Poll Results: Television's Expanding Role and Its Impact on Poker

Author's note: Table Talk is intended to be an in-depth discussion of the most important issues in poker. My column will feature a wide range of perspectives designed to encourage debate and decisions on current topics within the poker industry.

Table Talk's first poll issue dealt with television's impact on poker. The level of interest was high. There were 2,409 votes cast at the CardPlayer.com website, and another 29 respondents wrote letters and e-mails expressing their personal viewpoints. The final poll results with percentages, along with several interesting comments and conclusions, follow.

Is television making poker more popular?

Yes – 98.1 percent

No – 1.9 percent

Comments: It's no surprise that the overwhelming majority of poker players believe that poker's popularity has increased because of vast television exposure. In fact, the consensus opinion was nearly unanimous.

Is television changing the average poker game?

Yes – 92.3 percent

No – 7.7 percent

Comments: Most respondents believe poker games have changed as a result of mainstream television exposure. As far as specifics, some respondents pointed out that today's poker games are easier to beat than ever before.

Do television cameras (at final tables) influence player behavior?

Yes – 69.3 percent

No – 30.7 percent

Comments: About two-thirds of respondents believe that cameras do influence the way players behave at final tables.

Does revealing the holecards of players alter the way some hands are played?

Yes – 57.2 percent

No – 42.8 percent

Comments: It's noteworthy that most respondents believe showing holecards (to the public) changes the way some hands are played. However, these same voters believe that cameras don't necessarily affect strategic decisions at the final table as much as they do player behavior. To support this, note the decline in "yes" answers from 69 percent to 57 percent on the two questions.

Should television networks enact rules that forbid deal-making?

Yes – 51.1 percent

No – 48.9 percent

Comments: This question divided poll respondents into two distinct camps, which were about equal in size. There are two separate issues here. The first deals with the efficacy of players making deals (which will be measured in an upcoming poll). The second is whether or not television producers should have the power and authority to enact rules that forbid deal-making. Those opposed to deals based on principle probably support television's "no deal-making" policy. The opposite viewpoint is that television should cover the event, but not control it.

Should television networks establish dress codes for players (who appear at final tables)?

Yes – 21.2 percent

No – 78.8 percent

Comments: Here's where poker players finally drew the line. While they support television's effects on the game, they strongly oppose forcing a dress code upon players. By nearly a 4-to-1 margin, poker players want to be themselves and not be mandated to dress a certain way.

Overall, has televised poker been good or bad for the game?

Yes – 97 percent

No – 3 percent

Comments: Again, it's no surprise that most players like what has happened to poker since television has given the game greater mainstream exposure.

I am a relative novice at hold'em, but I watch the WPT and WSOP whenever I can. The comments made on the website about poker being made up of individuals, that they should be allowed to dress however they wish, was good. But I think it missed a very important point as it relates to TV exposure, and that is identity marketing. TV audiences see a bunch of players sitting around a table, all doing the same thing. There is no quarterback, no race car driver, no pitcher, and so on. The audience identifies the players by how they look AND how they dress – or in Scotty Nguyen's case, how they act (funny). If I see someone at the table in a basketball jersey, I know it is Phil Ivey; black coat, baseball cap, and sunglasses – Phil Hellmuth. Even Howard Lederer is distinct with his plain-clothes look. You identify the players by how they look, and build a bond with that identity. In order to continue to bring in a TV audience, members of the audience have to be able to identify the players they want to cheer for or against.

- An anonymous e-mail

Television has been the best thing that's ever happened to poker. I used to tell people that I played poker for a living, and they looked at me like I had the plague. My family asked me when I was going to get a real job and a career. Now, with all the TV coverage, we are playing a game that everyone wants to be a part of. The best thing of all is that novices think they can play like the pros, and there's a lot more money to be made for the best players. But for me, the best thing about television has been the way it has changed how we are viewed by the rest of society.

- Bob Schuman, West Covina, CA

You missed out on the most important element of television coverage, which is (holecard) cameras. The (holecard) cameras give viewers the chance to see how the best players in the world really play their hands. For poker's entire history, we have never known the secrets of the masters. Now, we can see how the pros play and what they do to win. This is going to have an enormous impact on poker. Over the next few years, I expect to see players from all walks of life jumping in and testing the tournament waters. Many of them will win – just look at (Chris) Moneymaker.

- J. D. Graham, Vineland, NJ

I play many events and have even won some major tournaments. I think I speak for many other tourney players when I say that as far as I'm concerned, as long as I am putting up the full amount of the buy-in, it's my money. It's not for television people to decide if we make deals or not. If the television networks and advertisers want to pony up the full buy-in for players, they can make the rules on whether we can make deals or not. But until that day comes, they aren't going to stop me or anyone else from cutting a deal for the prize money if that's what we want to do.

- Identity Withheld by Request

Has television been good for poker? Are you (freakin') kidding me? You would have to be a blind idiot not to see all the (good things) TV exposure is doing for poker.

- "Acer," Henderson, NV

I used to work in advertising. I'm retired from the business because I learned that those people view everything in the world as one giant billboard, and I do mean everything. They would put a billboard up in the Grand Canyon if they got the chance. The biggest problem television will bring is one of forced conformity. TV is so ad-oriented that poker tables are going to become little more than opportunities for what we used to call "product placement." Right now, you can't set a soft drink can or a beer bottle on the table because it might discourage some potential advertiser. Players can't wear what they want even though they are playing for millions of dollars because one of the labels might conflict with a company that has bought commercial time. It's going to get really ridiculous at some point, and the sooner we put a stop to it, the better off we all will be.

- R.J.S., Southern California

In the nest issue, Poll Results: To Smoke or Not to Smoke – That is the Question

Readers are encouraged to visit www.cardplayer.com, where all poll questions will be posted. You also may e-mail your comments directly to .