Are Bad Boys

Good For Poker?

Goody-two-shoes pros may be attracting the wrong clientele.

“Here I am now, entertain me!”

Poker pundit Lee Davy likes to rant. Usually it’s about a subject where he feels he might be on the other side of the popular argument or out on a limb. In his latest article for Pokerlistings he tackles the subject of dwindling returns for the sponsored pro. Not in what they make, but in what they bring to the table – specifically the wrong type of customer.

Davy asserts that too many of the well-known sponsored pros are bringing too much safe money to the felt and not enough of the devil-may-care ne’er-do-well who will max out a credit card in hope of flopping a flush.

You see, in his view, poker isn’t the upstanding citizen of the gambling world but it’s situated somewhere between porn and load-sharking – it’s for mischief makers.

The reason people are running out of money is because the recreational player mass we are attracting is not in the stratum of high-risk takers. Instead, we are attracting low risk takers.
Players who won’t use their credit cards, won’t lie to their wives, won’t beg, steal and borrow, and won’t take the Children’s Book Club money.

Read: Have We Got This Sponsorship Thing All Wrong

So he asserts that people like Luke Schwartz, Tong G and Mike “The Mouth” Matusow would make great ambassadors for a poker brand that embraces the dark side (of course, all of those names are already sponsored).

I want their roles and responsibility statements to enable them to push the game to its limits, supported by the brand itself also creating even more innovative ways to create mischief, mayhem and madness.

While Davy feels that the wrong people are being sponsored, he’s not up for taking the high-risk, controversial route of calling them out by name himself. Do you agree? Are today’s high profile sponsored pros a boring lot or inspiration for you to double down on your poker game?

published 3 years, 7 months ago • by permalink

Keep Reading:

« Back to Homepage