The model is the World Series of Poker TV coverage

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by justindew

I think the main difference between poker and horse racing, from the perspective of the "new gambler", is that poker appears more "beatable" to those just starting out. Everybody who sits down at a poker table incorrectly thinks they have an edge over the competition by virtue of the fact that they have been playing for a while and "only lose on bad beats." But horse racing presents more challenges in getting up to speed. Add in the takeout, and I think it's easy to see why poker exploded while horse racing handle basically stayed steady.

*(Note: This is not an indictment on horse racing. Merely my view of the differences between poker and racing from a gambling perspective.)

I don't disagree with you on how we got here. But just as the World Series of Poker is independent of the rake at the casino due to the huge prize money, so would the NHC be independent of takeout. The draw is the big payoff -- can I beat the field of players, even if we are all cashing with chalk?

You are also quite correct on the learning curve aspect -- as an engineering and computer professional though, I find myself drawn to it. I would think that guys in college now studying a technical curriculum, who play poker online, might give this game a shot if they knew more about it.

All I was trying to point out was that the result of the television coverage of the WSOP was cheap and very effective advertising. That's how I started looking into Texas Hold 'Em or I never would have tried it.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

ESPN attempted to do this once a few years ago - I watched the show - and it was pretty awful TV.

If they tried it again - certainly vast improvements would have to be made.

Before they put those cameras under the tables allowing you to see the hole cards - I doubt poker shows were hot TV.