The Search for New Players (and Hats)

Happy Xmas eve, peoples. Somehow I have misplaced my fedora and thus have had to wear this silly cap to keep from freezing. Have been getting a few strange looks here and there, but I suppose I’m fitting in for the most part.

Wanted to share a couple of items today. One was something I heard on Jesse May’s nifty poker podcast, The Poker Show, now sponsored by PartyPoker.

May, of course, is the author of the great poker novel Shut Up and Deal and has been writing and reporting on poker for over a decade now. I first met him at the WSOP this summer, then had a chance to catch up with him again a few weeks ago when he visited Marrakech during the WPT event I was helping cover.

If you have never heard it, The Poker Show is a fun and informative podcast, often filled out with lots of well-executed interviews. Like Gary Wise, May doesn’t shy away from asking not-so-easy questions, and thus often gets his guests to talk in meaningful ways about issues of genuine interest. On the 12/6/10 one May interviewed some folks there in Morocco, including tournament director Matt Savage and PokerNews Editor-in-Chief Matthew Parvis. (May actually mentions me on that episode, saying some nice things about the blog.)

The show I wanted to refer to, though, was the following one, the 12/14/10 episode, which features an interview with Joe Sebok, sponsored player and “media and operations consultant” for UltimateBet.

May started the interview asking Sebok about the now-cancelled “Poker2Nite,” the magazine-style poker news show he’d co-hosted with Scott Huff. You might recall that “Poker2Nite” debuted on the Fox Sports Network in late 2009, soon moved over to the smaller VS network in February, then was shelved in the late spring. May had been watching some of the old episodes online and complimented Sebok on the show, asking him why it was it had been cancelled.

Sebok noted that “whenever the online sites do a show, they want it to turn into acquisitions,” alluding to the show’s sponsor -- UltimateBet -- and how UB had hoped the show would cause new players to sign up to the site. Sebok speculated that “Poker2Nite” “was a show that really wasn’t built for that” -- namely, the direct promotion of the sponsoring site. I believe Sebok is right on that point. Although I didn’t watch every episode, I never felt like the show was unduly biased toward UB or even let its pitching of the site to intrude that much on the presentation of the show’s content.

Sebok went on to say that since the show didn’t deliver players, “it was a little disappointing” for UB despite the fact that “the poker community received it really, really well.” He added how the show was also a lot of fun to do and that all involved were sad when the plug was pulled.

Sebok’s response inspired May to make a comment that I found fairly intriguing. It was a point about poker media that we’re all more or less aware of, I think, especially those of us who are involved on the writing and reporting side of things. But for some reason I was hearing it a little differently this time.

“There’s this big disconnect right now,” said May, “between the need [for...] the sponsors to show a return on their money, and the fact that the poker community wants something different than what they are getting these days.” In other words, when it comes to shows like “Poker2Nite” or really just about all poker media, what is being “sold” isn’t really the product at all -- that is, the reporting or content produced -- but the sponsoring online sites who cannot realize any sort of return unless new players sign up and their player pools increase.

“It’s exactly that,” said Sebok. “Everything is ROI and how many acquisitions [are secured]... everything is driven by [the targeting of] these new players,” he explained.

Others -- Bill Rini springs to mind -- have written before about this subject and with more insight than I can bring to it. I’m talking about this model by which online sites need to keep acquiring new players to thrive and the various problems such a model creates.

Like I say, though, the exchange between Sebok and May got me thinking a little bit differently about the issue, perhaps because of the recent “Reid bill” which caused us all to think for a couple of weeks about how the current online poker model could suddenly be fundamentally changed.

Obviously the stream of new sign-ups has dried up considerably. The UIGEA has had something to do with that, but is not the sole cause preventing new players from joining the games. And I think in the case of a site like UB -- where a major cheating scandal remains a big part of the site’s legacy -- there might well be other reasons why new players aren’t rushing to deposit money and play.

