Party Poker's Long Term Health

[Michael Davis]

Anybody else think Party really needs to curtail the multitabling? There's no reason people can play more than four, especially since playing more than two is really something that only the very best are exploiting.

-Michael

[FishBurger]

Do you think all the multi-tablers will end up scaring away the fish? Personally, I don't think the fish even know how to tell if someone is multitabling or not.

[JGalt]

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody else think Party really needs to curtail the multitabling?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? If they have one person playing 8 tables, I don't see any reason for them to give up the extra $7.00+/- per hand.

[ QUOTE ]
There's no reason people can play more than four, especially since playing more than two is really something that only the very best are exploiting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you re-phrase that please?

[Michael Davis]

I'm thinking long-term. Obviously they would be giving up some immediate profits, though I'm not sure how much, as less players would be going broke.

Fish don't multitable. I search for fish all the time. 95% of the time they are playing one table. It is extremely rare to see them playing more than two.

-Michael

[BusterStacks]

This like saying "don't you think drug dealers need to lower their prices? I mean if durgs are too expensive, eventually they'll be broke."

They point is, it doesn't matter how much they win or lose, most people are there with disposable income or have gambling problems and will play regardless.

[JGalt]

I see where your coming from. Interesting question. The more good players multi-tabling the quicker the fish will go through their money, lowering their over-all player base.

At the rate poker is expanding I don't see any reason for them to have to worry at this point. I'm sure if someone had the time they could actually figure out mathematically at what point multi-tabling could lower their profit. Hhhmmm, I have the time.........but not the knowledge. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[BillUCF]

The oceans of our Earth will never run out of fish. I don't see online poker running out of fish. Let the multi-tabling continue.

[Michael Davis]

Anecdotally, I think most will agree that the games have gotten much worse over the course of the last year. The number of fish has to increase with the number of sharks or there won't be any games.

-Michael

[FlFishOn]

More generally, online poker is a bubble, like NADSAQ, like tulips in 1620. Today things are good, tomorrow, not so much. In five years it'll all be done. Enjoy it while it lasts.

I can't imagine what live poker will be like in 5 years. I suspect that's where I'll end up. Life at Commerce wasn't too awful. Perhaps Biloxi.

[Cubswin]

Anecdotally, I think most will agree that the games have gotten much worse over the course of the last year. The number of fish has to increase with the number of sharks or there won't be any games.

I can only speak for the 2/4 and 3/6 games and agree they have gotten much tougher over the past year. My numbers have come down a little bit from the days when party had under 5k people playing. Has multi-tabling played a part of this? yes. Are the games still beatable? very much so. Will they remain beatable? of course. Do I wish all you other fuggers would quit mult-tabling? yup. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

The key for any LL multi-tabler in the coming years is going to be table selection... but im sure im just telling you all stuff you know already...

cubs

PS Did anyone else notice that the 2/4 games were espcially nice last night (friday)?

[Cubswin]

More generally, online poker is a bubble, like NADSAQ, like tulips in 1620. Today things are good, tomorrow, not so much. In five years it'll all be done. Enjoy it while it lasts.

I disagree for so many reasons. Online poker is not going away anytime soon. The game quality might go down but not the numbers playing it.

cubs

[Michael Davis]

Well, this is a big concern. If the game deteriorates too much it won't be worth playing. But this might be a long way away. My win rate could be cut 2/3 and it would still be worth playing over going to a B&M. But I could see even this edge being eliminated in the coming years as the number of sharks increases.

-Michael

[Cubswin]

If the game deteriorates too much it won't be worth playing.

If the games deteriorate to this point which players are the ones who are going to quit playing? Its really a moot point because there are just way too many gamblers out there and because we havnt scratched the surface of the global player base. The marginal winners are the only ones who might need to worry.

cubs

[Rudbaeck]

When there isn't enough food for predators there is dieback among the predators, not the prey.

[Cubswin]

nice hand

[AngryCola]

Haven't people been saying that about live poker for years?

Online poker wont "be done" anytime soon.

Honestly, I'm not sure how you can make such a bold statement.
Comparing online poker to the stock market is worse than comparing apples to oranges.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Haven't people been saying that about live poker for years?

