likely nine thousands other things I'm forgetting.
Tall order, indeed. But not impossibly tall, especially considering the resources a company like Harrah's possesses. As far as spectators, you're probably talking about max capacity of at most 2,000-3,000 spectators, as you're simply never going to draw a huge crowd of 50,000+ people to come watch a live poker event. That means you're not talking an impossible large/expensive arena that needs to be created for spectators, or an overall ginormous space, even when you factor in space for the tournament tables. We're used to thinking of it in terms of the cavernous Amazon room packed to the gills with a full starting day field during the Main Event, but there's no reason all the tables have to be in a single big honking room. It's an awe-inspiring sight, true, but you could easily go vertical, and have four or five floors, each with 40-50 tables. That space could be entirely behind the magic curtain and not physically accessed by spectators, with easy access for players to bathrooms and smoking lounges on each level, drink service, monitors with sports of all sorts for the degenerate action junkies, a craps table for TJ, etc.
Another plus is that with a dedicated space it'd be much easier to market poker to the random person that wanders in, ranging from the cheesy sort of thing as far as final table of wax poker legends that you can st with and have your picture taken to a poker Hall of Fame exhibit with assorted memorabilia, as well as informational stuff about satellites, about the game itself (selling the skill versus luck argument), about current legalization efforts and the true realities behind them, etc.
There's also nothing stopping you (aside from gaming regulations and licensing, which I'm glossing over and which could potentially be a roadblock) from running cash games and satellites there as well when there's no big tournament in action, or hosting the final tables of events held at casinos around town (or the US, for that matter, if this delayed Main Event final table format does fly.) Convince some of the big high stakes players to play in a regular big game. Offer space for poker boot camps, tradeshows, and what-not. The facility doesn't necessarily shut down and go dark when there's no major live tournament action going on.
An extra side benefit is that such a setup would make the poker media's job infinitely easier when covering events, which can only be good for the long-term prospects of poker. Any person who has ever covered a poker tournament as media would instantly salivate at being able to tune into a live feed of any table and to know instantly the chip counts and names of every player in the field. What's good for the spectator is good for the media, which can only be good for the game.
As far as drawbacks, well, first and foremost is that it'd be pretty damn expensive. No dodging that, so it'd take someone with deep pockets and a vested interest in poker to make it a reality. It'd also have to be a company with experience of jumping through all the regulatory hoops to make it fly, as well as experience running major live poker tournaments. Someone like, oh, I don't know, Harrah's maybe?
You can argue that basing it outside of existing casinos will make it impossible for the target audience to wander in (casual fan who played poker back in the day but has no idea of the riches that could await them now), but I'm not sure I buy that. Do people somehow wander to the Rio (which isn't exactly located in a prime Strip area) then also walk nine miles down a long hallway away from all bright lights and slot machines only to happen upon, finally, weary and near-death, at this big huge poker tournament that they didn't know about before? I just don't think so, so I think the impact is minimal as far as locating a poker facility outside of an existing casino. It'd be slightly inconvenient to players as it'd be impossible to stumble out of your room and catch an elevator down to the tournament room, but that's already the case for many players, as not all players stay at the Rio, the Bellagio, etc.
So that's my very long-winded completely unsolicited advice to Harrah's. If you want to build up the visibility and popularity of poker in the long run, invest some cash in the short run to make it slick, appealing, and spectator-friendly. Convert all those casual fans to dedicated long-term customers. Stop cramming major live poker tournaments into sterile, unfriendly environments. Do the legwork to build and grow a fanbase instead of milking the WSOP for whatever short-term bang you think you can get. Las Vegas provides you with an unending pipeline of ripe prospects for the picking, who you can easily hook on poker, all of whom go home and then continue to consume your product in televised form (cha-ching). You're currently trying to sell a half-finished product and aren't meeting with the success you'd like. Instead of slapping lipstick on it, take a step back, give it a complete makeover, then take three steps forward.
You're simply never going to see the success you'd like without improving the product and experience itself, which improves its marketability, which increases the chances that television viewership will increase, which improves the odds that more sponsors will sign on, which finally puts you on track to see the sort of revenue and profits that other sports enjoy that offer an intergrated enjoyable experience for fans and players alike. Arbitrary changes such as the new final table format may very well boost interest in the short-term, but that's doomed to fade again in a few years if you don't address some of the root issues plaguing tournament poker at the moment.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
What Should Harrah's Do?
It’s been interesting reading various responses out on the Internet tubes to Harrah’s/Caesar’s WSOP final table changes. I’ve already had my own babble about why I think it’s a bad idea and don’t have much to add, but I find it interesting that perhaps the best argument people can make for it is something along the lines of:
“Eh, why not try it? The more publicity and press that poker gets, the better.”
