How Broken is the Poker Economy Really?

For a long while now, we have been hearing tales of how badly poker is doing, and how, compared to the boom years (from post- Moneymaker 2004 until Black Friday hit in 2011), the game has been in steep decline. But just how true is this?

Over at Parttimepoker.com, poker journalist Steve Ruddock has his own views on this seemingly perpetually-held ‘truth’ – and they make for surprising reading, as well as offering a completely new perspective on how we should be approaching the modern game as we know it.

In a piece entitled “Poker Isn’t Broken; It’s Mildly Sprained”, Ruddock argues that if we take away the glory years 2004-11, it is clear thatthe game has never been in better shape.

But how can we simply ignore the ‘boom’, which, as always happens, has led to the present-day ‘bust’?

By simply reconsidering what actually happened after Moneymaker’s big win in 2003, claims Ruddock, and realizing that those years which followed were a ‘bubble’ rather than a ‘boom’.

This may seem like semantics at first sight, but it is far from it.

‘Boom and Bust’…or Bubble and Bruise?

Most everyone agrees that poker boomed from 2003 onwards – a combined result of several factors. One of these was Moneymaker turning his $39 PokerStars satellite win into the Main Event bracelet and $2.5million – a remarkable feat which drew millions of new players into both the online game and bricks and mortar casinos in the hope of recreating his success.

At around the same time, the WPT found a home for their debut season of televised events on the Travel Channel, which was basically poker’s first big outing on mainstream cable TV in the US.

The game boomed because people could see it on their TV’s, they could play it online, they could even win money without being very good at the game…and so it became a boom.

The poker ‘bust’, which could be classed as anywhere from 2006 to 2011 depending on how you look at it, was a painful affair. The passing of the UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act) in 2006 –often referred to as Black Monday - basically forced many sites to stop accepting players from the US – and Black Friday in 2011, where the Act was actually enforced to the nth degree, killed off the vast majority of US-based online poker up to the present day.

As Ruddock argues:

He uses Nevada as an example, citing the 100+ poker rooms, 900 tables, and $160million per year turnover of the ‘boom’ years now having declined to some 76 rooms, 700 tables and $118million in takings. A big drop indeed – catastrophic by most business standards it could be argued – a bust even.

However, appearances can be deceptive – and 99% of people agreeing on something doesn’t have to make it true. If you imagine a line between the poker revenue of the years from 1992 to 2015, as Ruddock does, it gradually increases – a steady growth. A boom and continued growth thereafter would see a sharp rise and then a steady uphill trend.

But what if it was just a bubble? How would that look?

A slight growth – a few years of bubble – and then slight growth again? Exactly what Ruddock proposes:

The ‘bubble and bruise’ theory, as I prefer to term Ruddock’s ideas (apologies sir!) is a way of viewing things from a more positive slant. We find it difficult to recreate a ‘boom’? Then don’t, just slowly improve things as though the ‘boom’ had never really existed.

The future?

In an article I wrote six months ago, I waxed (perhaps too lyrically at times) on the boom and bust of the poker world – but some of it seems to ring true with Ruddock and perhaps others:

“Everything goes in cycles. Decades of boom and bust, ups-and-downs, peaks and troughs. There is no reason to believe that poker is any different,” I wrote – and still stand by, to an extent.

Ruddock’s view takes a different tack:

My own provisos for another boom could equally be placed at the door of a push to simply improve what we already have, whenever we get the chance:

Steve Ruddock seems to agree with me in part (which is nice, as I enjoy his ‘intuitive-plus-knowledge-and-research’ approach to poker journalism very much):

He concludes his interesting article by stating:

So, there we have it folks. Don’t expect another boom, but if it happens, all well and good. Think of those glory years instead as a welcome bubble, a boost to the game and your pocket (hopefully) which created a thousand new ideas. Long live the bubble!