Online poker wont "be done" anytime soon.

Honestly, I'm not sure how you can make such a bold statement.


[/ QUOTE ]

The big difference is that skilled B&M players only play one table at a time.

Online, if the fish continue to come in one table at a time, they will eventually be massively outnumbered by the skilled players playing four to eight tables at a time.

[radek2166]

A few things you forget.

1)limits online vs b&m
2)drve time for most people
3)many games anytime
4)no tipping the dealer

[mcozzy1]

The party low limit games have gotten progressively more difficult. During the weekdays, it sometimes seems like it's all multitabling pros. Friday was exceptional. So nice to see soooo many fish.

[ QUOTE ]
More generally, online poker is a bubble, like NADSAQ, like tulips in 1620. Today things are good, tomorrow, not so much. In five years it'll all be done. Enjoy it while it lasts.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. I don't think it will be that good for more than 2 years tops. Just look at the number of daily posts asking about adding another monitor (I want to tell them that it's impossible or that it gives your computer nasty viruses - but that wouldn't be right).

There just aren't 8 new fish coming in for every multitabling pro. I've seen quite a few of the existing fish smarten up about their play after dropping a bunch of cash.

I'm already making plans to phase in another job a year from now. I wish it was going to last, but it's not.

[barongreenback]

[ QUOTE ]
The oceans of our Earth will never run out of fish. I don't see online poker running out of fish. Let the multi-tabling continue.

[/ QUOTE ]
Haven't you heard of overfishing?

As for poker:

Big profits for Party + multitablers making big money
= that money has to come from somewhere

There will be an inevitable toughening of tables as losing players drift down the limits.

I also wonder about Party's profits as most of the big multitablers must be getting rakeback.

[lorinda]

Deleted.

Lori

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
Haven't people been saying that about live poker for years?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the death of live poker was to happen about three months after the original Super System got published. Seems to be a rather slow death though.

[Uglyowl]

"I also wonder about Party's profits"

Don't lose sleep over this please /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
I also wonder about Party's profits as most of the big multitablers must be getting rakeback.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to eGamingReview it was projected at $500 million for 2004. According to the rumours around a possible float it was 'merely' $350 million for 2004.

Their server park doesn't cost much to run, the software development must have been virtually free. Compare Party to a major online computer game like Everquest 2 and it's virtually free to run Party. Their only real expense is advertising.

[barongreenback]

[ QUOTE ]
"I also wonder about Party's profits"

Don't lose sleep over this please /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
I was being hopeful. If only all those players could migrate to a site that spent some money on something other than marketing (you know, software, CS etc.)

[FlFishOn]

Everyone here want you to be right. The last thing I want to do is spend 10 hours a day in a smokey card room.

The general, structural thing that bothers me, makes me most concerned, is the hyper-speed of all silicon-based things. To quote Ferris Beuller "Things move pretty fast."
Today, they move even faster than I can imagine.

Go back and read some 1970s SciFi and see what they expected from computer technology. Most authors missed it by several orders of magnitude. We are making the same underestimations today.

Online poker will move at similar speed, both up and down. I was discussing this with a well respected poker author and our mutual opinion was that the gravy train derails in 4-5 years. Make sure you have an out.

[Cubswin]

You completely lost me. What is exactly is your argument?

cubs

[Ben]

I don't understand the theory that fish who lose money will stop playing.

Casinos are thriving on people who are THRILLED to put themselves in guaranteed negative EV situations on EVERY round simply because when they do win, it's a thrill for them.

Does this sound reasonable: if casinos keep taking people's money, eventually no one will frequent them anymore? Why do people apply this same logic to poker? I don't think the fish I play against are any smarter, I think they play for fun and don't really care if they lose over time (or are addicted, or THINK they're winning players or will be soon).

Ben

[BillsChips]

Reading this thread, it's painfully obvious that most of you are twenty-somethings who think they have a handle on the way the world works - wrong! Right now poker is the current fad. This will change, I promise you. An internet site scandal, a Federal Regulation, a stock market crash, Shawna Hyatt coming out of the closet...almost anything will cause the bubble to burst. Probably 95% of you will no longer be playing online poker within 5 years.

