How many good players will end up failing? - Page 2

CardSharpCook · #1 10-14-2005, 05:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
hey guys,

i've been a lurker here for a while, first post. I play on the party network under the names Bluffman997, Bluffman887 and Bluffman85, Bluffman86. I play mostly 15-30, $200 SNGs and occasionally 30-60.

I think you bring up a good point about good players failing. A few times my BR was just stuck at 5K and I couldn't seem to go anywhere and was seriously considering quitting. It took me a couple of shots before I was finally able to beat 15-30 consistently and have a sufficient BR to never go broke at this level.

My main concern is this, poker is a zero sum game. Nothing is created, for every winner, there must be a loser. How long can online poker be sustainable? Ie, when people stop signing up and depositing money, are we all just going to get slowly raked to death?

Also, in terms of high limit poker (300-600 and up), is it safe to assume everyone playing there is at an equal skill level? If we assume that, who are the winners and who are the losers? Is it jsut a matter of who's running hotter? At the 4K-8K "Big Game" in Bellagio where the big names play, who's winning and who's losing?

[/ QUOTE ]

As a first post, I rate this a "D".

1) we really don't care your screen name or the tables you play

2) 1st post is a question about the death of online poker.

3) Brings up points with no relation to the thread.

4) Asks ? about "the big game"

5) No relevant question, adds nothing to the discussion.

Why did this get a "D" and not an "F"? You did not bore us with your life story. You did not start a new thread to introduce yourself in some grandiose fashion. You posted in the correct forum.

You've got a long ways to go. Welcome to the forum. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

CSC

#2 10-14-2005, 05:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hey guys,

i've been a lurker here for a while, first post. I play on the party network under the names Bluffman997, Bluffman887 and Bluffman85, Bluffman86. I play mostly 15-30, $200 SNGs and occasionally 30-60.

I think you bring up a good point about good players failing. A few times my BR was just stuck at 5K and I couldn't seem to go anywhere and was seriously considering quitting. It took me a couple of shots before I was finally able to beat 15-30 consistently and have a sufficient BR to never go broke at this level.

My main concern is this, poker is a zero sum game. Nothing is created, for every winner, there must be a loser. How long can online poker be sustainable? Ie, when people stop signing up and depositing money, are we all just going to get slowly raked to death?

Also, in terms of high limit poker (300-600 and up), is it safe to assume everyone playing there is at an equal skill level? If we assume that, who are the winners and who are the losers? Is it jsut a matter of who's running hotter? At the 4K-8K "Big Game" in Bellagio where the big names play, who's winning and who's losing?

[/ QUOTE ]

As a first post, I rate this a "D".

1) we really don't care your screen name or the tables you play

2) 1st post is a question about the death of online poker.

3) Brings up points with no relation to the thread.

4) Asks ? about "the big game"

5) No relevant question, adds nothing to the discussion.

Why did this get a "D" and not an "F"? You did not bore us with your life story. You did not start a new thread to introduce yourself in some grandiose fashion. You posted in the correct forum.

You've got a long ways to go. Welcome to the forum. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

CSC

[/ QUOTE ]

although your analysis is spot on, i would like to point out that first posts are rarely any better than this one.

Robfish · #3 10-14-2005, 09:07 AM

And what does your post bring to the discussion?
What magical insight did your 1st post contain then?

Give 1st posters a break!! Everyone makes a 1st post

CardSharpCook · #4 10-14-2005, 03:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And what does your post bring to the discussion?
What magical insight did your 1st post contain then?

Give 1st posters a break!! Everyone makes a 1st post

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you haven't seen as many 1st posts as I have. It is the duty of older members to both notice and point out fisrt posts. People must be welcomed to the forum. Now, I have seen some damned good first posts. Remember Sup bro? Some 1st posts are really awesome - funny and planned to be such. Others are insightful and useful to an on-going thread. These are your "A" posts. "B" is reserved for hand questions or advice that is well put together if not terribly interesting. To get a "C", you've basically placed a random comment in a random thread that no one will ever notice. A "D" posts content in a thread that isn't even tangental to the OP, but has clearly put SOME thought into his post, gives advice that is blatantly wrong, or asks some tired old question like, "How often should I steal from the button?" An "F" is a post that says, "HELLO WORLD!! LOOK AT ME!!!!!" Starting a just to say "hi", responding in a negative manner to a member of a forum, failed attempts at humor, etc. This poster earns a "D".

