Darwinian question for full-time poker players

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

I think that this "poker boom" will tapper off. However, there will ALWAYS be a good game for a great player. There have been for a long time, i dont see how there wont be in the future.

[elmitchbo]

i think the 'boom' is pretty sustainable. i saw doyle make some statements recently to the effect of "people are finding out what i've known for 50 years. poker is the greatest game on earth. where else can a 70 year old man compete with guys a third his age?" i think the level playing field that poker offers is one big plus in it's favor. men, women, big, small, young, old... they can all play at the same table.

it's also pretty unbelievable how much some people like to gamble. most winning players here are pretty risk averse i would say. they don't ever play slots or similar games. they choose poker because they know they can have +EV given the right amount of study, practice,etc. most people don't think that way. one of my best friends is a great example. he loves to gamble. i don't mean play poker.... gamble. the results are almost irrelevant to him. he just gets off on the thrill of having it on the line. he plays alot of poker, and loses, and loves every minute of it. i hate losing money, and it drives me crazy to watch him play. it doesn't bother him a bit to walk by a blackjack table and randomly throw $100 at a hand and just keep on walking, i on other hand would want to puke if i did that. i think vegas was built on that idea. online just gives more access to those people to dump money in the way that gets them off.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]

These days, seems like everybody wants to play money poker and a lot of people think they're good enough to score a decent hourly rate doing it. In order for so many to be able to sustain a positive hourly rate, there must be losers, and for the winners to consistently win, there needs to be a steady supply of either (1) losers who just won't quit, or (2) a steady stream of new players, among which many will show negative P&L and then either quit or fall into category (1).

Right now, it appears clear that the supply of category (2) players is more than adequate to sustain professional players out there, both veterans and new full-timers who want to play for a living. But at some point, the supply of newbies should taper off, and you're left with pros playing more and more against each other rather than against easier prey. This means the average pro is better, which makes it harder for any pro to sustain an hourly rate that he/she desires or is accustomed to.



[/ QUOTE ]

An interesting aspect to this "problem" if it is one, is the proliferation of multi-tabling. Its not just a proliferation of good players, its that they take up so much more table space now. I remember when most folks were struggling to get up to 3-4 tables. Now these players are moving up to eight tables and a few wacko's are doing 12 tables.

It makes it harder to find juicy tables not because there aren't plenty of bad players but because your pool of good players is leveraging itself...effectively there are 4-8 times as many good players out there than there really are...if that makes sense. And they're all looking for the juicy tables.

Having said that, at its low point there are probably 30k some players on Party and skins alone. At its high point typically at least 70K players. The conventional wisdom is that only 10 percent of all players are winning players. So at any given point there are probably 45k losing players on Party. Even if those numbers get worse, that's a lot of people looking to give you their money.

--Zetack

[memphis57]

[ QUOTE ]

An interesting aspect to this "problem" if it is one, is the proliferation of multi-tabling.....
The conventional wisdom is that only 10 percent of all players are winning players. So at any given point there are probably 45k losing players on Party.

[/ QUOTE ]


45K losers x 1 table each = 45K = 60% of 75K
5K winners x 6 tables (half 4-, half 8-tabling) = 30K = 40%

Average 10 man table online would have 6 losing and 4 winning players under this scenario, versus 9 losing and 1 winning at b&m.

[lefty rosen]

When I played BM it always seemed that there were about 3 winning players(including short term fluctatations). Online sometimes it's a joke and you have 6 winning players sitting at one table and it's steal the blinds every hand. Or raise and fold.......... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[CCraft_42]

Just retird last year and have time to play lots of poker now, as do a lot of other retired folks It is not to expensive a hobbie (on the net)if you are reasonably good. lots more players coming soon ( the Boomers )
Practice, read and reap $$$

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

An interesting aspect to this "problem" if it is one, is the proliferation of multi-tabling.....
The conventional wisdom is that only 10 percent of all players are winning players. So at any given point there are probably 45k losing players on Party.

[/ QUOTE ]


45K losers x 1 table each = 45K = 60% of 75K
5K winners x 6 tables (half 4-, half 8-tabling) = 30K = 40%

Average 10 man table online would have 6 losing and 4 winning players under this scenario, versus 9 losing and 1 winning at b&m.

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstand my example--I was giving 45k as a median figure...when there are 75k players if the CW holds up that means somewhere around 67K thousand losing players looking to donate to you...

--Zetack

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
When I played BM it always seemed that there were about 3 winning players(including short term fluctatations). Online sometimes it's a joke and you have 6 winning players sitting at one table and it's steal the blinds every hand. Or raise and fold..........

[/ QUOTE ]


tight and passive usually means 'break-even' player.
Tables that fold to the blinds a lot are not going to be as profitable as the wild 7-to-the-flop tables...but that doesn't mean these players are actually 'good' or 'consistent winners'. It just means they don't completely suck.

you need to be able to also beat mediocre players as well as terrible ones to succeed at this.
It's not like the 12/4 (VP/R) rocks are anything to be afraid of. They should be VERY easy to read...and in a certain sense can be easier to play against than a maniac who really COULD have flopped the full-house with 72s for all anyone knows.

[memphis57]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

An interesting aspect to this "problem" if it is one, is the proliferation of multi-tabling.....
The conventional wisdom is that only 10 percent of all players are winning players. So at any given point there are probably 45k losing players on Party.

[/ QUOTE ]


45K losers x 1 table each = 45K = 60% of 75K
5K winners x 6 tables (half 4-, half 8-tabling) = 30K = 40%

Average 10 man table online would have 6 losing and 4 winning players under this scenario, versus 9 losing and 1 winning at b&m.

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstand my example--I was giving 45k as a median figure...when there are 75k players if the CW holds up that means somewhere around 67K thousand losing players looking to donate to you...

--Zetack

[/ QUOTE ]


Naw, I understood you. Or if I didn't, then my point still applies. (How's that for covering all the bases? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] )

I'm just taking your number one step further from number of players (i.e., unique user names, of whom we have figured in past discussions about 10% are long term winners) to number of seats filled at a hypothetical average table, under the assumption that winning players tend to play multiple tables.

In the extreme example where ALL winning players multi-table an average of 6 tables and ALL losing players play only a single table, this will convert to 40% winners at the average table no matter what the overall total is. If the total of seats filled is 45K, then are really only 30K players and 27K seats are held by single-table losers and 18K seats by 3K winners. The ratio is still 6:4 at the table with 10% overall winners.

Now in reality not all winners play 4-8 tables and probably some losers multi-table (although not too many, I would guess, as cutting back number of tables is a quick response most people have to losing sessions). So the actual ratios may be 7:3 instead of 6:4. But still, a table with 3 strong players is a pretty tough table for newbies like me, and that is the effect of multi-tabling. A small increase in the number of strong players (like during bonus reloads) can have a big impact on table quality.

Also, when comparing Party and Pacific (which doesn't allow multi-tabling), the entire difference might be accounted for by the multi-tablers.

BTW, I'm not opposed to multi-tabling. Strictly from a quality of play point of view, it's a lot more fun playing 3-4 tables than 1 because the pace is so much faster. And once I get good enough to win consistently, I'm counting on multi-tabling to leverage that win rate into something with a decent per-hour return.