To say the ocean can never run out of fish is the most childish statement I've heard in a long time. Realistically or metaphorically.

I'm sure most of you weren't around in the 70's when tennis became the new hotest thing. All of a sudden you couldn't find an empty court. Everyone was taking lessons and new pro-shops were opening up everywhere. It didn't last long. Tennis is still around, as poker will be, but it will never have the same widespread participation as it did in its hayday.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand the theory that fish who lose money will stop playing.

Casinos are thriving on people who are THRILLED to put themselves in guaranteed negative EV situations on EVERY round simply because when they do win, it's a thrill for them.

Does this sound reasonable: if casinos keep taking people's money, eventually no one will frequent them anymore? Why do people apply this same logic to poker? I don't think the fish I play against are any smarter, I think they play for fun and don't really care if they lose over time (or are addicted, or THINK they're winning players or will be soon).

Ben

[/ QUOTE ]

One difference is that a trip to a casino is a special occasion for most people. They're on vacation, or it's someone's bachelor party, or whatever. They know it's -EV but they don't care because so is going to a movie or a strip club or whatever. They get the blinky lights and the scantily clad drink wenches and maybe they might win a few dollars, but that's only a small part of why they're there. The whole thing is a sensory overload escape.

Compare that to the regular logging into a poker site from one's bedroom surrounded by laundry and empty mountain dew cans. It doesn't exactly have the draws, other than money, to keep bringing them back. If they don't win, there's much less incentive to keep coming back.

eastbay

[o0mr_bill0o]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand the theory that fish who lose money will stop playing.

Casinos are thriving on people who are THRILLED to put themselves in guaranteed negative EV situations on EVERY round simply because when they do win, it's a thrill for them.

Does this sound reasonable: if casinos keep taking people's money, eventually no one will frequent them anymore? Why do people apply this same logic to poker? I don't think the fish I play against are any smarter, I think they play for fun and don't really care if they lose over time (or are addicted, or THINK they're winning players or will be soon).

Ben

[/ QUOTE ]

here's the problem I have with online poker. you keep your bankroll on the site the whole time. so say i'm a fish who likes to play poker at a b&m, i go in, sometimes i leave with more money than i came in with and sometimes i leave with less. since i'm a fish i don't keep good records of my gambling, so it's possible to convince myself i'm a long term winner, or at least a marginal loser. with online poker you don't have that. you put your bankroll all on there, and just gradually watch it drop to zero. after a few buyins it's hard for a fish to convince himself that he's a long-term winner.

[lorinda]

I think the excessive TV coverage has already sent people through the phases of "This looks cool" to "What's on the other channel" in the space of a few months.

I don't think internet poker will die, but I think this will be it's biggest year.

I don't recall ever agreeing with FlFish, but people who don't think that the amazing growth is just a fad may wish to look back at the history of similar things (Snooker in the UK being a prime example)

They don't die out entirely, but they switch back to obscure much more quickly than you expect when in the middle of it.

It's not just a case of whether poker will survive in the sense people look at it, there is always the possibility of a better game coming along (Let's face it , winning poker is boring), the US government making it illegal, DOS attacks, something more 'fun' than PC's as we know them, and the fickle nature of people simply finding something else to do.

It will die out, but hopefully it won't return to 2001 levels at all. I think that this summer will be the peak for poker, although I don't think it will rapidly collapse.
At some point new players will equal players leaving, and while it is unpredictable in the extreme as to when this occurs, saying that it will definitely continue to expand, and not having a back-up plan would be an error for people considering becoming online-pro.

Lori

[peter t 9]

come on ,how many people do you know who play the state lotteries and megabucks for years and years , they never win but they keep coming back cause they think that eventually they will become winners. playing poker online is so easy to do that these types of gamblers er fish will not be going anywhere for a long time

[lorinda]

In 15 years the UK lottery has lost 2/3rds (from memory, will check details later) of it's customers from the initial starting point.

Lori

[FlFishOn]

"If they don't win, there's much less incentive to keep coming back."

