Earlier this week Lee Davy penned a column at CalvinAyre.com where he offered up his thoughts on the Global Poker Index, and whether the increased stature the ranking system has gained under the leadership of Alexandre Dreyfus was the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing for poker.
Davy’s argument boils down to the GPI thrusting the mostly highly skilled players (the top players on the GPI rankings) to the forefront, while some of poker’s biggest characters get bypassed. Davy specifically mentions one of the GPI’s latest projects, the Global Poker Masters, which pits the top ranked players from each country against one another. Instead of an assortment of colorful characters, Lee fears this predominance of highly skilled tacticians could make for some boring viewing and squash the luck element some people still feel the game possesses.
I definitely understand where Lee is coming from on this, and I’m a big fan of having some good “heels” at the poker tables, but we are entering a new era of poker, and as poker, and online poker, becomes more mainstream the need for these types of personalities isn’t quite what it used to be, and the storylines can come from other places.
A good producer can make the game and its players compelling
Think back to the fateful 2003 WSOP final table, where Chris Moneymaker is credited with igniting the Poker Boom.
His story was tremendous, and his name was the piece de resistance, but if we are being honest with ourselves Chris Moneymaker was the most uninteresting and boring person at the 2003 final table.
He didn’t talk. he didn’t really interact with the other players, he didn’t tell stories: He just sat there stoically and played cards. He was everything we complain about when it comes to internet players.
His entire appeal was his back-story, which ESPN built up masterfully.
A larger than life personality is great, but the Laak’s and Hellmuth’s and Tony G’s of the world are just shtick, it’s like performance art. And like performance art their antics can be hit or miss.
Yes they can be mildly amusing (Laak has cracked me up on more than one occasion) but in general their behavior is cringe worthy and not what we should be using to sell our product to mainstream viewers and mainstream advertisers.
When we do get a Laak at the final table or in a televised event, great, but what we should be shooting for is not needing these “personalities” in the first place.
Think of it this way: Ron Artest (AKA Meta World Peace) is an interesting character, as was Dennis Rodman, but the NBA doesn’t prop them up as their stars. Promoting players who are somewhere between obnoxious and loose cannons isn’t the way you represent your brand unless your brand is shit.
Gimmick advertising is for the desperate, and right now I don’t think poker is desperate.
Poker fans are better educated
In 2002/2003 it was common to play against opponents in mid-stakes games that played virtually every hand and only raised a select few (seriously, multiple players at a table would have the equivalent of VPIP/PFR numbers of 80/5) and would fold to any bet if they missed the flop.
in 2014 you have a better chance of seeing Bigfoot than one of these players in a mid-stakes game.
This same growth can also be found in modern poker viewers.
When poker first took off many viewers were so ignorant of the games strategies and theories that the only button they could identify was the one keeping their pants from falling down. Today’s poker audience is more nuanced and has a better grasp of the action. This doesn’t mean personalities at the table are unimportant, but it’s no longer a necessity.
I don’t want cardboard but we can’t force good TV
To make something like the Global Poker Masters work we will need producers that understand how to interview people and how to get poker players to open up.
Unfortunately, there will be instances where the player at the table is the proverbial wet blanket, but that boils down to the luck of the draw (just like when MLB gets a Florida Marlins vs. Cleveland Indians World Series) and we have to take the entertaining shows with the less dramatic, it just is what it is.
Forcing drama and entertainment creates two problems:
- We become reliant on specific players. After all there are only so many entertaining players.
- We are admitting that the product is crap and couldn’t sell itself on its own merits.
Furthermore, you can’t make a superstar, they just are. They have to be the best of the best AND appeal in a positive way to people to be true superstars. Whether it’s because they are likeable, charismatic, or perhaps an underdog story that is easy to root for, there simply has to be something that makes the viewer connect with them and you can’ fabricate this, now does it exist in “heels.”
I’m with Lee that characters are good for poker, but where I think we part ways is in how often these large personalities are needed.
100% up to $3,000 Bonus
Bovada is our most recommended ONLINE CASINO and POKER ROOM for US players with excellent deposit options. Get your 100% signup bonus today.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.