The fact is, even without the Reid bill coming in and taking it all away, the “affiliate model” relied upon by both the poker news sites and the online sites for so long is becoming less and less viable, anyway. Sebok said his TV show “really wasn’t built for that,” i.e., the bringing in of new players. But really, even sites and shows that are “built” according to that type of promotional strategy probably aren’t going to function very well for very long. (Never mind May’s additional point about how some of these shows/sites may consequently be failing to produce content the poker community really wants.)

The other item I wanted to share was a new piece over on Betfair poker running through the “Top Poker Stories of 2010.” I listed 10 big stories, then added a quick rundown of 20 other items of note. Am sure even with that long list I probably left out something, but hopefully I managed to cover things well enough.

Okay, gotta go look for that hat. Maybe Santa will bring me a new one.

’Cos, you know, Santa rocks.

Speaking of Poker: What You Can and Cannot Say, Part II

Sean G added a comment to yesterday’s post about “Poker2Nite” mentioning that the show’s hosts had put out a new episode of the Poker Road Radio podcast, and that on that episode (12/6/09) they discuss the television show, some early critiques, and their efforts to improve it.

Ended up listening to the podcast later yesterday and greatly enjoyed hearing Scott Huff, Joe Sebok, and Joe Stapleton (who, indeed, is a contributor and writes the “Weekly Misdeal” segments) talk about the show. There’s a terrific interview in there with new World Series Main Event champion Joe Cada, by the way, with Cada continuing to come off as a down-to-earth, likable dude as well as a willing, able “ambassador” of poker. Both before and after the interview the hosts talk about “Poker2Nite,” and having just watched the first three episodes I found their discussion very entertaining and revealing.

The fun they had at their own expense -- e.g., laughing some at Sebok’s stilted appearance and delivery (especially on the initial episode) -- reminded me a little bit of a passage near the end of Victoria Coren’s new memoir For Richer, For Poorer: A Love Affair with Poker which I reviewed here last week. Amid a passage discussing the Hendon Mob forum and some of the more rude and critical contributors she’d encountered there, she notes how the original spirit of the site had become altered over time.

“The original idea [of the site] was all about self-deprecating British humour,” she notes. “The guys played down how good they were. They played up the bumbling hopefulness of the game, the borrowing of money to get into tournaments, the impoverished Delboy dreams of greatness.” (For Americans, that latter is a reference to the central character in a popular British sitcom “Only Fools and Horses” from the 1980s, I believe.)

Referring to her own sponsorship by PokerStars (and the cynical responses of some on the Hendon Mob forum), Coren wonders “With sponsors to impress and carping railbirds to placate, is there any room for humorous modesty?” She goes on to quote her friend and Hendon Mobster Barny Boatman draw a contrast with American culture, where “players talk up how great they are, how much better than the next guy,” something he finds “a bit crass.”

I realized listening to the PokerRoad Radio podcast a couple of things. For one, I was laughing a lot thanks to the off-the-cuff wit of the hosts, a lot of which, in fact, was derived from that willingness to poke fun at themselves -- that “humorous modesty” -- that Coren wonders might be threatened in poker by things like sponsorship, corporatization, and what might be called the “professionalization” of the game. (And which, I suppose, Americans are in fact capable of, too, here and there.)

The other thing I realized when listening to the podcast was how these elements -- the spontaneity and the “humorous modesty” -- were largely missing from the television show.

One can see an attempt to bring in some of both in the most recent episode of “Poker2Nite” with the addition of a segment called “All In Blind” in which Huff and Sebok picked topics at random and discussed them without apparently having prepped too much beforehand. It will be interesting to watch tonight’s show and see how the guys continue to work on incorporating these elements that make their podcasts so entertaining.

Speaking of the pressures of sponsorship, they were adamant about how UltimateBet (or “UB”) had given them total creative control over the show, and how none of the decisions made about segments or their content had been dictated by UB’s preferences. “UB has not tried to tell us one thing to put on the show or leave off the show,” explained Stapleton. Having watched those three eps, I’d say there’s no real reason to doubt that claim. Indeed I can’t say I ever was all that conscious of the fact that UB could have had any sort of editorial input when I was watching.

