After recently watching the movie "Amadeus," 1984's best picture illustrating the iconic life of Mozart, I began to reflect on poker's place in history when our future generations look back two hundred years...

In Mozart's time, classical composition was something pursued rigorously by only a handful of great musical minds.. The music of classical composers was casually enjoyed and respected by millions during their time. I suppose you could call them celebrities. Nevertheless, musical composition was never really considered a true or worthy occupation for most.

For only the last ten years or so Poker has taken a rather unique seat in the lives of many Americans and foreigners. Knowledge and understanding of the game has grown exponentially.. It is a hobby enjoyed by many, but taken seriously only by a handful...

We idolize Mozart and Beethoven simply for creating some unique music within the classical boundaries..More poignantly, we idolize their superior musical minds.

So, what will poker's place in history be? 200 Years from now will people look back and idolize Phil Ivey and Patrik Antonius?

Lets hear it, lounge.

I will Patrik Antonious forever...and I will make sure that the love for this god is never extinguished.

Poker may or may not still be popular in 200 years. My guess is it will still be played in some form or another as it satisfies a lot human needs/wants. As far as poker celebrities being heard of 200 years in the future? Highly doubtful! There were lots of guys more famous 200 years ago than these poker guys ever will be that we have never heard of. Try to name a bunch of really talented pre-1900 baseball players for example Or chess masters or even entertainers. Poker has too much luck and variance for domination of the type demonstrated by a Tiger Woods or Babe Ruth. These guys will all be forgotten much sooner rather than later.

Something I have always been curious about is the fanboyism demonstrated by a lot of 2+2ers towards some of these guys? I just don't get it?

No. While they may be the most gifted practitioners, they've added nothing much to the game itself.

When we talk about musical geniuses in the enduring sense, we talk of the composers, not the performers.

As much as it may pain some to think of it this way, Sklansky is more akin to Mozart, while Phil Ivey may be more of a Joshua Bell.

I seriously doubt it. Seriously, seriously, seriously doubt it. Except for the legion that lead their life as laid down by the word of the all precious one, HobbyHorse.

I can't make too many generalizations about life in classical times, but it seems to me that now there are just too many cultural fads for one to have that significant of an impact.

Also I think the publicly perceived luck factor will be an issue. I'm not sure what the non-poker playing person thinks of Ivey or PA (other than not knowing who they are), but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be looked at as masters of their art, but rather as extremely lucky (I suppose).

Finally, I really don't think the poker boom is that widespread of a deal. It did bring many more people, but outside of the poker world I'm not sure it had much effect. My non poker-playing friends (which outnumber those that do) have had no effect on their life because of it. They aren't going to memorialize it anyway. I think this is true of more people than not, so outside of 2+2 in 2208, I don't see people remembering at all or caring if they do.

Projection. Most poker players think in their heart of hearts that the only thing separating them from the more recognizable pros is timing and luck. Look at all the static in NVG, criticizing x's play or calling y a luckbox. So they pick someone whose game is close to theirs (stylistically, of course) or who resonates with them on a personal level (this Antonious fellow seems popular with a certain demographic, for instance...myself, I respect Cyndy Violette purely for her skills). NASCAR, believe it or not, is a similar phenomenon. Lotta would be baddasses loved Earnhardt, hate Jeff Gordon. Most NASCAR analysts (which sound like the worst gig on the planet, frankly) will harp on about the importance of the drivers to it's popularity.

As to OP's question-
No. There may be a few enthusiasts and historians who know of Doyle Brunson or Johnny Moss, but that's about it. Their contributions to their chosen field are immense, but it's not as if they did something that would not have been done otherwise. Their accomplishments are not as unique as Mozart's.

The current boom may end up spawning more stories about how future leaders or world changers got their start playing poker, i.e. Nixon funded his first Congressional campaign with poker winnings, Truman had a floating game aboard the U.S.S. Augusta going 12 hours a day while he was deciding to drop the Bomb, etc.

Some future President might be grinding 12 tables right this minute.

In the grand scheme of history poker does not exist. It is that insignificant.

Maybe some physical or digital archaelogist in the future may find some remnants interesting, and speculate on the games people played in our time. But it really is nothing more than a tiny blip.

If nothing else poker was the origin of game theory. IMO it will be many hundreds of years before that fact is forgotten.

Don't believe. Might be the easy way to understand game theory - but not the origin.

Yea, I thought game theory started being understood first on complete information games like Go.

I dunno. Maybe they'll happen to dig up the dwellings of a couple of serious poker players, and deduce from the literature they find that citizens of the ruins they found worshiped a god named Sklansky, with minor deities named Malmuth, Ciaffione, and Harrington.

I dont think people would care either monopoly will probally be the game of the past !

From brittanica. Com:

"In 1928 von Neumann published “Theory of Parlor Games,” a key paper in the field of game theory. The nominal inspiration was the game of poker. "

During the civil war, euchre and keno (both card games) were huge, probably bigger than poker. Whist was big at the turn of the century. No one gives a mouse sized **** about those games now, although people still play whist and euchre. Why would poker be much different? Even if it still exists a century from now (and I think it will) the thought that it will be somehow "significant" in terms of world history is silly.

MM MD

Poker:History::This thread:2+2

2008 and things were great.

Poker players don't create anything that will stand the test of time. It's just a game.

what does football player create？

Entertainment and a sense of community for the fans.

It's often said that Richard Nixon financed his first congressional campaign with money he won playing poker onboard ship while serving an officer in the Navy. Now that's history for ya!