Poker is a form of reality TV. Like Big Brother, we are voyeurs into another world, salivating over the pressures of others and watching in delight as people evoke real emotions in real situations. For a long time, however, poker gave no meaning to those emotions as the story was only part told. In that sense, Late Night Poker revolutionised televised poker, the under-the-table cameras opening the curtains and allowing us to piece together all the segments of the jigsaw.
But despite this revelation and the success it spawned, televised poker outstayed its welcome. With players more educated than before and poker becoming a subject for discussion rather than a mere novelty, the idea of a six-man crapshoot soon wore thin, and students of the game yearned for more.
In January of 2006, a new show came along that shook the very foundations of televised poker and injected vitality into a media that had become dreadfully stale. That show was High Stakes Poker (to be referred to as HSP from here on in), a high stakes cash game hosted at the Golden Nugget Casino in Vegas.
Three years and five seasons later and HSP is still the most talked about poker show on TV, forums a hotbed of debate about the latest hands, pots and participants. But why is this show so popular? Why, like the World Poker Tour, has it not waned in fanfare and withered towards a slow death? I came up with five reasons that tackle that very question:
Cast
Undoubtedly the most prominent factor behind HSP’s success is the line-up, and the show’s consistency in bringing together a diverse, high profile selection of players.
Of course, there are many shows out there such as the Premier League, Poker After Dark and, indeed, the World Series of Poker, that showboat numerous stars, but they are a mere hodgepodge of names. HSP, meanwhile, carefully selects its cast, ensuring that credibility is maintained by inviting not just the biggest names in poker, but those who excel in that particular format.
However, although boasting an abundance of household names, it is the show’s diversity of cast that has proved to be the key to its success. If the line-up had remained in tact from the opening season, then the show would soon have run its course. Fortunately, the creators were aware enough to realise that simply filming the ‘Big Game’ would not suffice in the long-run, and that to maintain the public’s interest, they would have to keep injecting the game with not just fresh faces, but also fresh encounters. Peter Eastgate might not be a regular ‘Big Game’ player, but as the World Champion it instantly becomes intriguing viewing. Pit this new kid against a veteran like Doyle Brunson, and you are presented with a fascinating clash, and one that you are unlikely to find elsewhere.
HSP clearly have their finger on the pulse with regards to the players. Having surveyed their audience and analysed the viewing statistics, they understand the importance of satisfying the younger members of the audience and making sure that the game’s most fashionable players are included. As a much talked about segment of poker, the nosebleed stakes online clearly captured the interest of the creators. Consequently, Series Five treats us to the likes of Tom ‘durrrr’ Dwan and Ilhari ‘Zigmund’ Sahamies, as well as old (well, comparably so) hats Patrik Antonius and David Benyamine, all of whom are the epitome of ‘current affairs’ on the biggest Full Tilt tables and the subject of many a forum thread.
Unlike the majority of shows which churn out the same old faces over and over again, HSP has evolved it’s cast, introducing new faces while maintaining a balance with some of the old.
Stakes
There’s an argument to suggest that if the same line-up were playing $1/2, we’d still tune in to watch them play, but the stakes at risk are certainly an influence on the show’s popularity, the chance to see millions of dollars move around the table a sure-fire way of ensuring viewing figures remain high.
There’s almost a romantic aspect to it, and part of you can’t help but wonder what it would be like to sit at that table with some of the game’s greats, playing for such high figures and having the option to chuck in a bundle so thick that you could beat a man to death with it.
There are other cash game shows that witness gargantuan pots, but if you want the biggest, then you’ll only find them on HSP. Whether it’s Farha spiking a king against Greenstein, or Hansen finding quads against Negreanu’s full house, HSP provides earth-shattering pots that have yet to be rivalled elsewhere.
Poker fans, however, are bloodthirsty beings, and so with each season comes a new challenge – how to increase the chances of a bigger pot than before. The solution, of course, is obvious: increase the buy-in to $200,000 for Season Five and keep the rail temporarily happy.
At one point, HSP staged a $500,000 minimum buy-in session, a game that Brunson and Greenstein confessed was too big for everyone except Cirque de Soleil mogul Guy Laliberte. As such, there was no doubt that players were under pressure, and couldn’t just drop a million without at least a slight wince.
The idea that the money now means something is crucial in maintaining the viewer’s interest. To see someone shrug off a loss because it’s a minor infliction on their bankroll is of little entertainment, but to witness Daniel Negreanu flustered after losing a mammoth pot is something that poker fans love to watch.
Pressure is vital in televised poker as it evokes real emotion. Making sure the stakes are high enough to put pressure on the players is therefore paramount.