However, I did find very intriguing Huff’s explanation for why in their discussion of the big $1.35 million dollar hand between Patrik Antonius and Isildur1 (in the second episode) they were unable to refer to the fact that the pair was playing the hand on Full Tilt Poker. The omission was not because of UB’s sponsorship of the show, but rather because Fox Sports Network would not allow them to mention a “dot com,” real money online poker site on the show.

Explained Huff, “We are allowed to mention ‘dot nets’ but we also have to be factual as journalists.... This hand did not take place on ‘fulltiltpoker.net’ so for factual reasons we can’t say it happened on ‘Full Tilt Poker-anything’ because if we say ‘dot com’ it’s illegal [i.e., forbidden by the network] for us to say it and they’ll just bleep it or take the segment out entirely, and if we say ‘dot net’ we’re being factually incorrect, so it also can’t be aired. So the only option is to not mention where it happened and only mention the facts we are allowed to report on.”

Kind of amazing, really, and indicative of the delicate spot the guys sometimes find themselves on the show, reporting-wise. Stapleton then added a bit more clarification to the situation.

“If Phil Ivey had happened to be playing that hand, or someone who was in the United States at the time, we wouldn’t have been able to report on it, as per Fox,” said Stapleton. “We can’t talk about anyone playing online poker for money in the United States [because] in the eyes of the network, we are promoting illegal activity.”

Indeed, I remember at the start of that segment reference was made of both Antonius (a native of Finland) and Isildur1 (thought to be from Sweden) as “Scandinavian sickos,” and Huff also had mentioned -- seemingly unnecessarily -- that Antonius was a “Monte Carlo resident.” And at the end of the narration of the hand, Sebok noted how the money had “shipped straight from Sweden to Monte Carlo.”

Pretty strange world, if you think about it. A show sponsored by a “U.S. facing” online poker site, airing on a U.S. network, that can’t even mention that people in the U.S. can play online poker for real money. Makes one appreciate how hard it can be to find grins in the midst of such a humorless, litigious context.

Anyhow, for those with FSN, the show airs again tonight (Wednesday), and the rest of us can watch online shortly thereafter.

(I titled the post that way because this whole topic recalled an earlier one -- written two-and-a-half years ago -- in which participants on an episode of “Poker After Dark” were bemoaning the fact that they were not allowed to say certain words like “gambling” and “money” when announcing poker shows.)

Poker2Nite Brings Poker to the World

Finally had a chance to catch up with the first three episodes of “Poker2Nite” the UB-sponsored weekly show now appearing Wednesday nights on Fox Sports Net. I only receive a limited package which does not include FSN, meaning I haven’t been able to dial the show up on the crystal receiver when it airs. But all of the episodes can be viewed online. Search YouTube for the show, or just visit the show’s site.

The mere fact that any network would entertain the notion of a weekly half-hour of poker news is itself an indicator of the extent to which our beloved mutt poker has surprisingly dog-paddled its way into the cultural mainstream. What are we supposed to think of this? In truth, it is very difficult for those of us who are fully immersed in poker and the poker media to have any sort of reliable perspective when it comes to judging a show like “Poker2Nite.”

Someone like me -- not only already familiar with practically all of the news and stories that appear on the show, but also with the now-lengthy “pokertainment” careers of the show’s hosts Scott Huff and Joe Sebok -- will necessarily have a hard time making any sort of objective-sounding statements about the show’s quality (that is, to guess how the show probably looks to someone not like me).

The situation makes me think of having once seen a feature-length article in the late 1990s in The New Yorker about the group The Shaggs.

The Shaggs were this little group of teenaged sisters (the Wiggins) who were encouraged by their father to cut an album back in 1969 called Philosophy of the World. The album -- full of oddball songs like “Who Are Parents?” and “My Pal Foot Foot” -- would have certainly disappeared without a trace had not Frank Zappa, guest hosting The Dr. Demento Show in 1973, played “My Pal Foot Foot” and voiced praise for the band.