For me, that gets pretty close to the real crux of the problem, and where I think Harrah’s is truly dropping the ball. Like it or not, they’re in a pretty unique position to drive the future of poker, sitting on not only the WSOP brand but also possessors of many huge honking casinos and an established working relationship with ESPN. If your best answer to boosting poker’s popularity and increasing your long-term profits evokes a shrug of the shoulders and a “Sure, why not, give it a whirl.” from supporters, well, it’s hard for me to believe you’re on the right track.
Harrah’s seems to simply want to cash the checks (and want those checks to be as big as possible) that poker generates for them but shy away from shouldering any responsibility for the future of poker. People have pointed to improvements that Harrah’s has made to the WSOP (simplifying the registration process, improved access to food and facilities, scaling out the tournament to accommodate gargantuan fields, etc.) and granted, that’s all true; Harrah’s has kept the kept the WSOP train on the track despite enormous growth up until last year.
But those are all knee-jerk reactions, really, and not much more. See big problem, fix problem. Ignore small problems until they become big problems. If solution is worse than original problem (i.e. the poker tent), fix problem. They have made incremental progress, which should be pointed out, and each year’s WSOP has been better than the year before from an operational standpoint.
If you look at many of the problems of past years, though, (and foreshadowing problems the new final table format will inevitable cause), a reasonably disturbing trend emerges; Harrah’s couldn’t care less about the spectator or player experience. I mean, sure, they care insofar as they prefer for there to be no problems and for things to run smoothly, but their sole focus is on milking the WSOP for as much money as they can. Which is a reasonable enough focus, but one that potentially is sacrificing the long-term growth and future of poker by chasing short-term dollars.
If someone is willing to pay to sponsor a deck of cards that’s virtually unplayable, sure, sign ‘em up. Wait, what, poker players can’t play with the decks when they’re put into play during the WSOP? Really? Well, shit, okay. Players are squawking about ante chips from a cash game being the same as a big denomination chip in a HORSE tournament? What the hell are they squawking about, we’re talking about cash games and tournaments? People don’t think blinding off an absent stack if a player dies before the final table resumes is a good idea? Why not? If they’re not there, they’re not there, just blind ‘em off. And on and on and on. Pull the stack instead? What does that mean? You're talking Greek or something.
My biggest complaint about the new final table format is that it seems to me a sign of Harrah’s simply giving up and trying one last ditch effort to cash in before unloading the WSOP on someone else a few years down the line, when poker ratings continue to drop and the Main Event field continues to shrink. And who knows, maybe that would be best for poker, depending on who picked up the ball at that point, but the really frustrating thing here is that Harrah’s has the clout and resources to elevate poker into a both a lucrative spectator-friendly and TV-friendly sport, which would be a win-win for both Harrah’s and for poker players.
If you’ve gotten this far (and Jebus bless you if you have), your response to all this blathering is (and should be): “Well, der. Of course Harrah’s is being short-sighted and looking to milk it for what it’s worth. They’re Harrah’s. That’s what companies like Harrah’s do.”
And I can’t argue with that at all. But all this blathering is a bit necessary to set the stage for Part II: What Harrah’s Should Do with the WSOP But Never Will in a Million Billion Years.
“Eh, why not try it? The more publicity and press that poker gets, the better.”
For me, that gets pretty close to the real crux of the problem, and where I think Harrah’s is truly dropping the ball. Like it or not, they’re in a pretty unique position to drive the future of poker, sitting on not only the WSOP brand but also possessors of many huge honking casinos and an established working relationship with ESPN. If your best answer to boosting poker’s popularity and increasing your long-term profits evokes a shrug of the shoulders and a “Sure, why not, give it a whirl.” from supporters, well, it’s hard for me to believe you’re on the right track.
Harrah’s seems to simply want to cash the checks (and want those checks to be as big as possible) that poker generates for them but shy away from shouldering any responsibility for the future of poker. People have pointed to improvements that Harrah’s has made to the WSOP (simplifying the registration process, improved access to food and facilities, scaling out the tournament to accommodate gargantuan fields, etc.) and granted, that’s all true; Harrah’s has kept the kept the WSOP train on the track despite enormous growth up until last year.
But those are all knee-jerk reactions, really, and not much more. See big problem, fix problem. Ignore small problems until they become big problems. If solution is worse than original problem (i.e. the poker tent), fix problem. They have made incremental progress, which should be pointed out, and each year’s WSOP has been better than the year before from an operational standpoint.
