Telegram
How the Poker Industry Has Changed in 20 Years: Interview with Max Streltcoff
The poker industry brings together many people, from players and game organizers to journalists who cover their activities. Max Streltcoff has been one of the latter for 20 years now — and in this interview with Pokeroff, he shares his insights, personal opinions on various issues related to poker as a game and industry, as well as his view on the value of poker journalism.
— You started covering poker journalism in 2006. How has the poker industry changed since then, and what do you consider the most important shifts?
I started playing in 2006, when partypoker was the market leader and everyone thought it would stay that way forever. But that same year, the UIGEA law was passed in the U.S., partypoker pulled out, and its space was taken by PokerStars. For several years, the word “poker” was practically synonymous with that brand — and now GGPoker in its place.
Changing market leaders is important, but the biggest shift has been regulation. Back then, poker was kind of like the Wild West — just like the early Internet. Today, it’s a fully regulated space where players constantly face restrictions — from identity verifications to country-specific bans.
— In your opinion, how much has poker journalism influenced the development of poker as a sport or cultural phenomenon?
Unfortunately, poker journalism hasn’t had a significant impact on the industry’s development. In my view, the main reason is that it’s almost always tied to affiliate systems — and affiliates rely on poker rooms. That limits freedom of speech. If you can’t openly talk about problems in the industry, you can’t help change it.
The level of influence also depends on the country. In Russia, for example, poker’s brief recognition as a sport was more of an attempt by casinos to bypass regulation than a result of journalistic effort. In the U.S., however, public opinion — including its spreading through the media — may have played a role in legalization and pooling players across states.
If we’re talking about poker as a cultural phenomenon, then in the U.S. it was strongly boosted by a movie, and in Russia — by TV shows. ESPN used to cover the WSOP but initially interest was so low that they didn’t release anything from the event for several years.
— You’ve followed many players from the very beginning — what, in your opinion, separates a true poker legend from just a talented pro?
A talented pro knows when to walk away. A legend doesn’t. They lose everything, come back, succeed again, fall again. It’s a cycle. That’s what makes them reckless, stubborn, and almost obsessively drawn to the game.
Take Johnny Chan. He won two WSOP Main Events back-to-back, and the third year he made it to heads-up and lost to a newcomer named Phil Hellmuth. But before that, at 16, Chan arrived in Vegas with $500, won $20,000, and lost it all right away. He dropped out of school, turned down the family business, took random jobs — and kept losing everything. He smoked four packs a day. In 1982, he quit smoking and started carrying an orange to the casino — he’d smell it to keep from relapsing. In his first tournament after that, he knocked out 13 of 16 players in half an hour. The rest is history.
— How has public perception of poker changed in the last 20 years — has it moved toward intellectual sport or back toward gambling?
The perception is changing, but very slowly. It all depends on how people are introduced to poker. Those who watched tournament poker on TV see it completely differently from those who played with Johnny Chan in smoke-filled rooms back in the ’80s.
That’s also reflected in the law. In Brazil, for example, poker is officially separated from casino games, and tournaments are treated as sports. More and more countries are moving in that direction, but we’re still far from a full shift.
— Has poker journalism ever required real investigative work from you, like in traditional journalism?
In my case, the deepest I’ve gone is digging through old magazine scans for historical details. That’s closer to archival research than investigation.
But real investigative journalism does happen in poker — it’s just usually done by larger, independent media outlets. For example, this year Bloomberg published a piece about bot networks. They anonymously interviewed people who run these operations and revealed how the business works from the inside. That kind of work is only possible if you’re not tied to poker rooms — and most poker media are.
— Many people view poker journalism as niche. What, in your opinion, prevents it from breaking into the mainstream?
The main issue is the affiliate model. Nearly all poker media only exist to funnel players into poker rooms. Because of that, you can’t freely choose topics, criticize the industry, or write for readers — it’s always about traffic. In that setup, journalism can’t go mainstream.
Also, poker is complicated. To follow it, you need to know the terms, understand formats, keep up with players. That’s too much for most people.
Compare it to sports — there, a journalist is the bridge between athletes and fans. In poker, that bridge often isn’t needed: most players are unknown outside the table, and many of them avoid publicity altogether. Top players often avoid journalists instead of helping grow the game.
— How have technologies — streaming, social media, trackers — changed the way poker is covered and how journalists work?
