Darwinian question for full-time poker players

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the average losing player believes himself/herself to be a winning player. They don't keep records.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is one thing that has always surprised me about online poker. Losing players in b&m games keep playing because, as you say, they don't really know how much they are losing (or that they are losing at all). When they win, they often take that money and buy something. When they lose, they go get more cash from the bank, but it is the same cash they use for other things. Without records, there is no way to tell how they are doing overall because there poker results are mixed in with all of the other things that they do involving cash. But online, people have to notice that they are losing because their account dwindles and eventually they bust out and need to put more into it. Over and over. Even if they don't keep records of how much they have put in, they must notice that they are losing money, right? For this reason, I always thought that online poker wouldn't be as sustainable as live poker, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

[A_C_Slater]

You're forgetting that even online they often make big wins and then cash out a large portion of it and the mixing continues.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
You're forgetting that even online they often make big wins and then cash out a large portion of it and the mixing continues.

[/ QUOTE ]
I see your point, but you must agree that the amount of such "mixing" is much smaller online than live? The cash that people win in a live game is in there wallet and they use it every day while buying stuff. It requires some amount of effort to be constantly taking money on and off of an online account.

[SoBeDude]

Take a poll in a poker room, and 99% of the players will tell you they're winning or at worst break-even players.

The hard reality is only 5% are.

So there are a ton of 1s and 2s.

The end is nowhere in sight.

-Scott

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Take a poll in a poker room, and 99% of the players will tell you they're winning or at worst break-even players.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, that doesn't mean that 99% of them believe that they are winning players. Some chunk of those people know they are losing and are just to embarassed to admit it to others.

[MicroBob]

this topic is REALLY popular this week (about a zillion threads about it in the internet-forum over the weekend).
although I think you articulated your ideas reasonably well.

Here are some of the general arguments

1. MANY losing players are in denial and THINK they are better than they really are. In fact, I would hazard to say that MOST poker-players think they are actually "good" when, in fact, this is far from the case.

2. jason already pointed out that many players don't game the game that seriously. Even among those that do take it seriously, some go about it in incorrect ways. There are mucho mucho players who think they 'get it' after a half-read of SSHE or something but continue making some lousy mistakes.
The number of newbie's around here who think they 'get it' and are very obviously playing a winning game yet can't figure out why they only broke-even after 5k hands is evidence of the number of people who THINK they understand...but clearly don't.

3. Casinos have been bleeding people dry in -EV games like BJ, roulette, craps and slots for quite awhile now....and it's only been getting MORE and MORE popular despite the millions and millions of dollars the masses lose at these games EVERYDAY. Thus, there is evidence to support that losing players DO indeed comeback OR that there are plenty out there to replace the ones who leave. Bad players will continue to play -EV games and poker can be included in this I believe.

4. There are a WHOLE LOT of teens right now who LOVE to play and who will likely continue to play who really don't play THAT well. They probably have an approximate idea of a reasonable strategy (i.e. they are not playing 90% of their hands or anything outrageous) but without the appropriate amount of study they simply won't be that good....but they WILL get jobs and will have plenty of money to bring to the tables (both online and B&M)


I think the popularity of poker among those 29 and younger....and even 19 and younger...bodes very well for poker's future...as well as the future of the poker-pro assuming they decide to stay with this profession.
I don't think we'll have 8-to-the-flop games online like you might get at your crazy drunken B&M game....and they might even get a bit tougher than what we've had recently.
But they will still continue to be VERY beatable basically because there will be enough mediocre to lousy players out there to keep things profitable.

[sublime]

What you don't know is that the games were good before the poker boom.

i am currently reading roy cookes real poker 2. in it he describes numerous hands from his perspective at the table in mostly 30-60 las vegas games. most of the hands are 4 way for multiple bets. this book was written a couple of years before the "boom"

[jtr]

[ QUOTE ]
P.S.---Way to tout your own success via your response. Very subtle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, go easy. Maybe he had a really crappy salary before he quit to play poker? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

(By the way, "DavidBrent" -- that's not you is it Dan? Just checking, sorry if misidentified.)

[lefty rosen]

That's why you see the same idiots calling down dead and near dead hands live. Most losing online players unless they are rich will drop out. Live you are going to have days where you win X and that buys you Y. Online that day your roll spiked and it takes your poker site X days to get it in your wallet. The only losing players who can fool themselves are marginal losing players who cashout frequently but have to quickly re-deposit......

[Shaun]

1) Lots of people who aren't beating the game for "as much as they should" are predicting the impending demise of online poker. There are also some fine players who still work full time and want to feel good about their decision not to play for a living, so they make up doomsday scenerios despite current evidence. Stop raining on our parade!

2) Everyone likes to equate the poker boom to the dot-com bubble. They are in no way related, save that they involve money. Poker is not a website with no viable product and a catchy name. Poker is a terrific game of skill and chance that has been with us for ages and isn't going anywhere. Will all the fad TV shows slowly diminish? Probably. But that's going to be the extent of the "bubble burst". As many have rightly said, casinos and lotteries are growing and growing even though there is little chance to beat them. Poker is a better game and it can be played anywhere.

3) There will, and have always been suckers. Vegas was built on suckers. So were all the other gambling towns. Some people don't care if they win longterm and just play for fun. This is hard for us to understand, but the fact is, we are the minority. Thinking that there will be nothing left but good players shows way too much faith in the masses. People in general are not 2+2ers. If you took the time to find this forum you are already smarter than half the players out there at least. Most people refuse to study the game- they take pride in the fact that they "never read no book".

4) Stop worrying about (or hoping for) the collapse of poker. People who haven't even started playing yet are watching it on TV and LEARNING from TV. Kids are playing. Compulsive gamblers are playing. All kinds of people who will not be able to win longterm want to play for reasons other than earning an income. This has been and will always be the case.