If you look at many of the problems of past years, though, (and foreshadowing problems the new final table format will inevitable cause), a reasonably disturbing trend emerges; Harrah’s couldn’t care less about the spectator or player experience. I mean, sure, they care insofar as they prefer for there to be no problems and for things to run smoothly, but their sole focus is on milking the WSOP for as much money as they can. Which is a reasonable enough focus, but one that potentially is sacrificing the long-term growth and future of poker by chasing short-term dollars.
If someone is willing to pay to sponsor a deck of cards that’s virtually unplayable, sure, sign ‘em up. Wait, what, poker players can’t play with the decks when they’re put into play during the WSOP? Really? Well, shit, okay. Players are squawking about ante chips from a cash game being the same as a big denomination chip in a HORSE tournament? What the hell are they squawking about, we’re talking about cash games and tournaments? People don’t think blinding off an absent stack if a player dies before the final table resumes is a good idea? Why not? If they’re not there, they’re not there, just blind ‘em off. And on and on and on. Pull the stack instead? What does that mean? You're talking Greek or something.
My biggest complaint about the new final table format is that it seems to me a sign of Harrah’s simply giving up and trying one last ditch effort to cash in before unloading the WSOP on someone else a few years down the line, when poker ratings continue to drop and the Main Event field continues to shrink. And who knows, maybe that would be best for poker, depending on who picked up the ball at that point, but the really frustrating thing here is that Harrah’s has the clout and resources to elevate poker into a both a lucrative spectator-friendly and TV-friendly sport, which would be a win-win for both Harrah’s and for poker players.
If you’ve gotten this far (and Jebus bless you if you have), your response to all this blathering is (and should be): “Well, der. Of course Harrah’s is being short-sighted and looking to milk it for what it’s worth. They’re Harrah’s. That’s what companies like Harrah’s do.”
And I can’t argue with that at all. But all this blathering is a bit necessary to set the stage for Part II: What Harrah’s Should Do with the WSOP But Never Will in a Million Billion Years.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Worst. Idea. Ever.
Still suffering from the monkey croup I picked up in Vegas, which as hung around for nearly a week now. Boo.
On the brighter side, I did manage a decent score in the $200 Caesar's 7 PM tournament the last night I was in town, finishing 6th to claw my way back to close to even for the trip. Given that I lost two ginormous pots with AA versus A7o and QQ versus 1010 (both all-in pre-flop), not a bad result, although it was disappointing to get bounced when I did with 1st place paying close to $10K.
Apparently Harrah's is serious about this delayed-Main Event-final-table thing, which leads us to the title of this post. I get the point of the move and I've argued myself that the poker industry and poker powers-that-be need to make some serious changes as far as making tournament poker more spectator-friendly, but this attempt is just about the worst way possible of going about that.
The biggest skeleton in the closet of tournament poker (as far as its potential popularity as far as a televised sport) is the fact that final table deals and players owning stakes in other players happens all the freaking time, and will continue to happen. If the results are largely predetermined (or at least the financial outcome, which is all that matters to most players), that obviously takes a lot of drama out of the outcome, if that fact is made public.
If you can keep those facts under wraps, the potential drama remains. So far that's mostly been the case, as your average Joe watching poker on tv has no clue about final table deals and other shenanigans. But pushing out the final table of the Main Event nearly four months is almost guaranteed to result in much talk and speculation about deals being made, as that's the most obvious pitfall that should leap into anyone's head when such an idea is proposed.
With the amount of money at stake and four months to barter, haggle, and horse-trade, it's inevitable that deals are going to be struck. That's not to say that there have never been deals at a Main Event final table, as there most inevitably have been, but now it's virtually guaranteed. And that doesn't even touch on potential collusion, as four months is plenty of time for 2 or more players to come to a financial agreement and put together a fairly sophisticated, non-detectable plan that significantly increases their collective EV. Again, such a thing wasn't impossible under the old system but was very difficult, as you simply didn't have much time to come to an agreement and concoct a plan.
People have raised the issue of players getting coaching in the four month downtime, but to me that's much less of an issue. I mean, sure, a lucksack could use the four months to markedly improve their game, but you're still playing the chip stack you had entering the final table, and there's always going to be an element of randomness at any final table. A few "bad" calls where you suck out could have propelled you to a win back in your lucksack days, where when you learn a bit more you fold those hands, only to get bounced out the next hand when you make the correct play, etc. Since anyone could receive coaching if they so chose, that one seems a wash to me, as a final table simply isn't enough hands for any accumulation of skill to play a significant role.
