PDA

View Full Version : billiards vs poker



billiards89
06-27-2007, 03:52 PM
When will billiards ever take a jump and get more popular like poker did in the last 5 years <font color="blue"> </font color> <font color="red"> </font color>

bataisbest
06-27-2007, 04:38 PM
When they get serious about big money tournaments and paying out the prizes immediately. Remember the IPT? They offered large prizes but have yet to fulfill their obligations to pay the players immediately. When have you seen a poker tournament stiff the players? There would be a riot if that ever happened. In pool, people just sit back and take getting stiffed or promised things that are never fulfilled. Until people like Kevin Trudeau can keep their promises to the players and fulfill them immediately, pool will always play second fiddle to Poker.

071838
06-29-2007, 09:18 PM
That's part of it, but IMO it's not quite that simple. Pool has virtually no chance of catching poker simply because poker is far more popular. An estimated 50 million people play more or less regularly; most marketing surveys that assert 40 million or so people play pool at least once a year (BFD) estimate that no more than one in ten plays at least once every two weeks. As long as more people play the game, it figures more people will watch it being played. GF

jjinfla
06-30-2007, 07:21 AM
Pool has been around for some time and draws quite a few players. Money has always been a problem. Advertizers just don't want to be associated with "pool bums". Nor the environment that they play in.

I wonder what would have happened had KT held a meeting with the players at Reno and explained to them that money was not coming in as expected and he couldn't cover the 3 million dollars in prizes plus the other large expense of putting it on in the first place so he was left with two options. 1) cancel the event all together or 2) lower the payout to 1 million dollars.

That still would have been a bigger tournament than the players ever played in (other than an IPT event). I think the players would have grumbled but they would have taken the deal.

As it turned out KT has paid out over a million and a half for that tournament.

Jake

Rich R.
06-30-2007, 07:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote jjinfla:</font><hr>I wonder what would have happened had KT held a meeting with the players at Reno and explained to them that money was not coming in as expected and he couldn't cover the 3 million dollars in prizes plus the other large expense of putting it on in the first place so he was left with two options. 1) cancel the event all together or 2) lower the payout to 1 million dollars.

That still would have been a bigger tournament than the players ever played in (other than an IPT event). I think the players would have grumbled but they would have taken the deal.

As it turned out KT has paid out over a million and a half for that tournament. <hr /></blockquote> Jake, it would have been 1000% better if KT had announced the reduction in pay outs prior to the tournament. Reducing the pay outs after the tournament, for no good reason, is totally unacceptable.

Barry Behrman got crucified when he was forced to reduce the pay outs for the U.S. Open, when 9-11 hit during the tournament. At least he had a good excuse.

What happened to KT's prior statements, indicating that he was financing the IPT out of his pocket for the first couple of years? The money was supposed to be in place, not pending incoming money.

If KT had announced the reduction prior to the tournament, the players would have had the choice to play, or not, for the reduced amounts. As it was, they had already played, for the announced amounts, and they should have been paid those amounts immediately.

JPB
06-30-2007, 01:19 PM
Never.

They are fundamentally different. Pool is a sport, poker is a game. And although people gamble on both, pool gambling will never, ever, be anywhere close to gambling on poker. Poker won't remain as popular as it was the last few years, however, more people will play it for more money always and forever. Is is simply the nature of each. It really boils down to the luck in each. Poker blends luck and skill, and that makes for games people will gamble at. The popular forms of poker have a good balance of luck and skill. It is why holdem is more popular than 5 card stud. Nobody plays 5 card stud anymore, right. Well, it is because it is too simple and the luck factor is less prevalent. Pool is mostly skill. So you have to work hard to get the skill and once you do the less skilled don't appreciate it. Poker also takes skill, but the unskilled don't know what they don't know in many cases. So they gamble at it. And they love them some gamble. And when you think about it, gambling at pool for the gamble, as opposed to the competition, is foolish. From a pure gambling perspective it makes no sense. You have to take risks and deal with hassles and have no way to really win a lot. Why risk a dispute or a fight or not getting paid or dumping or whatever when you can take 500 to a craps table and maybe win 100,000. Not often, but you will be paid and the loser, the casino, will buy you dinner and ask you to play some more. Now betting money on pool makes sense from a competitive standpoint and if you like it great, betting something can make it more fun. Also if you can match up right you can win money, but that isn't due to the gamble, but the lack of it. So how is a game that takes a lot of work and skill and isn't as good of a gambling game compete with poker? It doesn't and won't.

To be clear, I am not saying poker is a better game. I think it is better for gambling, and therefore will be more popular. It also is something that can be televised where people don't have to really appreciate the skill to enjoy it given how it is televised. The hole card camera changed that, from the annual show on the WSOP to something much more popular. Pool IMO requires more understanding and experience to enjoy, which is a bad recipe for popularity today.

Jager85
07-02-2007, 01:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JPB:</font><hr> Never.

They are fundamentally different. Pool is a sport, poker is a game. And although people gamble on both, pool gambling will never, ever, be anywhere close to gambling on poker. Poker won't remain as popular as it was the last few years, however, more people will play it for more money always and forever. Is is simply the nature of each. It really boils down to the luck in each. Poker blends luck and skill, and that makes for games people will gamble at. The popular forms of poker have a good balance of luck and skill. It is why holdem is more popular than 5 card stud. Nobody plays 5 card stud anymore, right. Well, it is because it is too simple and the luck factor is less prevalent. Pool is mostly skill. So you have to work hard to get the skill and once you do the less skilled don't appreciate it. Poker also takes skill, but the unskilled don't know what they don't know in many cases. So they gamble at it. And they love them some gamble. And when you think about it, gambling at pool for the gamble, as opposed to the competition, is foolish. From a pure gambling perspective it makes no sense. You have to take risks and deal with hassles and have no way to really win a lot. Why risk a dispute or a fight or not getting paid or dumping or whatever when you can take 500 to a craps table and maybe win 100,000. Not often, but you will be paid and the loser, the casino, will buy you dinner and ask you to play some more. Now betting money on pool makes sense from a competitive standpoint and if you like it great, betting something can make it more fun. Also if you can match up right you can win money, but that isn't due to the gamble, but the lack of it. So how is a game that takes a lot of work and skill and isn't as good of a gambling game compete with poker? It doesn't and won't.