They’ve changed a lot. Streaming and social media brought players closer to the audience, and now a lot happens without journalists at all. If you wanted to know what a player was thinking before, you had to interview them — now they just post it on X (formerly Twitter) or Telegram. The journalist is left to summarize and maybe add context.
I remember when HUDs first appeared and the edge they gave to those with access. You could play 12 tables and still have some data on opponents. Today, poker rooms are fighting back — some ban them, others integrate those tools into their software. Each approach has its pros and cons, but the winners will be those who adopt tech quickly and make it accessible.
The next logical step is AI-driven training. Poker rooms already have every hand a player has played and know exactly where they’re making mistakes. All that’s left is to add theory, videos, voiceovers — all of which already exist. I think both GGPoker and PokerStars could launch an AI coach as good as a real one.
— What are the most meaningful interviews or pieces you’ve worked on and why?
Recently, I worked on a series of historical pieces about the early WSOP events. I think that’s the kind of content that will outlive me in the industry, whenever I decide to move on.
Doyle Brunson won’t win another Main Event, but his story will live on. To tell it without distortion, I had to dig through tons of archives, cross-check dates, and debunk myths. It wasn’t fast, but I’m proud it got done.
— Do you think there are ethical boundaries in poker journalism, and if so, what are they?
Yes, absolutely. The most basic one — don’t invade a player’s personal life if it has nothing to do with the game or the industry. And never publish unverified accusations — poker is full of rumors, but a journalist’s job is to separate fact from speculation.
It’s also important to know when you’re being a journalist and when you’re just an affiliate. If you’re being paid to promote something and call it a review or article — that’s no longer journalism. Although in the poker world, that’s often considered normal.
— If you could ask any poker player in history one question — who would it be and what would you ask?
I’d use the opportunity to clear up one of poker’s old myths. At the 1972 WSOP, three players — Thomas “Amarillo Slim” Preston, Doyle Brunson, and Walter “Puggy” Pearson — allegedly made a deal while casino owner Benny Binion distracted the TV crew. Brunson exited the game, citing health issues, leaving Slim and Pearson heads-up.
At first, Pearson was dumping chips despite having twice the stack, but later they started playing seriously. Slim won — and became poker’s first real star.
I’d ask any of them: What exactly did you agree on — and was the plan all along to make Slim the winner?
— Over your nearly 20 years in poker, you’ve seen countless players. Who, in your opinion, are the top five greatest poker players of all time and why?
The online generation technically outpaced the live grinders. But calling any of them “the greatest” is hard — one day they’re crushing nosebleeds like Durrrr, the next they vanish. For me, the greatest are those who stayed at the top for years, influenced the game, and helped it grow.
Here’s my top five:
- Johnny Moss — played high stakes before it was cool, and decades later was voted the best player of WSOP’s first decade.
- Doyle Brunson — stayed strong for decades and shaped the industry. If he’d focused more on tournaments instead of cash, he’d have achieved even more.
- Phil Hellmuth — found success early, stayed on top for decades, and brought attention to poker. He’s often underrated, but 17 bracelets speak for themselves.
- Stu Ungar — won the Main Event three times (1980, 1981, 1997). That third win, 16 years after the second, says it all.
- Daniel Negreanu — the most recognizable face in poker. Not always the best technically, but unmatched in popularity and promotion of the game.
— In your opinion, which poker series or tournament remains the gold standard in terms of organization, atmosphere, and level of play?
Right now, Triton is running a series with excellent organization and atmosphere. And WSOP gets caught up in scandals every year — queues, payouts, software issues. But to be fair, for decades it was WSOP that set the standard. Everyone copied their decisions — from other series to online rooms.
They were the ones who created the tournament format we know today and introduced satellites. Without WSOP, there wouldn’t be online poker as we know it, or the industry we’ve grown used to.
— Have you ever been tempted not just to write about poker, but to try your hand as a professional player?
I played for many years, but I have almost no gambling instinct. I played like a robot — strictly by the book, 12 tables at once, with timers and a covered screen. At some point, I realized I didn’t want to be a robot. So yes, the temptation was there — but it didn’t last long.
— Is there a particular hand or final table you covered that left a strong impression on you?
During the 2008 WSOP Main Event, I was covering the final table online and was genuinely rooting for one of the finalists. I still remember everyone who made the top 9 that year.
If you’re not sure what to do on a weekend — watch the WSOP 2008 final table. It’s worth it.
Latest News