#5 10-14-2005, 02:18 PM

unbannable...funny...

#6 10-15-2005, 12:19 AM

What does my first post rate as? just curious.

CardSharpCook · #7 10-15-2005, 03:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What does my first post rate as? just curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

link us to it and I'll tell you.

#8 10-14-2005, 12:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My main concern is this, poker is a zero sum game. Nothing is created, for every winner, there must be a loser. How long can online poker be sustainable? Ie, when people stop signing up and depositing money, are we all just going to get slowly raked to death?

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd think, wouldn't you? Fortunately dumb people keep being born.

Dazarath · #9 10-14-2005, 12:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My main concern is this, poker is a zero sum game. Nothing is created, for every winner, there must be a loser. How long can online poker be sustainable? Ie, when people stop signing up and depositing money, are we all just going to get slowly raked to death?

[/ QUOTE ]

Card, I understand that this isn't exactly an informative post, but it's his first, so I think we should give him a break. At least point out kindly that these type of posts are unnecessary. There's been tons of 1st posts that are 20x worse than this.

To Bluff, a couple points I'd like to make:
1) Poker is not a zero-sum game. In fact, it's worse. The rake takes out a substantial portion of the total pool of money. I guess as you move up in limits, the rake is proportionally small compared to the bets, so it approaches one. (I'm not saying ideas behind zero-sum games can't be used to describe poker, but in reality, it's negative-sum).
2) This is just being nit-picky, but it's not true that "for every winner, there must be a loser". It's true that for there to be at least one winner, there has to be at least one loser, but it's possible to imagine a situation where 9 people at a table are up and the 10th person has dropped 200 BBs. In reality though, for every winner in poker, there's more like 10-20 losers.
3) Online poker continues because of the same reason that live poker continues. There's new cash flow coming in. People earn income and lose it at the tables. For online though, I guess it's much easier for a fish to lose large amounts in short periods of time. So who knows where online poker will be later on.

Maulik · #10 10-14-2005, 02:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My main concern is this, poker is a zero sum game. Nothing is created, for every winner, there must be a loser. How long can online poker be sustainable? Ie, when people stop signing up and depositing money, are we all just going to get slowly raked to death?

[/ QUOTE ]

Card, I understand that this isn't exactly an informative post, but it's his first, so I think we should give him a break. At least point out kindly that these type of posts are unnecessary. There's been tons of 1st posts that are 20x worse than this.

To Bluff, a couple points I'd like to make:
1) Poker is not a zero-sum game. In fact, it's worse. The rake takes out a substantial portion of the total pool of money. I guess as you move up in limits, the rake is proportionally small compared to the bets, so it approaches one. (I'm not saying ideas behind zero-sum games can't be used to describe poker, but in reality, it's negative-sum).
2) This is just being nit-picky, but it's not true that "for every winner, there must be a loser". It's true that for there to be at least one winner, there has to be at least one loser, but it's possible to imagine a situation where 9 people at a table are up and the 10th person has dropped 200 BBs. In reality though, for every winner in poker, there's more like 10-20 losers.
3) Online poker continues because of the same reason that live poker continues. There's new cash flow coming in. People earn income and lose it at the tables. For online though, I guess it's much easier for a fish to lose large amounts in short periods of time. So who knows where online poker will be later on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how eloquently I'll say this but I'll give it a shot. Online poker has grown partly and may continue to do so as a result of the ability for players living in rurural areas to log-in with the click of a mouse. There are many 'fish' who prefer playing online rather than going to their local b&m to play.