Musician Forum - Band Discussion Board - BandMix

Since when is poker a sport? What kind of athletic talent does it take to sit around a card table and play poker? For the most part the poker "athletes" look like a bunch of fat , lazy good for nothing slobs. How the hell does poker rate to be on ESPN? Why don't they put Bingo contests on ESPN? How about a Bridge or Scrabble Tournamet on ESPN? Could you imagine Phil Hellmuth (poker star speling?) trying to guard Lebron James? How about Phil Ivey (another poker star) trying to tackle Adrian Peterson? What a bunch of B.S., poker on ESPN, and it's on ESPN all the time. There's got to be something a little more athletic they could put on ESPN. How about a broadcast of a rugby tournament, Australian Rules fooball, hell even put a half hour of The Bluefin Tuna Band show (my band) on ESPN. I work up a sweat playing my heavy bass and singing all night, much more athletic than sitting around a poker table.
Now I turn on the History channel and they have a show about a pawn shop (Pawn Stars). What the hell does that have to do with history? Probably half the stuff they sell at pawn shops has been stolen, and which course in a college history class fifty years from now will have a segment on a dumbass episode of Pawn Stars?
ESPN must be running out of real sports to cover and the History channel must be running out of historical events...

fisherman bob wrote:Since when is poker a sport?

It's not a sport.


But it is highly competitive AND it draws in ratings. And if you're ESPN, ratings are what matter. It's entertainment.

I thought it was a bold move by ESPN to start showing the WSOP events. It clearly showed they were willing to think outside the box.

I love playing poker and love watching it.

Totally agree Bob, ain't no sport its gambling.

A bold move by ESPN to broadcast a GAME? I remember when ESPN first started they had all kinds of different sports on, including Aussie Rules Football, cricket matches, rugby, etc. Having to resort to poker for ratings is pretty sad. I think it would have been just as appropriate for Nickleodean or the Disney channel to broadcast poker tournaments, or how about Spike TV for that matter...

It's a stretch to call golf, pool and bowling sports too. Tennis? Now that's a sport. To me if you don't have to be in good physical shape to play it it's not a sport. But as long as men want to watch golf, bowling, pool and poker it will be broadcast. These guys drink as much beer as the next.

fisherman bob wrote:A bold move by ESPN to broadcast a GAME?

Absolutely. Isn't that what football is? A "game"?

It's a bold move if you're willing to go outside some preconceived idea of what you're supposed to be broadcasting to put something in circulation that helps your ratings.

It's a business Bob. What don't you get about that?

I remember when ESPN first started they had all kinds of different sports on, including Aussie Rules Football, cricket matches, rugby, etc.

Yeah, and none of that stuff drew any kind of ratings at all. But ESPN had to fill it's programming.

Again, it's a BUSINESS. What part of that don't you get?

ESPN makes money two ways: (1) Cable subscriptions and (2) Advertising. You can't get either one of those things if you don't draw eyeballs to your channel.

What's so hard to comprehend here?

Having to resort to poker for ratings is pretty sad.

Why? Because you don't like it?

You don't have to watch it.

Clearly, there are millions of ESPN watchers who disagree with you.

I think it would have been just as appropriate for Nickleodean or the Disney channel to broadcast poker tournaments, or how about Spike TV for that matter...

There ARE other cable channels broadcasting poker events. People love to watch poker man. Ever since Moneymaker won the WSOP as an amateur in 1993 there's been a serious boom in the game. The year Moneymaker won the WSOP there were some 600+ entrants into the tournament. This year there were over 6, 600 entrants. It's a growing game.

Chippy wrote:Totally agree Bob, ain't no sport its gambling.

It's not gambling. It's a game.

Anyone with any skill in poker will tell you, it's a game of skill, not luck. It is not gambling.

If it were simply a game of chance, then there would be no consistent winners. So why are guys like Phil Helmuth and Phil Ivy always winning tournaments?

Because it's a game of skill and they're just better than everyone else.

CF, you're sorta right and sorta wrong. True, poker does require some skill and experience to be successful, however there is an element of luck involved, since there can be multiple outcomes on any one hand. This is what makes it gambling too; if you wager money on a possible outcome it is called gambling.

jimmydanger wrote:CF, you're sorta right and sorta wrong. True, poker does require some skill and experience to be successful, however there is an element of luck involved, since there can be multiple outcomes on any one hand. This is what makes it gambling too; if you wager money on a possible outcome it is called gambling.

I understand what you're saying Jimmy.

But if you're in the poker circle (and I am, as an amateur player) believe me - no professional player will call it gambling. To guys like Phil Helmuth it absolutely is a game of skill. Period. Plain and simple.

To a poker professional, there is no more luck involved in a hand of poker than there is in a football bouncing the "right" or "wrong" way on a fumble, or a referee making a questionable call. There are just factors - variables - that affect the outcome. But the pros believe that if they play perfectly they can win. And for the most part, they're right. That's why certain players can dominate the game.

There's a reason the Indianapolis Colts and New England Patriots and Pittsburgh Steelers are constantly in the playoffs and the Cleveland Browns and Detroit Lions are not: it's because of the skill of the head coaches and players, not because of the luck of the game.

ColorsFade wrote:There's a reason the Indianapolis Colts and New England Patriots and Pittsburgh Steelers are constantly in the playoffs and the Cleveland Browns and Detroit Lions are not: it's because of the skill of the head coaches and players, not because of the luck of the game.

I thought you were going to say it's because of the gambling..lol

Some games have more elements of skill than luck. Football requires much more skill than luck, however luck (what you call variables) is still a factor, and it's this factor that allows people to gamble on it. If it weren't for that no one would watch it; the saying goes "any team can beat any other team on any given week". The amount of skill vs luck involved in poker is debatable but I think most people agree that it requires more luck than most sports, which have heavy skill requirements. BTW, I'm a poker player too, I've been playing for many years. I was at Soaring Eagle casino last weekend doing "research".

jimmydanger wrote:Some games have more elements of skill than luck. Football requires much more skill than luck, however luck (what you call variables) is still a factor, and it's this factor that allows people to gamble on it. If it weren't for that no one would watch it; the saying goes "any team can beat any other team on any given week". The amount of skill vs luck involved in poker is debatable but I think most people agree that it requires more luck than most sports, which have heavy skill requirements. BTW, I'm a poker player too, I've been playing for many years. I was at Soaring Eagle casino last weekend doing "research".

That doesn't surprise me Jimmy It seems that smart people gravitate toward poker.

Half the software developers I know play Hold 'em...