Texas Hold'em exploded in 2005. Has the games popularity been declining since? (1 Viewer)

kevinnz

Sitting Out
Joined
Sep 23, 2017
Messages
46
Reaction score
24
Location
Boston, MA
In 2005-09 I played a lot of NLTH. I only recently started getting into again after finishing school.

Further, I know online poker was dealt a death blow in 2011 with the fed banning.

What is the status now? Is Hold'em a lot less popular than it was in 2005? Was there a peak? Is it 50% as popular as it was back then?

I want to know everyone's thoughts.
 
Poker was very visible in the hayday because you had online companies (read: PokerStars, full tilt) pumping advertising dollars into the US market. That’s been nonexistent since Black Friday.
 
Not declined, just plateaued. If it becomes legal in the US again properly and that money starts rolling in it will get popular again
 
I never thought I'd find myself saying this; no limit is the current long term killer of the game.

When I first got into poker, I was strictly a NLHE player and thought limit was for chumps.

Low and behold, learning every variation of poker and 10+ years under my belt has changed my perspective. Personally, I think long term losing players would have more fun if limit were still in style. In my current game, I'm dying to get some mixed game play but everyone whines cause they all only know how/want to play NLHE. :rolleyes:
 
The WSOP lists 56 events this year. By my count, 56 of them are NLHE, and a good deal more are mixed games that can include NLHE.
And look at the field sizes of these events. A $365 PLO event attracted just over 400. A 365 NLHE event had over 1200 on day 1A, and there will be four other day ones.
 
I never thought I'd find myself saying this; no limit is the current long term killer of the game.

When I first got into poker, I was strictly a NLHE player and thought limit was for chumps.

Low and behold, learning every variation of poker and 10+ years under my belt has changed my perspective. Personally, I think long term losing players would have more fun if limit were still in style. In my current game, I'm dying to get some mixed game play but everyone whines cause they all only know how/want to play NLHE. :rolleyes:

I have the same problem. No one wants to learn something new.
 
This a partial thought due to time constraints so here goes

I agree NLHE will be the death of hold em in the casino. Limit poker used to be the norm for casinos. Most casual guys don't want to buy in for the minimum at a table, let's call it 1/2 and be stack committed the first hand they get in on (because someone that can bankroll a 2/5 game is just shoving on everyone that they sense is scared money) I'm guessing most won't buy in more than once or twice, and possibly won't play in a casino again....that's bad for poker. These guys will sit at a table of 3/6 limit and play for hours though, yes most will spew to the rest of the table but if they get 1-2 hrs of enjoyment out of it they will be back.....that's good for poker. The casinos could spread a multitude if limit games to appease almost any bankroll and level the playing field at all stakes. For the guys that like variance they could have Omaha, razz, etc. I'm not sure of the reason for a poker room only offering 7 tables 2/5 NLHE and ony 40% of the tables in their room are full and you look at the casinos running 2-4 or 3-6 limit games and they have another 2 or 3 tables going. I realize it partially revolves around rake and that supposedly they don't make as much off of the poker rooms as they could, but almost all of the poker players i know aren't going to go play slots so they are losing that money anyway (I also have yet to see every slot machine filled with players at ANY casino, so more aren't going to make any more money)
 
I think the question "Has NL Texas Hold'em been killing poker" has to be asked at several levels and possibly get different answers in each case (internet poker / live poker at professional venues legal or not / live poker at homes, and specify between cash and tournament in all of the above).
Also, a distinction has to be made between the game per se and the betting structure (limit / pot limit / no limit).

I can only have an opinion about home cash games.
In these, a NL betting structure is unnecessarily violent, IMO. Poker is by definition a violent sport, something like boxing with money - no need to upgrade it to kick-boxing among real people, even distantly acquainted to each other, who attempt to have a good time under the same roof for some hours.

Game-wise, although I acknowledge that any specific game should be played for at least one orbit, to "yield its aroma", I could never play the very same game all night without going nuts (even if dealt the nuts:)).
There are several serious, not-that-extreme variance, hold'em versions, let alone stud games.