Never forget, as a fish online there is no way to deny your fishiness. It's right there in the Visa statement every month.

In B&M poker, self deception is so much easier.

[FlFishOn]

"Reading this thread, it's painfully obvious that most of you are twenty-somethings who think they have a handle on the way the world works - wrong! "

You hit the nail on the head, an idiom that most 20sumthns will not understand in the age of staples.

It's a bit trying at times when your (sic) twice as old as you're (sic) average poster.

[Michael Davis]

It's foolish to dismiss anything said because of the age of someone saying it.

Many of you are disagreeing with Cubswin. Well, if you didn't know, Cubswin is an excellent, informed poster. That doesn't mean he can't be wrong on this issue, but it does mean that if he is wrong it is not because he is ignorant or stupid or inexperienced because of his age.

The regular 20somethings on this board are a whole lot smarter than your average 20something, and it goes hand-in-hand with poker success that they would take a more mature, long-term view of things.

Dismissing someone's viewpoint due to lack of experience is a pretty bad logical error, especially in this case, where it's not like any of us have lived through a popular poker boom.

-Michael

[SCfuji]

poker is a game that people love. winning or losing money can be highly INDEPENDENT of their love for the game. people will work their jobs and go to live or online games over and over again. i have friends that lose money consistently, yet continue to play games.

there will always be fish.

[vegasforest]

I totally agree. Fads come and go all the time. Remeber just a few years ago you could want into any mall in the US and find 20+ stores selling Beanie Babies and one stores selling poker chips. Now, it is the exact opposite.

BTW, I think Shawna Hiatt coming out of the closet would be a good thing for poker. That would translate to a lot of free press, and all fads are helped by free press.

Of course, poker will always be with us, but we may be seeing it at it's most popular right now.

[FlFishOn]

My comments were of a general nature.

Suffice it to say if I can tell you're a 20smthn by the way you write then what you have to say will be discounted.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Casinos are thriving on people who are THRILLED to put themselves in guaranteed negative EV situations on EVERY round simply because when they do win, it's a thrill for them.

[/ QUOTE ]


Exactly.

You can even ADVERTISE how much your disadvantage is...and people will STILL keep playing.
Ever see those signs for "Our jackpots pay-out 97%".
Ummm, okay....yet people still can't figure out that this is just another way of saying "come play with us because your disadvantage doesn't suck as much here as it does next-door"


Losing players will continue to play....not only because of ALL the reasons we can come up with (people love to gamble, they don't understand the math, they get drunk, they think they're good and just got unlucky, etc etc), but MORESO for the obvious reason: Because they ALWAYS have.

no matter what logic applies to each specific situation....it is obvious that losing players still keep playing -EV games.

If the casinos aren't worried about "what will happen when ALL the bad players run out of money and stop playing these -EV games? OMG!! we'll go out of business!!" then why should we.

[BillsChips]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing anything because of anyone's age. I know quite a few dopes who are "mature". I'm pointing out that experience counts for a great deal in this world. In this case it would help you see that this poker craze is a fad and will greatly diminish in the near future. To what extent, no one can predict, but I can assure you that the pool of fish will dry up considerably.

Whenever a fad (craze, whatever) becomes accepted by mainstream society, that's a sign that it has peaked and will shortly begin to decline. (See Disco, Meditation, Pyramid Schemes etc). In this case just look at the Home Shopping Network selling Hellmuth's tapes and poker chips. Everyone I know at work is playing Hold'em now. Bed Bath and Beyond and Modell's Sporting Goods are selling poker chips and tables. This is the harbinger that tells me we're at or beyond the peak.

Just a year or so ago every candy store and card store had a humidor and was selling fine($20+) cigars. Now it's poker.

When bots and multitable-playing pros take over all of the games, it's only a matter of time before the mainstream (fish) eschew online poker.

I take back what I said about Shawna Hyatt...it would probably make WPT even more popular.

[Bellagibro]

Enjoy the good times while they last.

[Jeff W]

I agree that the games have gotten worse even over the course of the last year even though the Party network is at its peak popularity. The rise of data mining, 6-8 tabling, and proliferation of cheap information regarding game selection and strategy have contributed to the decline of Party's games.