To be clear, I am not saying poker is a better game. I think it is better for gambling, and therefore will be more popular. It also is something that can be televised where people don't have to really appreciate the skill to enjoy it given how it is televised. The hole card camera changed that, from the annual show on the WSOP to something much more popular. Pool IMO requires more understanding and experience to enjoy, which is a bad recipe for popularity today. <hr /></blockquote>

I agree with you to an extent. Poker is better for gambling because no matter how much money is on the line your game is the same. All you have to do is calculate you percentage of winning based on your hand, and choose a 50/50 chance of winning by folding or betting. I pool, if you put 100 down on a game and your as poor as I am you start shaking and your stroke is thrown off and your game gets alot worse. Poker to me is all luck and fibbing. Pool is alot more skill than poker and it is more risky to gamble if you are not used to it. Also, any gamy that is played by 6+ players at a time is a better gambling ratio than 1v1. Just look at golf or 3-bal. For golf you can pay $1-$4 at 1$ entry and $.50/hickey and you can win $15-$20 easy. Thats like a 6:1 payout on average, but then again it is winner take all. 3-ball is not that high of a ratio, but it is much faster and easier to win.

Curtis

mantis
07-02-2007, 08:44 PM
Never!
I wish it would, but cards can be played for the cost of a deck, and canbe won with a little luck. Certainly skill is involved, but as the tv tournaments have showed, less skilled players can win big money with a little luck. Pool requires great talent. An average hacker will not go into a 1 million dollar tournament thinking he has any remote cahnce to win, even with the greatest amount of luck. Also, tv poker lends itself to a great amount of suspense over and over in short periods of time, and anything can happen in a hand. Pool generally lacks this aspect. I love pool, and think it requires a lot more skill, but it just does not have the needed elements for the average person to want to consistently watch it. Big money at tournaments certainly would help with suspense and action though.
I do think that a reality based tv show in which pro players were shown teaching people in ways that the average joe could learn something and want to go try it out would be a good idea. Players would all live in one household as in many other reality shows, and challenges with trick shots, or other pool related activities would determine weekly prizes, or choice of which team decides that weeks matchup.

sack316
07-04-2007, 02:27 PM
was just glancing through here, so forgive me if I repeat anything that's been said.

As an avid player of both for a few years now (and right now poker is my job, lol) I feel I can safely say the answer to the question is never.

Reguarding the money stuff, poker is generally fully funded by the players themselves. There is no governing body, no national organization, no one like Kevin claimed to be. The prize pools are huge because the players put up the money to make it huge. This is actually one of the big issues in poker now... we make up the prize pool, we pay a rake or fee, and bring people into host locations by the thousands and provide millions in TV revenue.... but still for the most part none of the people making the profit aren't kicking much (if anything) in.

Another huge factor is the pro-am capabilities. As long as someone is willing to put the money on the table, they can play alongside and compete with the Doyle Brunsons and Johnny Chans of the world. I can't think of any other major event where this is possible... much less possible to play with the game's best and win.

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head. Gotta get ready to head to the folks house for dinner, but i'd be happy to go on later if anyone wants /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Have a good 4th all!

Sack

Dagwood
07-23-2007, 09:08 AM
Good answer Sack..

Pool won't become as popular as poker unfortunately for the reason that "average Joe" can't buy into a pool tournament and have a realistic shot at winnning any money. The luck to talent ratio in pool is far wider than in poker. With a basic knowledge of game strategy in poker, over a short stretch of time just about anyone can compete. Not so in pool. The luck factor in pool will equialize opponents that are maybe a ball or two apart in speed, but beyond that, luck sin't going to help the less skilled player. Chris Moneymaker winning the WSOP Main Event in 2003 showed that anyone can become a millionaire playing poker. Until something similar happens in pool, you're not going to see the mainstream popularity for it that poker currently is riding.

Dags

Deeman3
07-23-2007, 09:38 AM
I may underappreciate the skill needed to compete in poker but it does seem that most of us can sit there and make decisions and, good or bad, we will lose our money, not like in pool where the performance is visual and it is clearly evident when someone does not possess the base skills to compete at the higher levels.

While we'll never have the participation level in pool they do in poker (I see guys who won't put down $10 for a pool tournament) I hold out some fading hope that we will one day get, for instance, a TV channel that will show pool and maybe not just race to 7 alternate break 9 ball, thereby, gaining a whole new audience who might appreciate more complex and challenging games with adequate time to broadcast a complete event.

OH! What was I thinking? I woke up, I'm fine now. It was all a dream. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Cydpkt
07-23-2007, 09:48 AM
It was a good dream though.

tnewson
07-23-2007, 10:11 AM
Also, to start off buying a pool table can be expensive and eveything that comes with it... Not everybody can accommodate a decent sized pool table where as poker can be played on literally any table and all you have to pay out for is the cards.

sack316
07-23-2007, 11:28 AM
or to even take it a step further than tnewson said, one can just sit here reading the CCB while playing on 6 seperate poker tables online... not even having to kick in the money for the deck of cards /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

And deeman, it was a very wonderful dream you had

Sack