Not that I put much stock in the history and lore and statistics of poker, but it's also going to make it hard to compare past winners to winners moving forward. Having the time off to rest, recuperate, and plot out your course of action is pretty significant. Not a huge concern, and times they are always changing, but the new format is an entirely different beast than the old one. You can claim that there will be better poker played at the final table, and true, maybe so, but there'd be better poker played throughout the tournament if every other day was a rest day, so that's a bit of a silly claim.
But I'm mainly concerned about deal-making and collusion, as far as the Worst. Idea. Ever. pronouncement. There's way too much money at stake for such questions and concerns not to arise, which is inevitably going to lead to more talk and knowledge about final table deals and players swapping percentages in general, all of which are major obstacles to the potential mass-market appeal of televised poker.
Would the Super Bowl still retain its shine if the general public knew that losing teams regularly lost on purpose because they were promised a larger percentage of the TV revenues by the NFL than they'd otherwise get so that a more "popular" team in a hot new market would be guaranteed to win? Of course not, yet roughly the same thing happens with regularity at the poker tables, each and every major event.
On the brighter side, I did manage a decent score in the $200 Caesar's 7 PM tournament the last night I was in town, finishing 6th to claw my way back to close to even for the trip. Given that I lost two ginormous pots with AA versus A7o and QQ versus 1010 (both all-in pre-flop), not a bad result, although it was disappointing to get bounced when I did with 1st place paying close to $10K.
Apparently Harrah's is serious about this delayed-Main Event-final-table thing, which leads us to the title of this post. I get the point of the move and I've argued myself that the poker industry and poker powers-that-be need to make some serious changes as far as making tournament poker more spectator-friendly, but this attempt is just about the worst way possible of going about that.
The biggest skeleton in the closet of tournament poker (as far as its potential popularity as far as a televised sport) is the fact that final table deals and players owning stakes in other players happens all the freaking time, and will continue to happen. If the results are largely predetermined (or at least the financial outcome, which is all that matters to most players), that obviously takes a lot of drama out of the outcome, if that fact is made public.
If you can keep those facts under wraps, the potential drama remains. So far that's mostly been the case, as your average Joe watching poker on tv has no clue about final table deals and other shenanigans. But pushing out the final table of the Main Event nearly four months is almost guaranteed to result in much talk and speculation about deals being made, as that's the most obvious pitfall that should leap into anyone's head when such an idea is proposed.
With the amount of money at stake and four months to barter, haggle, and horse-trade, it's inevitable that deals are going to be struck. That's not to say that there have never been deals at a Main Event final table, as there most inevitably have been, but now it's virtually guaranteed. And that doesn't even touch on potential collusion, as four months is plenty of time for 2 or more players to come to a financial agreement and put together a fairly sophisticated, non-detectable plan that significantly increases their collective EV. Again, such a thing wasn't impossible under the old system but was very difficult, as you simply didn't have much time to come to an agreement and concoct a plan.
People have raised the issue of players getting coaching in the four month downtime, but to me that's much less of an issue. I mean, sure, a lucksack could use the four months to markedly improve their game, but you're still playing the chip stack you had entering the final table, and there's always going to be an element of randomness at any final table. A few "bad" calls where you suck out could have propelled you to a win back in your lucksack days, where when you learn a bit more you fold those hands, only to get bounced out the next hand when you make the correct play, etc. Since anyone could receive coaching if they so chose, that one seems a wash to me, as a final table simply isn't enough hands for any accumulation of skill to play a significant role.
Not that I put much stock in the history and lore and statistics of poker, but it's also going to make it hard to compare past winners to winners moving forward. Having the time off to rest, recuperate, and plot out your course of action is pretty significant. Not a huge concern, and times they are always changing, but the new format is an entirely different beast than the old one. You can claim that there will be better poker played at the final table, and true, maybe so, but there'd be better poker played throughout the tournament if every other day was a rest day, so that's a bit of a silly claim.
But I'm mainly concerned about deal-making and collusion, as far as the Worst. Idea. Ever. pronouncement. There's way too much money at stake for such questions and concerns not to arise, which is inevitably going to lead to more talk and knowledge about final table deals and players swapping percentages in general, all of which are major obstacles to the potential mass-market appeal of televised poker.
Would the Super Bowl still retain its shine if the general public knew that losing teams regularly lost on purpose because they were promised a larger percentage of the TV revenues by the NFL than they'd otherwise get so that a more "popular" team in a hot new market would be guaranteed to win? Of course not, yet roughly the same thing happens with regularity at the poker tables, each and every major event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)