Indeed. Backgammon has been trending downwards for decades.

Chess has long-term problems that are similar to those of poker. There has been a lot of debate about how to make chess popular again. Magnus Carlsen becoming the youngest World Champion created some publicity (see the spike in the graph in November 2013) and the initiatives of the Saint Louis Chess Club and Scholastic Center are amazing (the Sinquefield Cup had a broadcast format akin to the WSOP or an EPT Super High Roller), but it's really hard to get new people into old games. It's particularly hard to do when those games have such a steep learning curve. Newbies to chess or poker don't stand a chance against players that have been studying for years. When you don't have a chance to win, a game is not much fun, so most people find something else to play.

I didn't use a HUD but what turned me off to NLHE online was the constant waiting, hand after hand after hand, for what I knew must be mass tablers to get around to my table (I usually had 2 at, say, NL50 or 100). That is no fun whatsoever for anybody at the rec level. Happily, I can play any HORSE game decently so I switched to them. Now I know that HUD's are the least of my worried if online ever comes back to the U.S. and I wouldn't for a minute consider playing NL.

We need to start looking at this from another way.

We might have the start of something good on and we should take note:



Looking at obvious examples - Jcarver

The players now have to become the advocates for the game while providing insights for new players to grasp on to.

You can't simply go live on a stream and sit there playing 10 tables. People need to engage and promote the community as an advocate.

Taking a look at Joe Ingram as well, its all about making it entertaining and appealing to new players. I hope more people become advocates for poker on twitch.

I think the majority of rec players don't even know what HUds are! I know when i first started poker i was playing regularly for like 2 years online before i figured out what the hell a HUD was and that their was a poker forum to discuss strategy and what not.

Also the best thing for me back then as a rec player was the ability to play a 45-180mans SnG that fill up in minutes. If you want a poker boom then you need a new large player pool. Preferably it would be US getting regulated and then having no segregated player pools based on location.

Great post.

And when you watch these guys, first of all if you're a player or have been a player in the past, it makes you want to play again. I also watch JCarver answer questions like "what's a flush" so there are a ton of non-poker people watching and participating as well.

Now fast forward 4 or 5 years and the majority of people have Smart TVs and you can Twitch with a remote control on your couch just as easily as you can watch ESPN or CNN. Now imagine you're not a 30something neckbeard who remembers the good ol' days but instead an impressionable 18 year old college freshman looking for something to do instead of study?

Was chess ever banned in the USA?

nice u motivated me to make a twitch channel too

Too much emphasis being based on Black Friday itt. Sure it didn't help but poker has been on the decline in Europe for the past 9 years as well and would be in decline all around the world even if Black Friday didn't happen.

The reason for decline is that the general standard of play is becoming better and better which in turn makes it more and more inaccessible to new players. People show up to play, get heavily beat and see no appeal in coming back. The ones that do will be the ones that study the game and become a reg which does not really do poker much good.

You only need to look to Backgammon to see what will happen to poker. Both are games that have a large mix of luck and skill. Anybody can beat anyone over 1 game of BG but the longer the match the more skill comes into play. When BG had it's boom everybody was playing it. You could play it in a cash or tournament format. Even the best weren't that good and it was fun for all involved. Eventually the skill level of the average player went up and up, to the point that it was no fun for new players. Numbers declined and it ended up with regs battling it out and getting to play the occasional fish. Computers got so good that they could beat even the best players, and this methodical approach took all the flair out of the game making it even less fun. Does any of this sound familiar?

Granted it will take longer for poker to reach the barren land that BG is in now because its a more complex game, but already we see players at 25NL trying to play GTO which certainly doesn't bode well for the future of poker.

Oh and BG has also tried the 'revival' in recent time that people want to see happen in poker. Websites like PartyGammon and others opened up. A World Series of Backgammon was introduced with TV coverage and Gus Hansen as the face and commentator of it. The winners won a 'Golden Cube' and tours were set up across Europe. Segments of the shows were dedicated to some strategy and rules to help new players. What happened? The new players got beat down almost instantly. There was no way a new player could have any fun without studying and becoming a reg and so BG returned to its place in the shadows, a victim of its own players abilities.

