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.

[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.

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

[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.

[Hoopster81]

[ QUOTE ]
The work is more meaningful

[/ QUOTE ]

questionable

[popniklas]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The work is more meaningful

[/ QUOTE ]

questionable

[/ QUOTE ]

umm... no.

[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.