Moneymaker
Moneymaker did not change poker.
I'll heard or read that "Chris Moneymaker changed poker" several times over the last few weeks as the 2005 World Series of Poker reached its conclusion. Sure the year after Chris Moneymaker won the WSOP its size more than doubled. Then the year after that the field more than doubled again for the championship event. This has more to do with the World Poker Tour and the explosion of other televised poker since 2003 than with any single champion.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those guys saying that the WPT changed poker either. At least not in the way that it is normally meant. The typical explanation for the WPT's shocking success is its "revolutionary" pocket cam. The Wall Street journal glorified this innovation proclaiming "for the very first time, viewer can see the player's hole cards." For years ESPN has shown us hole cards before the hand is over by simply finding out what the cards were after the hand was over, and going back and putting it in the taped broadcast or by using a similar type of hole-cam. Neither program comes close to showing half of the hands played so the new found popularity can't be explained by viewers being treateded to more information.
People watch poker on TV because they want to see their favorite pro win, not because they want to see some schmuck get lucky and have victory fall in his lap. They wanto to see drama, not gambling. That's one thing the WPT does well.
Sure, Moneymaker will be remembered as the first poker champion of a new era. However, this makes me feel sorry for another unlikely amatuer who happened to win 1 year before Chris. Does anybody remember Robert Varkonyi?
I'll heard or read that "Chris Moneymaker changed poker" several times over the last few weeks as the 2005 World Series of Poker reached its conclusion. Sure the year after Chris Moneymaker won the WSOP its size more than doubled. Then the year after that the field more than doubled again for the championship event. This has more to do with the World Poker Tour and the explosion of other televised poker since 2003 than with any single champion.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those guys saying that the WPT changed poker either. At least not in the way that it is normally meant. The typical explanation for the WPT's shocking success is its "revolutionary" pocket cam. The Wall Street journal glorified this innovation proclaiming "for the very first time, viewer can see the player's hole cards." For years ESPN has shown us hole cards before the hand is over by simply finding out what the cards were after the hand was over, and going back and putting it in the taped broadcast or by using a similar type of hole-cam. Neither program comes close to showing half of the hands played so the new found popularity can't be explained by viewers being treateded to more information.
People watch poker on TV because they want to see their favorite pro win, not because they want to see some schmuck get lucky and have victory fall in his lap. They wanto to see drama, not gambling. That's one thing the WPT does well.
Sure, Moneymaker will be remembered as the first poker champion of a new era. However, this makes me feel sorry for another unlikely amatuer who happened to win 1 year before Chris. Does anybody remember Robert Varkonyi?
posted by Tim at 8:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home