Discussion on the future of the beatable SNG

[pshreck]

Woke up this Monday morning. Got in 8 SNG's before heading off to Friendly's for breakfast. Won 2 and placed in 2 others. Good to see the game (20+2) is still beatable at the toughest hours (I consider to be weekday in the AM).

Started thinking about the juicyness of the low level SNG. Last week was my toughest week in the 6 weeks I've gone semi-pro, but I still grinded through it and made 1100. Still about twice as much as any job I've had yet in my life... and it was my worst week.

Times are certainly good for serious poker players. For the most part, I am not butting heads against any other serious player. My opponents seem to have endless amounts of money that they don't mind parting with. I wonder... how long can this last?

I estimate that between 90 and 95% of all online players lose money in the long run. I am sure there are many a 2+2er that don't make any money from poker (but aren't too quick to discuss it). The question I am posing to you is this... how long can all this last for the 'good' poker player, who never has any intention of being great? How long can people keep dumping money into their online accounts and giving it out to the 10% or so of players that are profiting?

It simply cannot last forever... but how long will it? Thoughts and reasoning behind it would be appreciated.

I will post my thoughts on it after I gather them more.

[Killer Mike]

I assert that it can and will last forever. Why? Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I give you Exhibit A: Las Vegas. Vegas has been pulling in fistfuls of cash every millisecond for the past 70 years or so with no signs of slowing down. People go to Vegas with MUCH longer odds against them than when they enter an online poker room, yet they keep going back for more, so why wouldn't they keep playing poker? At least poker gives individuals the opportunity to interact (as opposed to pulling the handle on a slot machine) as well as a seemingly good chance of winning since they're playing others instead of the house (most fish overlook the rake altogether). The gaming community in general has been operating on this premise since its inception, so I think the noblest member of said community (poker, that is) will continue to be restocked with fresh fish. Just my $0.02.

[Phill S]

as an ever increasing population (gambling terms, ie population is 18+), with an increasing economic wealth per person on average, coupled with the TV coverage i cant see them getting much harder.

when people say 20-30% is a good ROI, in a few years it will be 20-25% i suspect.

the key time will be when someone brings out a book dedicated to STTs, and if its pushed hard (so were talking a 2+2 on SnGs for eg) in cardplayer and such the skill level will increase.

once it does people will know more about the little intricacies of SnGs, but not to the point of making them unprofitable.

the fish are fish not because theyve never heard of 2+2.com. do you see?

Phill
ps, if any of you top level players (jason strasser for one) who are milking the 100/200s want to come together to co-write a book then now is the time to do it.

[SlowStroke]

I remember when the book 'Beat The Dealer' came out in the early 1960's. A system to beat 21 that works!

Some people predicted that casino 21 would either die off or change completely to survive. After all, anyone could win now. Counting cards takes practice, but anyone with an IQ of 80 could do it.

Here we are 40 years later, casinos and 21 are thriving. People just like to gamble, and there is a new crop coming up every year.

In my opinion, poker will be beatable as long as you care to play it.

[Bremen]

In order to make any reasonable guesses we need to know various statistics on the average losing player. How much do they lose per week? Is this sustainable for them long term? What percentage of players lose a sustainable ammount versus unsustainable ones? How long before the unsustainable players bust? How long does it take the average sustainable loses player to lose interest in poker?

Clearly if there are vast throngs of people who only gamble a couple dollars a week (maybe one $10 SNG) the current state of online poker can be kept for quite awhile. This would also signal an estimate of 95% losing players could be quite low.

However if the games depend more on players who suffer from addictive behavior the potential for the games to turn sour is quite a bit higher, as the games depend on a steady influx of new players who will lose it all.

Given how rare it is to see opponents twice at the $10 level I'm taking a guess that most people only wager small ammounts of cash per week. In this case the potential of these games to remain good for quite some time is relatively high.

[pshreck]

Las Vegas is a place where the select rich are becoming rich.

Poker for a long time has been the same way. Im sure in the 80's and 90's there were a ton less people making a living off it then there is now. Because of a severe boom in coverage of poker, great advertising and a man named Moneymaker, there are a lot more people willing to part with their money to be a part of this current experience.

The common 'good' player that I am referring to is not comparable to Vegas, where there aren't tons of people making money, just a few getting rich.

[stlip]

I used to make a reasonable living as a grad student playing at B&M card rooms in the late 70s (Oaks Club and Garden City). I constantly wondered how on earth all these bad players could keep bringing their money to lose.

Then I got real jobs, and after four or five years I actually started making more than I could make at poker. Some years after that (probably 1990) I went back to visit the Oaks Club and I could not believe how many people I recognized. They just never left.

Second point, I just started playing online two months ago. With my background and interest I would figure to be one of the earlier people to jump into this, so if I just got here I think it is safe to say that we're not even half way through collecting all the players who are going to try this game.

Yes, huge numbers of them are going to crash and burn. But you may be surprised how long it takes before we get to the peak (another year or two at least, I wager) and what kind of sustainable level we'll settle at after that.

Good luck to all.

[chill888]

As long as there are well populated higher limit tables then the lower limits will ALWAYS be beatable

[LinusKS]

Poker will last - or at least, it won't be players running out of money that kills it. (Maybe legislation, or bots, but not that.)

The key to poker's success is that the variance is high enough that almost anyone can convince himself that a good run means he's a long-term winner.

[jadowa]

I say it will never stop... After all, gambling is an addiction to many. With the poker boom, many new addictions will be formed on top of the tons of people giving it a try for the first time.

[stupidsucker]

It is the very idea that poker can be beaten that attracts people. They lose and chalk it up to bad beats.(when their AT gets beaten by AK)

Casions give away free strategy cards for blackjack and craps. This is a great ploy that keeps them comming back for more.

How could I lose?

[Yads]

Well as long as holdem continues to be the game of choice for most people, this will last a long time. You see the whole reason holdem is so big, is because there is a huge element of luck to the game (and a huge element of skill.) In that aside from the top 5% of hands most other hands perform really close to each other. So it takes much longer for bad players to go broke. And as someone else mentioned I think that a lot of people will ride a hot streak and think that they are good poker players. Why do you think there are so many stories of people saying online poker is rigged because they "did really well at first, then proceded to lose everything". No I think poker is going to be around for a while, unless everyone goes back to playing 5 card draw and Doyle Brunson procedes to take everyone's money.