So, my pick would be dealer's choice among a limited array of "certified" or previously agreed upon hold'em versions (Texas, Omaha, Pineapple etc) and orbits of stud, everything Pot Limit at the most.
An appropriate Maximum buy-in for any given stakes is also of paramount importance for player comfort and level playing field.

Tournaments are, of course, a different story.
 
Before 2005, 7 Card Stud was the game of choice in Vegas. Each poker room seemed spread several tables of 7 Card Stud and usually only had one hold em table. Then the poker boom hit and since, you cant find a 7 Stud game spread anywhere and I miss it!
 
I love mixed games and often feel bored with holdem as others have said. But I don't see other games taking it's place any time soon unfortunately. The main reason is the same reason it was the game of the poker boom I think: it's like the poker gateway drug. Though it's obviously incredibly nuanced to play, it's only 2 individual cards and you don't need to learn or remember very much to be minimally competent. We have had trouble getting other games added to the mix in our home game outside a small core group because people feel intimidated with all the additional variables of more hole cards to remember, split pots, remembering what other people folded on 4th street, etc. Ultimately I think all of this is more fun and makes for a richer game, but for people who are barely past hand rankings it's a big barrier to entry. Holdem is great because it gets people going down the road in a more user friendly way. But then of course lots of people still are intimidated to move beyond that step because the learning curve and intimidation factor of other mixed games is still pretty steep. It's why for as much as most people aren't big fans of crazy pineapple, that is my go to first mixed game with holdem players. It feels like a baby step that isn't overwhelming and helps folks realize they might be comfortable with other games. I wish casinos would spread that game since I think it would help move more people to Omaha and beyond over time. But until that day, I feel like we are going to see 90%+ holdem be the norm
 
Poker was very visible in the hayday because you had online companies (read: PokerStars, full tilt) pumping advertising dollars into the US market. That’s been nonexistent since Black Friday.


Online poker made it very accessible while it was popular. It was really easy to learn the game for a small amount of money. After that, casino rake seemed outrageous
 
As from 2006, poker became very popular in Switzerland.
Lot of TV shows and stuff, lot of tournaments, free rolls and initiation days made to the people easy to access to the game of poker instead to go to an intimidating casino.
The amount of on-line sites available was also part of the success.
After 2011 and the changes in the online poker world made less accessible to play on-line and on top of it, a law, pushed by the casino lobby banned poker tournaments outside casinos.

So, poker less accessible = less recreational players = less market = less investments = less visibility = less interest
 
For me it looks like that the amount of poker players increases slightly. More and more players coming back to poker.
But this is just my pov, I don't have any facts about this
 
Attendance at the WSOP main event is a good barometer for the state of poker and the last 3 years have seen an increase in attendance, and steady over all attendance for the last decade plus.

People like to gamble by nature. Be it lotto, sports betting, slots, table games, or poker.

After online poker became much more difficult people moved around their gambling dollars for sure. But they still play poker. In my area there are at least 4 leagues I know of that send 2 people each to the WSOP main event. Before Black Friday there was one.

Poker isn’t going anywhere. It is in our fabric as human beings to gamble and our egos to believe we are better than the next guy.

We are able to complete at it for a very long time unlike most sports where as we get older our skills decline rapidly.

3B9A44CF-B799-4A26-B151-A8E2232D46C4.jpeg
 
Before 2005, 7 Card Stud was the game of choice in Vegas. Each poker room seemed spread several tables of 7 Card Stud and usually only had one hold em table. Then the poker boom hit and since, you cant find a 7 Stud game spread anywhere and I miss it!

Seven card stud is alive and well in Connecticut. Foxwoods runs multiple 20/40 and 75/150 fixed limit tables every day of the week.
 
Attendance at the WSOP main event is a good barometer for the state of poker and the last 3 years have seen an increase in attendance, and steady over all attendance for the last decade plus.

Agreed. Another good barometer is looking at the Bravo poker app... there is almost always at least one game running 24/7 in most MI casinos.