Format
It is of no coincidence that the popularity of HSP has spawned a number of other televised cash games: European Cash Game, Poker Den, Full Tilt Cash Game – all eager to cash in on the success of HSP. As such, it perhaps confirms a move away from televised tournament poker as the norm, and suggests that your average audience is tired of the six-handed crapshoots that have dominated for way too long.
The generation based on tracking software, training sites and mathematical based decisions are no longer content with watching push-or-fold poker. The audience have become so educated on the game, that they have sought something more than just ‘character’ based TV – they want a show, or more accurately a format, that they can learn from and help them improve their game. Naturally, cash games fulfil that want.
Like the under-the-tables cameras in a dreary Cardiff studio, cash game poker, particularly high stakes, is an innovation of sorts, and inevitably attracted an immediate audience. With Bobby’s Room at the Bellagio closed off from the general public, there is a sense of voyeurism involved as creators give your Average Joe the opportunity to sneak a peek through the keyhole and catch a glimpse of the world of high stakes poker.
With the donkament’s flaws revealed, the cash game has become the new fad, and is one that suits the modern audience to a tee. Entertainment has been replaced by a thirst for knowledge, and cash games are a much better source.
Commentary
Some may disagree, but I consider the commentary to be of the highest standard and instrumental in maintaining the show’s credible reputation. AJ Benza, a controversial 90’s columnist and bit-part actor, and Gabe Kaplan, comedian and poker veteran, form the perfect partnership.
Kaplan is much underrated as the pundit. He may not frequent the Ivey Thunderdome, but he possesses a wealth of knowledge and experience that goes further back than most realise. Rarely have I disagreed with a comment or considered an analysis so wayward that it has been posted on forums for ridicule. In a world that likes to pounce on every word (see the ambush of Greekfish’s commentary), it’s an achievement to gain respect as a commentator on such a high-profile game.
Kaplan is also skilled in recognising other influences of the game, and will often spot when a player isn’t necessarily relying on logic and mathematics. “I can guarantee he wouldn’t have called there if he hadn’t have lost the previous pot,” he might observe, or, “He was influenced by the other hand earlier when so and so bet a similar amount on the river.” Often, we forget these other intricacies, and it’s useful to have Kaplan highlighting them.
I often hear people complaining about AJ Benza, claiming, “He knows nothing about poker.” This kind of comment frustrates me somewhat, as Benza’s job isn’t to analyse the play – he’s the anchor, he’s there to host the show, offer play-by-play and feed into Kaplan. He plays the part of the inquisitive viewer, asking the question that we want answering. There’s nothing worse than an ignorant host trying to analyse (see Colin Murray’s enthusiastic, but fallacious efforts) rather than allowing the analyst to do his job. Equally, there’s nothing worse than a commentary without a host, where two pundits are rambling on aimlessly and talking over each other. Benza prevents both of these from happening.
Entertainment
Although playing for serious money, it’s important that a show goes beyond the technicalities of the game, and maintains a foundation based on entertaining the viewer. Whether the poker is fascinating or not, it will soon become a bore if the players are seated in silence, po-faced and failing to react in any way. Imagine Patrik Antonius times eight – would we still watch? Possibly not.
It is for this reason that I believe someone like Eli Elezra is key to the show’s longevity. He may not possess the level of thinking of some of the game’s stronger players, but he isn’t afraid to call light or play cards that others would fold. Whether his decisions are correct or not are debatable, but his involvement can be entertaining, and he always plays with a smile and a sense of fun that many lack.
Similarly, where would we be with the Mike Matusow blow-up, Phil Hellmuth’s moaning, or Phil Laak and Antonio Esfandiari’s friendly rivalry? Banter is key to any poker broadcast, and although I expect much of it is for the cameras, it still provides us with something to watch beyond the rigidity of call, fold and raise.
And if the personalities let us down, HSP are on hand with the seven-deuce rule, a stipulation that changed the way the game was played, tempted egos, and led to player’s bluffing off fortunes with seven high. Providing a new angle (whether the source is HSP or the players themselves) and an extra avenue of entertainment without jeopardising the credibility of the game is a tricky manoeuvre, but one which worked to good effect on these select few episodes.
Conclusion
And so, with one question answered, another one emerges: will High Stakes Poker still be popular in years to come? For me, the answer is simple. If the producers can keep meeting the demands of an audience in terms of the five aforementioned points and continue to evolve with the poker fashions of the time, then there’s no reason why season 10 won’t be the most successful of them all. The only threat is a slightly wider one. If reality TV is a fad in itself, then however HSP is presented, the future of the show, and any televised poker for that matter, could be in danger. Fortunately, though, I believe a wish to see real emotions in real situations is a part of human nature, and one that poker fans in particular will always possess.