Column: Why is Hold'em So Popular?

At the request of a community member, Barry Carter explores why Hold'em is the only game we see advertised and televised in poker.

The beautiful simplicity of Hold'em

Last month I wrote about whether online poker would benefit from more niche games and a Dealer's Choice format.

In my discussion I mentioned how the simplicity of No Limit Hold'em is what entices new players to the game.

This prompted a request from member madorjan to expand on one particular topic:

"I have a suggestion for a future column. You mentioned a couple of times that NLHE gets all the attention - that is pretty sad, cause I agree that the other games and mixed formats are much more fun. I think it would be a great topic that how did we come to this, how come NLHE is the overwhelming favourite. What led here, how does the poker community and ecology affect this, and how it effects them."

It's a great idea for a column and I am happy to oblige (If anyone else ever has any requests, just post in my forum thread below).

A minute to learn, a lifetime to master

Two cards could be worth millions

The main reason why Hold'em will always take centre stage is because of the beautiful simplicity of it all. It really does take just a few minutes to learn the basics of the game, which is why it will always be the easiest form of poker to market and televise.

With two hole cards it is very easy to understand the hand rankings, and we even attribute memorable nicknames to certain holdings like 'bullets' and 'cowboys', which makes the game sound cool. You can't as easily do that with hands from PLO and Stud, as the number of combinations is much vaster and more complicated.

The bottom line is that people do not like to be confused. A game like PLO can even be confusing to experienced players, which is why it has always been unpopular when it has been broadcast on mainstream TV.

Hold'em on the other hand is easy to follow, so non-poker players can get hooked. Not only can they follow the action, they can envisage themselves playing the hands, and this is why Hold'em is so important. If we want new people to come to the tables, we need to make it easy for them, and that's what Hold'em does.

Does the WSOP represent 'real poker'?

2-time Players Championship winner Michael Mizrachi

I understand the importance of Hold'em, so I don't think there is too much of it at events like the WSOP, however many people disagree.

The one exception I have always had an issue with is the $50,000 Players Championship and previously the $50,000 HORSE event, where they made this mixed games event a Hold'em only final. The reason for this is because it creates a made-for-TV final table, which I understand, but I still feel it goes against the spirit of the game.

Other than that a lot of players complain about their being too many Hold'em events. I actually disagree. If you think of the WSOP in terms of being representative of poker today, then there should actually be less non Hold'em events.

No matter where you are playing, 99% of the games on offer are Hold'em. You barely see Stud spread anywhere but Vegas and the big two sites, and games like Triple Draw are barely played anywhere.

In this respect that WSOP is probably unrepresentative of poker by being biased towards non hold'em (In fact we have several times had bracelet winners who had never previously played the format they won their bracelet in).

The one possible exception is PLO. If anything I think we could stand to see another couple of events in that, because it is growing all the time.

Hold'em and the ecology

PLO is still growing

Onto the question of whether more non hold'em games would improve the ecology of poker. It is certainly true we see less grinders in these games and because there is still a big knowledge gap in non hold'em, the games would be softer and looser - two things most people want to help improve the ecology.

The problem is that one of the biggest things that poker is reliant on is new players and new deposits, and I can't see that coming from non hold'em games. If we want new blood at the tables, we need to make their journey as easy as possible. Because of its simplicity, Hold'em is the game to do that. 

I love non Hold'em games, I'm a big fan of Triple Draw and niche games like Crazy Pineapple. I hope none of these games die out, however I view them as a game for experienced players rather than the masses.

Ultimately the numbers do not lie. If Stud or PLO or Badugi had the potential for being as popular as Hold'em, they would be already. The reason we see so much Hold'em is because that's what people prefer, and with the exception of PLO, which is still growing, I think we have reached critical mass with the other games.

By Barry Carter

Read more columns by Barry Carter l Follow Barry Carter on Twitter