For those posters who foresee a sharp decline in the beatability of games: Can you estimate how bad this decline will be?

Assume a player 1.00 bb/100 4-tabling the Party 15/30 full is our baseline and assume his skill does not change during the decline. At the lowest point, what do you estimate his baseline winrate will fall to?

[Shoe]

The state of the party is good.

[Izverg04]

[ QUOTE ]
If the casinos aren't worried about "what will happen when ALL the bad players run out of money and stop playing these -EV games? OMG!! we'll go out of business!!" then why should we.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. In my opinion, that's all that needed to be said in this thread.

[MicroBob]

true...but i live to be long-winded and have a reputation to maintain.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
You can even ADVERTISE how much your disadvantage is...and people will STILL keep playing.
Ever see those signs for "Our jackpots pay-out 97%".
Ummm, okay....yet people still can't figure out that this is just another way of saying "come play with us because your disadvantage doesn't suck as much here as it does next-door"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but they don't have between four and eight of those 97% machines attacking them at the same time like they do with the online multitablers.

[MicroBob]

The point is that people are stupid and thus will contninue to play even when they lose.

I agree that the proliferation of online multi-tablers is a factor and that many players who multi-table are exactly the one's you would rather avoid (but not all of them).

[gaming_mouse]

Multi-tabling TAGs will not be the end of online poker. The games will get tougher, but the fish will not dry up any more than they will dry up in B&M games. If the end of online poker comes, it will be because of bots with incredibly good AI.

[TylerD]

I recall that the game quality dropped off in 2003 towards the end of the year, but picked up again in Spring when the WPT began airing...

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that the proliferation of online multi-tablers is a factor and that many players who multi-table are exactly the one's you would rather avoid (but not all of them).

[/ QUOTE ]

The norm for the 2,134 TA-A multitablers in my database is 15 VP$IP, 8 PFR, and 3 AGG, and they're a pretty tough crowd to play against.

[barongreenback]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the casinos aren't worried about "what will happen when ALL the bad players run out of money and stop playing these -EV games? OMG!! we'll go out of business!!" then why should we.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. In my opinion, that's all that needed to be said in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
Casinos make money from winning players as well as losing ones and no one is suggesting than online poker is going to cease. Besides do you think that if the casinos saw dark clouds on the horizon, that they would tell anyone.

There are two issues:
1. How much money is coming into the game from outside. This is not just determined by the number of players but what limits they are prepared to play.
2. What is the quality of the play at a given limit.

It's quite clear that many people are prepared to lose money playing but everyone has a point at which losing becomes uncomfortable. They then have to either quit, play less, play for less money or work on their game.

Winning poker players tend to have a disdain for losers. The term 'fish' is used too lightly IMO. There is an assumption that these guys are morons but they are mostly rational. They just have different aims and when those aims are not
being met by giving us a chunk of their wages they will do something about it.

That said I think online poker has a good future.

BGb

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
It's foolish to dismiss anything said because of the age of someone saying it.

Many of you are disagreeing with Cubswin. Well, if you didn't know, Cubswin is an excellent, informed poster. That doesn't mean he can't be wrong on this issue, but it does mean that if he is wrong it is not because he is ignorant or stupid or inexperienced because of his age.

The regular 20somethings on this board are a whole lot smarter than your average 20something, and it goes hand-in-hand with poker success that they would take a more mature, long-term view of things.

Dismissing someone's viewpoint due to lack of experience is a pretty bad logical error, especially in this case, where it's not like any of us have lived through a popular poker boom.

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

barry sanders was the greatest running back ever. i'm 22.

[ QUOTE ]

Barry sanders is the wrong answer. By a large margin. This only shows the forum's youth.

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

not quite the same, but you didn't really make much of an argument.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
come on ,how many people do you know who play the state lotteries and megabucks for years and years , they never win but they keep coming back cause they think that eventually they will become winners. playing poker online is so easy to do that these types of gamblers er fish will not be going anywhere for a long time

[/ QUOTE ]

Lotteries provide a different kind of draw: instant millions. If someone is chasing instant financial freedom, they're looking at big buy-in tournaments, $500+, not $1 lottery tickets. No, your analogy doesn't hold at all. poker is a slow grind up or down. Lottery types want it all in one glorious instant.

eastbay

[OldLearner]

[ QUOTE ]
If the casinos aren't worried about "what will happen when ALL the bad players run out of money and stop playing these -EV games? OMG!! we'll go out of business!!" then why should we.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most Casinos that offer poker in addition to all of the other traditional "Casino" games (BJ, Craps, Slots) make less money from their poker tables than from any of the other games.

They would much rather replace their poker areas with slot banks or table games.

They offer poker so they can call themselves a full-service gaming establishment. Poker is a net-loser for most casinos when compared with what they would make if their 10 poker tables were replaced with 10 BJ tables or 30 slots.

The casinos aren't worried if the fish pool dries up. Obviously if the only game offered is poker, then they would be concerned.

[HesseJam]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
come on ,how many people do you know who play the state lotteries and megabucks for years and years , they never win but they keep coming back cause they think that eventually they will become winners. playing poker online is so easy to do that these types of gamblers er fish will not be going anywhere for a long time

[/ QUOTE ]

Lotteries provide a different kind of draw: instant millions. If someone is chasing instant financial freedom, they're looking at big buy-in tournaments, $500+, not $1 lottery tickets. No, your analogy doesn't hold at all. poker is a slow grind up or down. Lottery types want it all in one glorious instant.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct. Lottery is a total different animal. A ticket is cheap and you almost do not forego anything if you buy it. You do not spend a lot of time buying it. You buy a dream (My fxcking life could change if I hit it) which lasts until the drawings. After the drawings you can rebuy cheaply and dream on...

[Shaun]

I've heard this all before. First Paradise was fish heaven, then after a while it wasn't. These things go in cycles.

More people wil be playing poker 5 years from now, not less. There is no way that all this hype and all these TV shows and all these sites will cause fish to disappear. So the Party games are tougher? Maybe. But poker is expanding, and although this means better players, it means more players too. Find easier games. They are out there.

I wouldn't panic. This isn't the dotcom bubble. The dotcoms didn't produce anything. Online poker on the other hand, gives people a chance to play a great game from the comfort of their home. And it IS a great game: Poker has been around for ages and it hasn't gone anywhere even though it was never nearly as hyped as it is now. It is a great American pastime and is becoming big throughout the world. It's here to stay: like soccer is here to stay for the rest of the world and football is here to stay for us in the U.S.

Don't worry!

[BillsChips]

Dear Dilutional People,

Another thread on this site talks about Annie Duke getting her own Sit-Com. Read my comments above about fads ending when they get accepted by the mainstream. Remember Day-Trading? Would anyone like to buy a CB radio?

[Michael Davis]

Sephus,

Nice catch. I give you mad propers for this. But I don't think my statements are contradictory.

-Michael

[Shoe]

[ QUOTE ]
Dear Dilutional People,

Another thread on this site talks about Annie Duke getting her own Sit-Com. Read my comments above about fads ending when they get accepted by the mainstream. Remember Day-Trading? Would anyone like to buy a CB radio?

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't a bubble that is just going to burst. The reason there aren't as many day-traders anymore is because the bubble bursted. I agree, that poker on TV is reaching its peak and will need to be on the decline soon, however, all the new players that have entered the game, are going to keep playing for years to come (most for the rest of their lives).

I think ESPN's WSOP coverage and the WPT coverage will remain the most popular, and all the other poker shows out there are going to struggle to become one of the few remaining survivors.

The game now has millions of new casual players, that are going to play atleast a few times a year, every year.

[imported_stealthcow]

a rake free site would help a boatload in curbing this

stealthcow-

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
the software development must have been virtually free.

[/ QUOTE ]

If not, they were overcharged.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
In B&M poker, self deception is so much easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence, all of the "I'm a winning poker player in live games, but I can't win online. Online poker is rigged." posts

[4thstreetpete]

Party has over 72K players right now playing, that's the most I've ever seen. This is crazy!
It's a safe bet that this year's WSOP will be the biggest one yet again and will bring in new players to the game so it's really hard to see this little 'fad' slowing down anytime soon.

I for one am pretty optimistic about the future of poker (both B&M and online). It's pretty scary to see how mainstream it is nowadays. I was at my local book store the other day and saw some kid no older than 12 ask his mom to buy him phil helmuth's playing poker like the pro's. There's a whole new generation of players coming of age and will be entering the poker world soon when they have the money. Don't be surprised if the other person that you're playing with online is some 13 yr old kid with his daddy's credit card.

The only thing I do worry about are government regulations. This is the only threat to the continuing growth of online poker (and gambling). Everytime I hear someone say this is the year when poker peaks, it only gets bigger and better.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
Sephus,

Nice catch. I give you mad propers for this. But I don't think my statements are contradictory.

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

no, not really contradictory, but you could have said "barry sanders is wrong" simply by voting, so by actually making a post you're indicating you have some argument to make (or evidence to show), then the only thing you say is about the forum's youth, so you're sort of implying that your opinion should be given extra weight simply because you're (presumably) less youthful.

(by the way, i usually don't go out of my way to nitpick with random (to me anyway) posters, but i'm a big barry sanders fan...)

[crockett]

Wow! I had no idea. I just read this entire thread and I can not get over the number of people who think Poker will not be just another fad. Before the boom I could count on one hand the number of players that I knew that played online, in a B&M or the regular home game. Currently, I would guess 80% of the employees (450+) where I work are doing one of those three. In five years do you really think these people will still be dropping $50-$150 dollars in Party to see it evaporate to nothing over time and then redeposit! Hell no, in fact I've already talked to some who are done with it. They are either honest about it or tell me the sites are rigged. They say "If I want to gamble, I'll take the wife to the local Casino now and then."

Stop with the stupid lottery and Casino comparisons. If you find a Poker game where I can wager a $1 every pot to win a million or mult-millions, let me know. If you find a Casino that runs a Blackjack table where I get to win your money if you play more poorly than I do, let me know. Don't you realize that people go to Casino's knowing they are going to lose. They know the game is fixed against them. People go to Casino's for "other" reasons wether or not they'll admit it. People play Poker to win. Are you still doing anything that you consistantly lose at, yet is beatable? I bet not. Your just comparing apples to oranges.

It simply amazes me that someone doesn't realize this has about a 95%+ chance of just being another fad.

The only boom that I can think of off the top of my head that has held would be golf.

The list of "fads" that have come and gone is endless.

Sure Poker will always be here but in five years I think this thread would be really interesting to read.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you still doing anything that you consistantly lose at, yet is beatable?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, not that I disagree with your post, but the last few hockey teams I've been on have sucked pretty bad.

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow! I had no idea. I just read this entire thread and I can not get over the number of people who think Poker will not be just another fad. Before the boom I could count on one hand the number of players that I knew that played online, in a B&M or the regular home game. Currently, I would guess 80% of the employees (450+) where I work are doing one of those three. In five years do you really think these people will still be dropping $50-$150 dollars in Party to see it evaporate to nothing over time and then redeposit! Hell no, in fact I've already talked to some who are done with it. They are either honest about it or tell me the sites are rigged. They say "If I want to gamble, I'll take the wife to the local Casino now and then."

Stop with the stupid lottery and Casino comparisons. If you find a Poker game where I can wager a $1 every pot to win a million or mult-millions, let me know. If you find a Casino that runs a Blackjack table where I get to win your money if you play more poorly than I do, let me know. Don't you realize that people go to Casino's knowing they are going to lose. They know the game is fixed against them. People go to Casino's for "other" reasons wether or not they'll admit it. People play Poker to win. Are you still doing anything that you consistantly lose at, yet is beatable? I bet not. Your just comparing apples to oranges.

It simply amazes me that someone doesn't realize this has about a 95%+ chance of just being another fad.

The only boom that I can think of off the top of my head that has held would be golf.

The list of "fads" that have come and gone is endless.

Sure Poker will always be here but in five years I think this thread would be really interesting to read.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't possibly think the number of users will ever go down from this point forward.

[crockett]

You bring up a perfect example that reinforces what I'm saying.

When I was younger I played Pee Wee travel hockey for same team that had spawned one the players on the 1980 Olympic team. I was a decent player, not great or anything and no aspirations of ever doing anything but just playing hockey but I still loved the game. We lost every single game that season. The following season we lost every single game. The following year I refused to play. My dad was furious but I just wouldn't play. I hated losing. Looking back I wish I would have never made that decision. My brother (3 years younger) went on to play through Pee Wee, through high school and still plays in Men's league now. He gets a lot out of it. I've never played since.

If people just keep losing, my guess is they won't come back.

[crockett]

Yes I do.

I was having an excellent email discussion with the inventor of the pet rock and the hula-hoop about how the increasing population would almost guarantee them an ever expanding market to sell their "hot" new products to but both of them stopped emailing me back. I'm not sure what happened to them but I did here a rumor that the pet rock guy was really into making his own beer and the inventor of the hula-hoop got caught up in the Amway craze.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]

It simply amazes me that someone doesn't realize this has about a 95%+ chance of just being another fad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you get this number?

Oh, wait -
I know...
You just pulled it out of your ass.

By the way, your post is completely wrong, and shows you don't understand why poker has been around since before you were born.

Why people think that online poker will somehow change that, I have no idea. Your point about people losing doesn't add up either, and it shows you don't really understand why fish play.

But don't let me stop you.
Go ahead and think the sky is falling.

[BaggyAnt]

Why not look at the wider picture? Do you really think On-line poker is going to only be available on a Laptop or Desktop PC?

We haven't even got to Poker on your mobile phone yet (bored commuters on the journey home anyone?) or how about Poker through your Tv via Cable? What about Poker through a console ala Xbox or perhaps PSP! Whilst we're at it let's ignore North America and Parts of Europe, what about other parts of the world this hasn't reached? As if the Chinese aren't known for liking a good gamble /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Maybe just maybe the US will reach Saturation in 5 years but the rest of the world will still be catching up!

[crockett]

Look, I don't think the sky is falling. I'm not trying to say that tomorrow you will wake up and "poof" Poker will be gone.

What I am saying is that I believe in five years the numbers we see playing poker now will be greatly reduced. That is all plain and simple.

And yes if it makes you feel superior by stating the obvious I did completely pull that number out of the air and it is simply just an opinion and a guess that I can back up with no fact whatsoever. It is only based on experience.

You mentioned most or everything I said was wrong but I missed your facts or links to back up your opinion. Or were you just being like me? Oh, I hope not, you wouldn't be like me...especially as much as you look down on me.

Also, you might find a very interesting article located right here on these forums. I don't want to mis-summarize it but it talks about how the publishers of 2+2 feel there is good chance that the "book-boom" is fading or will shortly. I'm willing to bet they don't have any hard evidence or facts but are just forming this opinion based on their current knowlege and past experiences. Wether or not this trend that they predict can be tied to the "numbers" of people playing online poker...I'll let you draw that conclusion. I happen to believe they will coincide. You may feel otherwise.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]

You mentioned most or everything I said was wrong but I missed your facts or links to back up your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really?

That weird, because most of the facts I would mention have already been pointed out by others in this thread and elsewhere.

I'm just not one to repeat other people.
But it's not like I said some BS like, "I'm 87% sure that poker is not a fad."

What experiences are you referring to?
Meh.. it doesn't matter.

Also, my opinions are backed up with the history of poker and gambling. I think that's enough of a reference.

[Michael Davis]

I'm only 24.

-Michael

[RyGreen18]

This thread has been very entertaining and informative to read. Here is the bottom line: poker is definately a popular fad right now. Does that mean online poker won't be here in 5 years? No. Will there still be fish to take money from? Yes, of course. This next 6 months will be the easiest competition we face, no doubt. I predict in a couple years that the online sites will have similiar players as the Cryptologic sites do. Those games are beatable, but not to the point as the Party games are. Will you still be able to win money online 5 years from now? Of course, but you will have to settle for 1BB/100 rather than the 3.5BB/100 you are accustomed to. The pool of fish won't dry up completely, but it will be much shallower, no doubt...