Speaking of Michigan casinos... not only does Firekeepers (Battle Creek) host both a MSPT and an HPT event every year, but Gun Lake Casino (20 miles south of Grand Rapids) just built out and opened a magnificent poker room, Four Winds in New Buffalo just opened a card room and Soaring Eagle casino in Mt. Pleasant just renovated their room as well.

I think all this investment and dedication of space and personnel is a strong indicator that poker is on the upswing.
 
Consensus is that Millenials are not as much gamblers as previous generations. They still visit gambling destinations, but spend less time gambling than in other activities. I guess they are too busy taking pictures of their food and themselves. I guess they found out that you don't get a participation trophy in gambling. :tup:
On the other hand, the tail end of the Baby Boomers are retiring and seeking the activities they skipped while working to feed, clothe and educate their broods, like gamble! Attendance of the WSOP Senior's Event keeps increasing.

My favorite bumper stcker sums it up nicely: Being of sound mind, I spent it ALL!
 
After decades of playing poker in casinos and home games, I am confident that the popularity of NL hold em, via the television has had a negative impact overall , in the current era. It resulted in so many players entering NL hold em, that these players bankrolls were wiped out much faster then if those players had stuck to limit games and games like 7-stud / 7stud hi-lo . The weak players could have played for many more years if NL hold em did not become so popular.

Back in the 1990s , Nl hold em was NOT the most spread game in many casinos. I used to go to Atlantic city every weekend, and the poker rooms were packed and games like limit 10-20 or 15-30 or 25-50 7 stud and stud hi -lo, were very popular. I used to have to wait to get a seat and there were many tables of these games being played. This type of action has largely dried up and places like Tunica and Atlantic city have seen MASSIVE closures of their poker rooms and if they do have a poker room , its gonna mostly be a few table of NL hold em.

Back in the 90s, the max casino rake was $5 on a $100 pot. I called 12 casinos in Florida and all of them are now raking $5 on a $50 pot and they take $2 out for bad beat hand . This means on a $50 pot, they are taking out $7 . This is a enormous increase from not long ago.

The $2 rake for the bad beat jackpot , is something I have always despised because I am confident that casinos dont always give out all the money they take in on bad beat rake. A casino could take in $200,000 before the bad beat is hit, and the casino could say they only collected $100,000 for the bad beat jackpot payout.

In this modern age of casino poker, the players are really getting screwed not only thru heavy rake/ bad beat rake but also because NL hold em has caused so many weak/average players to lose so much money, so quickly.
 
Attendance at the WSOP main event is a good barometer for the state of poker and the last 3 years have seen an increase in attendance, and steady over all attendance for the last decade plus.

People like to gamble by nature. Be it lotto, sports betting, slots, table games, or poker.

After online poker became much more difficult people moved around their gambling dollars for sure. But they still play poker. In my area there are at least 4 leagues I know of that send 2 people each to the WSOP main event. Before Black Friday there was one.

Poker isn’t going anywhere. It is in our fabric as human beings to gamble and our egos to believe we are better than the next guy.

We are able to complete at it for a very long time unlike most sports where as we get older our skills decline rapidly.

View attachment 261334

I disagree. Tunica has seen almost all of its poker rooms shutdown in the casinos. Only 2 casinos there, have poker rooms and it is dead . The few games they have is gonna be hold em.

I have been told that Atlantic city has seen a huge drop off at the poker rooms.

Lets also discuss how poker games that used to be very popular in casinos { 7 stud- hi-lo stud } are all but dead.

Using the WSOP as a accurate barometer of the overall poker scene in the U.S. is not very logical. The WSOP is just a yearly event , in a specific area and a specific time frame, which is gonna pull in a lot of tourists and players who are not regular poker players throughout the year. It is the hyped up poker event of the year, so it is expected to bring in a lot of players.