Gradually The Shaggs (who never made another record) developed a cult following. Later on, the iconoclastic Zappa would dub Philosophy of the World the third-greatest album of all time. Like others, I found The Shaggs through Zappa and came to appreciate their decidedly amateurish but weirdly infectious LP. It’s one of those you-have-to-hear-it-to-believe-it-type records that causes most to wonder “is this a joke?” (A question which is itself, one could say, a starting point for developing a philosophy of the world.)

Anyhow, I remember not knowing how to react when I saw The New Yorker piece. It was as if something the essential nature of which was private had suddenly been rudely exposed for all to examine. “How could this possibly play to a wider audience?” I wondered. “No one is gonna get it.”

Actually, I think I can say the prospects that people are going to “get” “Poker2Nite” are much better. The show is styled after other sports news shows like “Sportscenter” or the like, with Huff and Sebok seated behind a desk (most of the time) delivering stories, conducting interviews, and introducing prepackaged segments from the field (or “on fifth street,” as Sebok calls his segments).

The first episode (11/18) featured pieces on the WSOP Main Event conclusion, a short interview with Joe Cada by Lacey Jones, an longer interview with Lon McEachern by the hosts, and a report on Tom “durrrr” Dwan’s signing with Full Tilt Poker. The second (11/25) had some talk about Isildur1, a report from an Annie Duke-hosted charity tournament, an interview with Andy Bloch, and a bit about how poker players celebrate Thanksgiving. Last week’s show (12/2) mostly concerned the delay of the banks’ compliance with the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, including an interview with Poker Players Alliance Executive Director John Pappas.

No surprise to see Huff -- always terrific with the podcasts (in my opinion) -- function as a great host for this sort of thing. He looks to me as though he’s ready to step in over at the Fox Sports desk at any moment. Trying to imagine how those unfamiliar with PokerRoad or Huff or Sebok or even poker are going to view all of this, I’m guessing most who stumble onto FSN and see Huff are going to think he looks a little young but is a fine, capable host. They might even think like me and find him funny and likable.

Next to Huff, Sebok appears relatively less polished and/or comfortable, and I’m not certain how he comes off to the wider audience. I’m a big Sebok fan, but I ain’t sure how others operating the remote control are responding. This is where I think of The Shaggs a bit, and have to admit that, yeah, their guitars are a little out of tune. Okay, a lot out of tune. And yeah, I know, little Dot Wiggins’ voice sounds a little weird.

Okay, maybe more than a little.

I think even more along those lines watching Dana Workman’s “Weekly Misdeal” segment included in each episode, kind of the analogue to “The Tight Laydown with Joe Stapleton” that appears at the end of each episode of The Poker Beat podcast. I’m not seeing any credits for “Poker2Nite” to clarify, but I know I’ve heard Stapleton is involved with the show and am going to guess he’s writing those lines for Workman, most of which concern inside jokes about the poker world. I generally like Stapleton’s humor, but I’m not going to lie and say I’ve laughed all that much thus far at the “Weekly Misdeal.”

But hey, like The Shaggs sing, “It doesn’t matter where you go / It doesn’t matter who you see / There will always be / Someone who disagrees.”

I’m glad “Poker2Nite” is on FSN and I did enjoy watching the first three eps. But I haven’t a decent perspective on any of this, really. I can say that while I had misgivings about seeing that piece on The Shaggs in The New Yorker, I’m genuinely glad for the PokerRoad guys’ increased exposure on “Poker2Nite.” And optimistic about the show’s potential moving forward.

And like I say, I know for certain that Huff, Sebok, et al. have a much, much greater chance at achieving mainstream appeal than The Shaggs ever did. Don’t believe me? Here, listen to the title track from the third-greatest album ever:

Raise. Stack. Own. Rebrand. Try Again.

