How Broken is the Poker Economy Really?
7 years ago04 May
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 âtruthâ â 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 âPoker Isnât Broken; Itâs Mildly Sprainedâ, Ruddock argues that if we take away the glory years 2004-11, it is clear thatthe game has never been in better shape.
The game is going strong,â says Ruddock. âIgnoring the boom period, poker is stronger than it has been in any other period in its near-200 year history.â
But how can we simply ignore the âboomâ, which, as always happens, has led to the present-day âbustâ?
By simply reconsidering what actually happened after Moneymakerâs big win in 2003, claims Ruddock, and realizing that those years which followed were a âbubbleâ rather than a âboomâ.
This may seem like semantics at first sight, but it is far from it.
âBoom and BustââŚor Bubble and Bruise?
Most everyone agrees that poker boomed from 2003 onwards â 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 â 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 pokerâs first big outing on mainstream cable TV in the US.
The game boomed because people could see it on their TVâs, they could play it online, they could even win money without being very good at the gameâŚand so it became a boom.
The poker âbustâ, 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 âoften referred to as Black Monday - basically forced many sites to stop accepting players from the US â 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:
There is a widely held belief within the poker community that something has gone horribly awry in recent yearsâŚthe players, the industry, the media, and everyone in between simply havenât held up their end of the bargain, and havenât done their part to ensure the game of poker continues to thrive.â
He uses Nevada as an example, citing the 100+ poker rooms, 900 tables, and $160million per year turnover of the âboomâ years now having declined to some 76 rooms, 700 tables and $118million in takings. A big drop indeed â catastrophic by most business standards it could be argued â a bust even.
However, appearances can be deceptive â and 99% of people agreeing on something doesnât 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 â 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 â a few years of bubble â and then slight growth again? Exactly what Ruddock proposes:
If you look at the poker boom as the baseline for success then yes, poker is in major trouble, itâs a compound fracture that requires emergency surgery. On the other hand, if you look at the boom as a bubble, an outlier period created by a perfect storm of events, then poker in 2016 looks a whole lot different. Under this lens, poker has a mild sprain that will be cured with a bit of ice and some rest.â
The âbubble and bruiseâ theory, as I prefer to term Ruddockâs ideas (apologies sir!) is a way of viewing things from a more positive slant. We find it difficult to recreate a âboomâ? Then donât, just slowly improve things as though the âboomâ 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 â but some of it seems to ring true with Ruddock and perhaps others:
âEverything 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,â I wrote â and still stand by, to an extent.
Ruddockâs view takes a different tack:
Instead of trying to recreate the boom, poker players and the poker industry should be trying to build on the gains theyâve made over the past 25 years. The game is going strong. Ignoring the boom period, poker is stronger than it has been in any other period in its near-200 year history.â
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:
Knee-jerk conservative legislation changes. Markets continue to open given the right conditions, or re-open when the chance arises.â In addition, âothers adapt naturally to embrace the positives and reject the negatives based on increased knowledge of what works and what doesnât. Austerity is replaced by prosperity and both industry and public react to these swings. Old technology is replaced by new technology and finds its way to the deepest corners of the world-eventually!â
Steve Ruddock seems to agree with me in part (which is nice, as I enjoy his âintuitive-plus-knowledge-and-researchâ approach to poker journalism very much):
This isnât to say that another boom period couldnât occur, it very well could. But problems arise when you try to force it to happen instead of just letting it happen naturally, as is usually the case with such things.â
He concludes his interesting article by stating:
At some point there will be another convergence of innovation, economic factors, and popular culture that will send poker soaring back into the stratosphere. But, itâs impossible to create this environment (otherwise everyone in every industry would do so). What we need to do is be prepared for when it happens, and we do that by making pragmatic improvements where we can, ensuring the game survives to experience another boom.â
So, there we have it folks. Donât 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!
Comments
You need to be logged in to post a new comment