For those of us that have been playing for decades and remember how full the casinos were back in the 1990s , we can compare it today and see how the poker situation has went downhill , especially for the grinders and for people who do not want to play NL hold em. IMHO, it was much easier to make a living in poker back in the 1990s, then today. The casinos had more tables, more players, they spread more types of games, and the house rake was much less back then . The casinos used to take a $5 rake max on a $100 pot . Now they often take $7 on a $50 pot. This is a huge increase and very devastating on players who rely on poker as a income.
 
I could counter argue that there are a lot more casinos around than in the 90’s so that the player pool has been spread out more now.

Before OH and PA had casinos my friends and I would have to travel to NY, or Canada to play. Then MI and WV opened casinos right on our borders so we stopped having to drive 4 hours or fly to AC & Vegas. We could hit Detroit or Moutaineer in 2 hours now.

Several years ago OH opened casinos and now we have a poker room less than 30 minutes away. And you know what happened the Mountaineer poker room? It went from over 30 tables going every Saturday to 3 the last time I heard.

With so many casino practically everywhere they aren’t such a special event now for most people as they were 20+ years ago.

Our local poker room has 15+ tables going most nights and 20+ on the weekends.

The only constant is change. Limit isn’t as popular as it once was. People either adapt to what is being played or fall by the wayside. It may make a comeback in the future, who knows. I try to study and learn as many forms of poker as possible because you never know what will be the next craze. I got hooked on PLO and PLO8 well before it became as popular as it is now. Being ahead of that curve has made me a lot of money.

What will be the next craze, short deck?
 
I am confident that the popularity of NL hold em, via the television has had a negative impact overall , in the current era. It resulted in so many players entering NL hold em, that these players bankrolls were wiped out much faster then if those players had stuck to limit games and games like 7-stud / 7stud hi-lo . The weak players could have played for many more years if NL hold em did not become so popular.

I don't know what you're basing this on, but I don't think that recreational players are depleting their bankrolls at the NL tables never to be heard from again. And even if that were the case, there seems to be a steady supply of players new to the game, if new poker rooms and player turnouts at casinos and charity rooms all over MI are any indicator at all.

Back in the 1990s , Nl hold em was NOT the most spread game in many casinos. I used to go to Atlantic city every weekend, and the poker rooms were packed and games like limit 10-20 or 15-30 or 25-50 7 stud and stud hi -lo, were very popular. I used to have to wait to get a seat and there were many tables of these games being played. This type of action has largely dried up and places like Tunica and Atlantic city have seen MASSIVE closures of their poker rooms and if they do have a poker room , its gonna mostly be a few table of NL hold em.

Agreed - but it's reasonable to surmise that the closure of rooms in those locations has less to do with one specific form of poker and the fact that they are no longer the poker or gambling destinations they once were.

Back in the 90s, the max casino rake was $5 on a $100 pot. I called 12 casinos in Florida and all of them are now raking $5 on a $50 pot and they take $2 out for bad beat hand . This means on a $50 pot, they are taking out $7 . This is a enormous increase from not long ago.

The casinos don't exist for any other reason than to make money - and it's generally accepted that dedicating floorspace and personnel to a poker is not the most profitable use of the space.

In this modern age of casino poker, the players are really getting screwed not only thru heavy rake/ bad beat rake but also because NL hold em has caused so many weak/average players to lose so much money, so quickly.

The thing about the rake is that the casino exists to provide a fun, safe atmosphere to play cards and make a profit doing so. Their existence is not an effort to foster an environment for 'professional' poker players to earn a living - and thus are not obligated to give consideration to the rake's effect on a player's bottom line. The fish are the customers, and as long as they're willing to tolerate a high rake, a high rake will be taken.

In other words, the professional player needs the casino and the fish. The fish and the casino do not need the professional players in order to be successful.
 
No, the pro player doesnt neccesarily need the casino. My father beat the game of poker for almost 50 years, and he did it thru home games.

Casinos went from a $5 rake max on a $100 pot to a $7 rake on $50 pot. Percentage wise, this is a absurdly high increase . For grinders playing low- mid level stakes games, this is a very negative trend.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom