How are you going to deal with tougher games in the future?

[brick]

How are you going to deal with tougher games in the future?

Be patient and only sit in games that are better than average?
Limit the amount of poker you play?
Move down in stakes?

The poker boom is slowing, the number of new players and gambling types is now dwarfed by the number of players who are trying to play well.

The big difference that I see?
The boom has changed the perception of poker from that of a gambling game into one that requires skill.

This is bad for anyone who enjoys winning when they play poker. If everyone is trying hard to win it's going to be a much tougher proposition.
Now many new players play micro-limits online instead of testing their luck at 10-20. Or maybe the tried 4-8 a few times and lost, and so now they're learning the game online.

How are you going to deal with it if your winning game is slowly overcome by a lack poor players, the rake, and variance?

If the games get bad online, I'd probably be playing live. The way that I look at: online play has been a good vehicle for learning and building a roll as well as the experience as a whole.

If the games get horrible everywhere, I have no problems giving up the game. There's other hobbies I've made profitable in the past. And I doubt that live play won't be profitable since people that want tend to want gamble-it-up more in a live environment and have fun. That's what most people do at casinos. Internet play is a different beast. People scared of playing online for whatever reasons may be the same gamble-it-up types (e.g. computer illiterate, don't trust playing online, etc.).

I think a lot of people have this sunk cost mentality when it comes to this impending "doom switch" concept. It seems like many poker players tend to instantly refuse to give the game up because they spent all the money and time in books, etc., learning the game, they feel obligated to play it. These same winning gamblers talk about EV but refuse to apply to the poker economy as a whole. I suppose it's not that bad if a once +EV player busts out; he'll either get better or stop playing unless he's a glutton for pain.

I think that for reasonable players, perhaps not so much for the weak-tighties, that online play will be profitable for sometime. If playing online is not that profitable, it will at least be a good training tool for live play.

[SNOWBALL138]

There's a lot of discussion about this in the internet forum (zoo). Maybe not recently, but its definitely there if you do a search.

People who dedicate a lot of time to studying the game and have good discipline should be able to adjust to tougher games. I make most of my income from poker, but I'm not going to drop out of school. I still plan to be a lawyer. The work is more meaningful and more lucrative.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

The worst case scenario for winning players is that it will be harder to make less money.

[AlanBostick]

I'm going to deal with the tougher games in the future the same way I dealt with tougher games when I was learning to play: develop my edge.

I started playing in 1997, in Northern California. California's poker boom had long since peaked and stabilized. The games weren't the happy hunting ground they had been shortly after the introduction of hold'em in '87, but they weren't the least bit bad.

Rounders brought some soft new money to the game. So did the World Poker Tour, and the explosion of online poker. The games are rather softer than they were when I learned how to play.

This won't last forever; but I was a winner before the boom, and I expect that I'll be a winner after the boom peaks and tails off into a new steady state.

It's also my opinion that the new steady state will offer softer, better games than were available when I started playing. They just won't be as good as they are now, that's all.

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]

The games are rather softer than they were when I learned how to play.

I was a winner before the boom, and I expect that I'll be a winner after the boom peaks and tails off into a new steady state.

It's also my opinion that the new steady state will offer softer, better games than were available when I started playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

My sentiments.

[raze]

[ QUOTE ]
How are you going to deal with tougher games in the future?

Be patient and only sit in games that are better than average?
Limit the amount of poker you play?
Move down in stakes?

The poker boom is slowing, the number of new players and gambling types is now dwarfed by the number of players who are trying to play well.

The big difference that I see?
The boom has changed the perception of poker from that of a gambling game into one that requires skill.

This is bad for anyone who enjoys winning when they play poker. If everyone is trying hard to win it's going to be a much tougher proposition.
Now many new players play micro-limits online instead of testing their luck at 10-20. Or maybe the tried 4-8 a few times and lost, and so now they're learning the game online.

How are you going to deal with it if your winning game is slowly overcome by a lack poor players, the rake, and variance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any proof of these happenings, or are you just assuming everyone's passing you by ?

[rwanger]

I've been telling people that the games are getting harder, and they do seem to. But, when I look at my stats, you wouldn't know it. I seem to be doing as well, if not better than before, despite feeling like the games are harder.

I don't know why this is. I'm definately a better player, but I doubt that my own improvement is outstripping that of my opponents. I've been moving up in limits slowly, and now I have to think more and make more sophisticated moves to come away a winner.

Do you think it's possible that your EV against "decent" opponents could be greater than you EV against "below average" players...especially in NL?

Truly terrible players aside, I feel like I can put decent thinking opponents on hands more reliably, and thus, make better decisions against them. Plus in some cases, they might be MORE willing to make "huge calls" and try to bluff you when you actually have the goods.

And like it was mentioned above, this might mean playing a slightly looser brand of poker...

[raze]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you think it's possible that your EV against "decent" opponents could be greater than you EV against "below average" players...especially in NL?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is not only possible but probable. The way I see it, you need to adjust your style to account for every single player type. For example, I seem to be doing better against TAG's than LAG's because 1. Im a TAG and thus understand the mindset and 2. I cant seem to bring myself to call down w Ace-high or bottom pair vs. a LAG. Should you make the most money off the worst players? Yes, as long as you know how to approach and exploit each player type.

Derb it up and smoke the rag-tag-tags

[ QUOTE ]
The poker boom is slowing...

[/ QUOTE ]
Really?!

[Hoopster81]

[ QUOTE ]
The work is more meaningful

[/ QUOTE ]

questionable

[popniklas]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The work is more meaningful

[/ QUOTE ]

questionable

[/ QUOTE ]

umm... no.

[Roy Munson]

I have been playing online for 6 years and the games have never been better than they are now.

Don't assume that the majority of new players are devouring the best poker literature and rigorously applying the concepts.

Even though sales of poker books have exploded I would be willing to wager that the majority of the books are only glanced over and not thoroughly read multiple times.

Without exhaustive study, experience at the tables and reviewing the game away from the tables it will be difficult to be a significant long term winner.

[brick]

before this thread get's too far off topic about whether the games will get tougher, just think about the question for a minute.

How will you handle it if the games get so tough that you no longer have an edge?

[brick]

[ QUOTE ]
the games have never been better than they are now.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you say so. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


[ QUOTE ]
Without exhaustive study, experience at the tables and reviewing the game away from the tables it will be difficult to be a significant long term winner.


[/ QUOTE ]


you know, the other players don't need to be long term winners to make the game very tough. If the average player gets good enough we're all screwed.

[MTBlue]

I'm curious on why you are so pessimistic on the future of the game. I make plenty of money of good players. You just have to change you approach. The game is situationally dynamic, so learn more about every player. The variance will increase and winrates will go down but that doesn't mean there won't be winners and losers. I intend to stay above the curb.
At this point in time to the best of my knowledge, a wriiten optimal strategy has not been published. People will use different strategies in different situations and some of these strategies will be incorrect or exploitable. Those edges will be your profit.

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
If the average player gets good enough mediocre players are screwed.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[rwanger]

To be honest...

If the games became so bad that my edge was slim to none, I could see my hours drop to like 1 or 2 a week (from 10). For me, much of the fun and satisfaction comes from outplaying my opponents. If I can't do that, I'd lose interest pretty fast.

Actually, it could be even more abstract than that. Maybe I need to "think" that I can outplay my opponents, and that would be good enough to sustain me. It wouldn't matter if I actually could or not, I would just need to believe I could.

It's not the same as a game that's all skill. I could definately play chess against some who was better than me and I would still like it, but I think it might get too annoying that in the short term, poker is mostly luck, and if all the skill evens out, then it starts to become more like blackjack or something, where really luck is pretty much the only thing that determines whether I win or lose in a session.

I probably couldn't give it up entirely...and tournies would probably become much more appealing, relative to cash games.

Games are tighter than before. I make around 35 pct of my cash through rakeback. I dont think you'll be able to win as well as before because everyone has some sort of competence about the game. Its just a fact of life now. The pie is bigger but there are more hands in it. Also, the popularity will plateau and decrease slightly and then maintain a certain level of popularity.

Why is it that a lot of people seem to believe that poker is going to end in the near future? IMO, it is only going to get bigger and bigger, especially when we consider that Asia has yet to enter the internet scene but will shortly as their standard of living continues to dramatically increase. Billions and billions of players are coming. Get ready to take their yuan, yen or rupees! (As the US dollar is tanking, you'll want those currencies anyways).

Individual casino's will come and go, but gambling lives forever. It's as much a part of the human existence as are sexuality and drugs. I don't believe that poker is going to go anywhere soon. No way, it's too much fun and too accessible.

Also, I don't get this notion that just because there are poker books means that the players are going to be so much better. If everyone is reading the same books, then it just means the weaker players will be playing exactly the same game. (BTW, the weaker players never get the books, they just want a formula for certain hands so they know what to do.) Does anyone here think televised WSOP or WPT increases a player's skill? "Me watch lots o' TV poker and me read lots o' books, but me no get better." This is the story of every poker player who does not take the game seriously and work at it. (Prodigies like Stu Ungar excluded, maybe.)

So, IMHO, I don't see the poker doomsayers as having any validity in their prognostications.

I just hope they donk zergling rush my chips

[solucky]

Poker will be bigger, but all here in germany dont play poker for fun they all start poker because they want MONEY! It will dry out. I dont need the Poker $$$ and spend them so far into the stockmarket, if it works 3-4 years more i make more with the stocks than with poker. And sure i only play poker as long i get money, if not i leave.

[brick]

[ QUOTE ]
And sure i only play poker as long i get money, if not i leave.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's pretty darn addicting and it's tough to know when you're not making money anymore. that's one of the big challenges. at least for me.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]

How will you handle it if the games get so tough that you no longer have an edge?


[/ QUOTE ]

Move down.

Krishan

[ QUOTE ]
it's pretty darn addicting and it's tough to know when you're not making money anymore. that's one of the big challenges. at least for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, like I said in my earlier post, there's nothing wrong with busting out and reevaluating.

I think hedging your bets is best if you believe that leaving all your eggs in the online basket worries you (assuming you are playing mainly online). The great thing about poker is that there's so much variety. If LHE becomes drier try out other games and/or betting structures.

If you're actually addicted to gambling, then that may be a problem that goes beyond the "goodness" of the games. I'm not a trained psychologist, but I believe that the basic definition of an addicted individual is that he will continue a behavior regardless of the consequences. Would you not stop playing even if only expert robots were playing poker online? Of course, if you mean "addictive" in the loose, fun sense, they yeah, it's understandable. Then it's time to find another fun home money-making hobby or play live. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Be patient and only sit in games that are better than average?

[/ QUOTE ]

The average game will still be easily beatable at most limits.

[ QUOTE ]
Limit the amount of poker you play?


[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
The poker boom is slowing, the number of new players and gambling types is now dwarfed by the number of players who are trying to play well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt this. Most don't even know what playing well is if it were right in front of them. It's a step above a pit game to most of them. Personally, I'm not sure it's even peaked yet. Definitely not on the live scene. I think the tide will start turning a bit when the n/l games start going away. Just like they did before.

You're giving way too much credit that people are actually really working on their games, much less that they'll retain or or keep applying what they learn after their first real bad streak. Nothing stopped the average mope from learning it before. It takes alot of work to develop and practice the unnatural ability of playing winning poker. Schoonmaker goes into this a bit in his book.

b

[DCWildcat]

I hate to say it, but there have been a lot of poorly reasoned thoughts in response to a good initial post.

The games aren't getting tougher
Yes, they are. Party's stock plummeted because the number of new people signing up is decreasing rapidly. Horrible players are going broke too quickly to be replaced. The ones smart enough not to go broke are getting better. Post that they're the same/easier than before in a high stakes forum and watch people laugh with a twinge of resignation.

You'll still beat the games

This is just kind of dumb. A bigger edge is better, no? Earning 2BB/100 is better in a soft game than 1BB/100 in a tougher one.


I don't think the perception change is that big of an issue.

[brick]

Hey B,
thanks for the response. Looking forward to meeting you at the muck someday.

My experience over here is that the tables tend to have more young players who are trying to play well, they've read a book, and they think poker is a game of skill.

Four years ago when I started at Kenmore lanes the crowd was a mix of young and older players. Most hands were 6 ways for 1 bet. Or maybe you add a few wild ones to the mix and it's 6 ways for 4 bets. Books, pot odds and were never mentioned. Standard table talk was "suck and re-suck". Or "no nine at kenmore".

Now when I visit to chow down a Triple Turkey I find that most of the players are under 30 and most think poker is all "skill over the long term". Most pots are 3-4 ways for 2 bets. People love saying "did I have odds?" or "what's the right play?".

Of course the games are still pretty "good" but I don't like the trend.

[brick]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt that live play won't be profitable since people that want tend to want gamble-it-up more in a live environment and have fun. That's what most people do at casinos.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right about that. And it only takes a maniac and a round of beers to get everyone all reved up.

My take is that the average game will not be as good. Find a maniac and the problem is solved.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
My experience over here is that the tables tend to have more young players who are trying to play well, they've read a book, and they think poker is a game of skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eventually those young players will have to deal with their egos. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Now when I visit to chow down a Triple Turkey I find that most of the players under 30 and most think poker is all "skill over the long term". Most pots are 3-4 ways for 2 bets. People love saying "did I have odds?" or "what's the right play?".


[/ QUOTE ]

What limit is that happening at? If they still have the kill game, that could be a factor in busting out newbies too fast.

They took the kill off the mucks 3-6 game already. Word was that players didn't like it. Not really a suprise.

Most of my response was towards live play. At mucks, the games really haven't slowed down much at all. In fact, just before the kill games were put in and the addition of the 6-12(end of november), the 10-20s were going very strong. They were just starting to regularly spread 3 tables at once. Sometimes 4. (4 was unheard of before) Which could mean many are busting out online, figure it's rigged(hear that all the time on live tables) and decide they want it live where they trust it more.

However, I'm watching to see how the 20-40 game will be now that they don't qualify for JPs on it. I think that could affect the game.

For online, I've been seeing more and more posts about the mid limit (and some lower limits) onlines starting to get a little tougher. I play at UB which was known as a little tougher than normal so I may be used to it a little online and not seeing the trend as much.

However, online players will switch around. They may leave the full game to go shorthanded for awhile. Bust out there and try the SNGs or tourneys. They may still be there, just in different spots.

Obviously the bigger limits will feel it first then it will trickle down, to a point. In general, casual players will settle at a limit. Just like they kind of do on live 4-8s and 10-20s.

See ya at mucks sometime!

b

[brick]

[ QUOTE ]
Eventually those young players will have to deal with their egos.

[/ QUOTE ]
that's the truth.

It is a kill game, so it does bust new players more quickly.

I like the kill games though because it encourages the gambling mindset. Maybe they should require a slightly bigger buy-in on those games. That would give new players more playing time before busting during a session.
If they're less likely to bust during a session they are more likely to play again.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eventually those young players will have to deal with their egos.

[/ QUOTE ]
that's the truth.

It is a kill game, so it does bust new players more quickly.

I like the kill games though because it encourages the gambling mindset. Maybe they should require a slightly bigger buy-in on those games. That would give new players more playing time before busting during a session.
If they're less likely to bust during a session they are more likely to play again.


[/ QUOTE ]

Back a couple/few years(pre WPT) the kill game eventually almost killed the action in that place, iirc. Not to mention there are more cardrooms around that area than ever before which might also be siphoning off some players.

Fwiw, I'm waiting to see how long the 6-12 w/kill at mucks is going to last.

b

I think one of things being overlooked here is that what most players struggle with is not understanding basic poker concepts, but rather implementing them rigorously and with absolute discipline. If you can do that you will probably always make money, even as games get a bit tighter and worse (in terms of bad play).
The people who may suffer if things dry up a bit are those who play well sometimes but are streaky and prone to tilt. These will be the people that the better players make their money off of (the new fish). Right now, fish are composed off complete ignoramuses and also those who are tilting. In the future most of the complete ignoramuses will be a thing of the past. The rising waters lift all boats and there is a basic poker education that is occuring.
At the same time, the more refined you get conceptually and the more disciplined you get, the more you improve relative to the general populace. Just like athletes are more "athletic" and generally "better" than those in the past, it comes down to the same thing.

-g

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The poker boom is slowing, the number of new players and gambling types is now dwarfed by the number of players who are trying to play well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is your proof of this? This reads as something you've pulled out of thin air. If it's only an opinion you should state it as such. You've stated this as a fact that I don't think you can back up.

I've wondered about the "poker boom" myself and from experience I made a few conjectures. When casino poker first came to my locality the games were terrific. Lots and lots of easy money. After about a year and a half the games weren't quite as easy but they never really got that hard to beat. However, I will say there was a noticable difference after a year and a half if memory serves. At the time the city where I live had between 400,000 and 500,000 people. This was about 10 years ago. Now if we look at how things are today with poker more widely available to so many all over the world via the internet I have a hard time believing that poker is going to die out anytime soon and we'll be lacking for good games. I think this "poker boom" lasts a lot longer than a lot of people think it will. I mean no offense when I say that I've read comments similar to yours on these forums but I have a hard time seeing where the "poker boom" dying soon argument has any validity. I think these comments are not only way, way too pessimistic but have virtually no chance of being true FWIW.

[AlanBostick]

[ QUOTE ]
You'll still beat the games

This is just kind of dumb. A bigger edge is better, no? Earning 2BB/100 is better in a soft game than 1BB/100 in a tougher one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, earning 2BB/100 is better than earning 1BB/100, no doubt about it.

However, for those of us who have been playing and winning all along, the current boom is a gift. The question isn't "How will I cope when the games get tougher?" anywhere near so much as "Am I all I want to get from the boom before the games get tough again?"

I knew when it started that the boom will come to an end, just like all the other poker booms came to their ends. I also know that poker will be better after the boom's end than it was before, just as it was better after every other poker boom ended than it was before that boom.

I got into cardroom poker pretty much at its recent low point, in 1997. This was ten years after hold'em was introduced in California, and that party was long since over. Even though the party was long over, the games in California at the time were good enough that I could start to play and start to win without that much book learning. I don't think I could have done that fifteen years previously, playing draw or lowball, before the hold'em boom.

I'll be sorry when the present boom ends, yes. I hope that my game will be better than it was when it started. I am confident that I will remain a winner when it ends -- after all, I was a winner before it started. And I'm also hopeful that down the road another boom will come along, and that I'll be able to take some advantage of it.

[brick]

If I could rephrase I would say "In my opinion the poker boom is changing and the game will become tougher because the perception of poker is changing."

[MaqEvil]

[ QUOTE ]


Or maybe you add a few wild ones to the mix and it's 6 ways for 4 bets. Books, pot odds and were never mentioned. Standard table talk was "suck and re-suck". Or "no nine at kenmore".


[/ QUOTE ]

That game rocked, I played there quite a bit one summer and there was almost always one table where all the crazy LAGs got together, along with the dealers. As long as you could work your way to that table, it was easy money, huge variance though.

[RydenStoompala]

[ QUOTE ]
How are you going to deal with tougher games in the future?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to wine about the dealer, ask for a setup every 30 minutes, take ten minute breaks every ten minutes and critcize everyone else's play. When someone makes a mistake, I am going to nag them about it for six straight hours. When I make a mistake, I am going to say something that is borderline psychotic like "I always get rivered when I raise with Q,2 offsuit." I will ensure nobody who plays with me can possibly enjoy the game.

Oh, I apologize. I thought you said "what do a lot of players do about tough games now?"

My mistake.