Nice read

I don't think there is any hope. People come sit down and get destroyed. They then go to games like blackjack or slots because they at least win sometimes. Where as in poker the recreational player is barely ever winning. Then you have things like bots getting caught and they will never deposit because of fear of getting cheated. Plus the promotions are getting worst. Software like HUDs are bad because a lot of recreational players do not understand them. But a lot of people are downplaying HUDs. They give a huge advantage if you know how to use them properly. There are plenty of regs who would go broke without HUDs.

In the live setting, at limit play, it's usually the bad recs that win most of the money in a session. They take turns. This happens bec good players don't play nearly as many hands to get lucky with and don't run up monster stacks at limit unless they get hit in the head by the deck. NLHE is your problem, folks. It was supposed to destroy the game and it looks like it's doing it's job every single day.

Grunch. Have a woman win the main event

Sure, but mtts will always be good, as long as people see they can put up $100 and win 20k, fish will come.

Had the sites shown more foresight back in 2007-2008 (ie: when this first started to become a problem...) then the online poker economy might be in a much healthier state today.

Sadly though, I think it's far too late (ie: 5+ years to late) to do anything about this now and removing/segregating these players will make little to no difference.

If people don't believe this was a major factor in the downfall of poker's popularity then try going round a few UK pubs on their "poker nights" (which are still booming here btw; along with pretty much every other form of gambling!) and ask the players why they stopped playing online poker...

Juk

That's true of most things in life. A beginner guitarist/golfer/basketball player etc. will not initially be able to compete on the same level as good, experienced players. Some will take parts in these activities recreationally without ever getting particularly good and others will progress through the ranks very quickly.

Another poker boom is not really possible as even if the number of recreationals quadrupled overnight there are so many experienced players now who would be moving up from lower stakes, coming out of semi-retirement, doubling their current volume with fresh motivation etc. that the fish money would still get hoovered up instantly with 1 fish and 5 regs each table.

The only hope for a boom will be table limits for winning players, similar to what some sites have adopted. Also low table maximums. The fish are still out there but they get slaughtered like seals when they hit the beach in Newfoundland. On sites with low table maximums the quality of play is similar to live games. God I miss limit poker online where you could get 100 dollar pots at 2/4 limit. I don't think I will ever see that again online.

than maybe we need a new game combined with Twitter?

The biggest problem with the comparison is the recreational player has to shell out money to play. I don't need a lot of money to play basketball. Golf is expensive but you can play alone.

I don't think we're anywhere near that point where 25NL regs could correctly emply GTO yet. But the point you make is valid indeed, and nice read on what happened to BG.

Books about beating blackjack led to a brief spark at the blackjack tables some years ago. The casinos got scared. They eliminated single and double deck games, hit their soft 17s, restricted double-downs, added endless shufflers, started paying 6/5 for blackjack etc. Maybe the fish still play, but sharper players who can count cards or even just play very solid basic strategy are discouraged.

In poker, higher rakes, unlimited re-entries, cheating scandals like the fake chip fiasco at Borgata, best stack forward, general collusion, quantum reload....all contribute to a feeling that live MTTs are no longer that attractive. MTTs feel more like a casino game like every day.

Sites need to protect the player pool like Bovada does.

4 tables max, except mtts.

Allowing the best players and regs to play every game cannibalizes the player pool. Not appealing to new or rec players to play in that environment.

grunching: you need to find a nation of people unexposed to the game, or prey on high school/college-aged kids who have never heard the name 'Mike Matusow'.

A new generation plus a new set of charismatic characters.

We don't. It was a one time thing with a perfect storm of factors. It's that simple, poker will never be as easy and opportunistic.

Take it off TV for 25 years. Redeploy on ESPN in prime time in 2040. Hope Chris Moneymaker repeats.