Vera and I do have a satellite dish and a hi-def teevee, but subscribe to the least expensive package available. So while we still get several dozen channels more than we need, we don’t get a few we occasionally want, including Fox Sports Net. Meaning I haven’t had the chance as of yet to see that Poker2Nite show hosted by Scott Huff and Joe Sebok which premiered last night.

As a longtime fan of the various podcasts produced by those two over the last three-plus years, I’m looking forward to seeing the show. I understand that UltimateBet -- the online poker site that signed Sebok as both a sponsored pro and a “media and operations consultant” back in September -- is the “presenting sponsor” for the show. Indeed, I believe episodes can be viewed over on the online site’s website, though I haven’t explored that yet.

Speaking of UltimateBet, you might have heard how the site has now “rebranded” to become UB.com. I first heard about that via Twitter when I saw Spaceman’s tweet “UltimateBet's rebranding reminds me of when evil tobacco co. Philip Morris became friendly-sounding ‘Altria.’”

Haven’t too much to say about that, really, other than to express the usual cynicism most of us probably share regarding marketing. Makes me think of that line Raymond Chandler once had Philip Marlowe say regarding chess -- a line from The Long Goodbye that usually gets misquoted as applying to poker -- noting that the game was “as elaborate a waste of human intelligence as you could find anywhere outside an advertising agency.”

As was the case when UltimateBet merged with Absolute Poker on the Cereus Network back in July 2008, itself a kind of “rebranding,” all of the new slogans and messages bear the burdensome weight of that legacy of four-and-a-half years during which some players were playing against opponents who could see their hole cards -- i.e., the most massive cheating scandal in the short history of online poker.

So forgive me a little chuckle when reading the explanation of the new slogan “Raise. Stack. Own.” on the UB blog: “I will raise you. I will stack you. I will own you. -- This is how winning players approach the game, no mercy.” Can’t say hearing the site say “I will stack you. I will own you” really encourages me to come back.

Neither does the site’s continued lack of response to my requests regarding hand histories.

I’ve chronicled my quixotic efforts to get UltimateBet -- or UB -- to send me hand histories here before, the most recent synopsis appearing in a post from a couple of months ago titled “On Those UltimateBet Hand Mysteries, er... Histories.”

Following Sebok’s signing with UB, I had been momentarily encouraged to think I would eventually get my hand histories sent to me, given his statements that when signing with the site they had indicated to him that would be one of the first orders of business. I wrote the site (again) in late September and received a quick response saying my request had been “forwarded to our upper management for further review of your request.” Then on October 1, I got a note from a “Poker Security Manager” saying that while I was unaffected by the cheating, “I will work on getting your data to you ASAP.”

Three weeks passed with no response, so I replied to the email I’d been sent. It was returned as undeliverable. I’m thinking that when the fellow said “ASAP” he might have been calling me a sap.

I griped a little at the time on Twitter about once again having appeared to hit a dead end in the quest for my hand histories. And to Sebok’s credit he responded to my whimpering, saying he was glad to hear about the problem and was doing what he could to get UB to be more responsive to these things. He also mentioned, though, that he had come to realize his efforts in that regard were going to take him longer than he’d originally hoped they would.

As I’ve said before here, I’ve got all kinds of respect for the Cub. I do worry, though, that when it comes to this business of fixing UB, you be running the risk of being rebranded yourself.

For those interested in learning more of the skinny regarding the whole UltimateBet fiasco, check out Haley’s “Just Conjecturin’” series of posts on the subject, the most recent of which explains how Ted Forrest’s name (and a couple of others) should be added to the list of those who’ve had an ownership interest in the maligned online site. Links to Haley’s posts (thus far):

Just Conjecturin’, Part 1

Just Conjecturin’, Part 2: Sebok Signing (Update)

Just Conjecturin’, Part 2.5: Oh, Those UB Hand Histories

Just Conjecturin’, Part 3: The 56% Solution

Just Conjecturin’, Part 4: Inside the Excapsa Ownership Bloc

Just Conjecturin’, Part 5: If a Forrest is Silent, Does That Mean There Aren't Any Trees?