Why Current Online Win Rates Won't Persist

[ QUOTE ]
This is not true. How many people in japan and germany and france speak english? It is by no means a small percentage of the population. In south america and in mexico the percentage is much smaller, but among educated people it is still substantial. Either way, if watching poker were to become popular in south america and mexico, someone is going to write or translate poker books into spanish anyways.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with the fact that many people speak/know English as a second language...but many people believe, esp. Americans, overestimate the percentage of people that know English. I believe the actual estimate is around 15-20% including native language speakers. (As an aside, I think it's a popular belief that English as a whole will decline.)

FWIW, I was refering to lesser developed nations, not the countries that you mentioned.

[MrDannimal]

One thing people seem to be missing in comparing this idea to the MMORPG "sweatshop" is that with the MMORPG, there is no point at which the employee has access to actual money.

They sign on, grind out in-game currency, and at the end of their shift, they give that currency to another character (who is like the "bank" holding the currency for sale). There's no way to get actual real-world money other than as pay.

This is substantially less true in the hypothetical poker sweatshop. Even if the "company" sets up all the accounts and handles the process of getting money into the poker account, what's to keep the pleyers from chip dumping to a friend who isn't in the sweatshop? That friend then gives them a cut after cashout, and all it has to do is be bigger than their hourly pay and voila!

Also, with an MMORPG, there is no risk of losing real money. The only fear is that an employee won't reach his quota (and in fact, you can often fleece gold farmers at the end of their shifts as they cut "prices" on items in an effort to make quota), that he won't generate enough on-line currency.

In poker, there is a definite risk of losing real world money. In my last 6 hours of play, I made 8 BB. Two 3-hour sessions, one was -37 BB, the other was +45 BB. Both are outliers in comparison to what I normally see in a single session result (although the net result is a little low, it's pretty inline for a small sample). But imagine I'm working for a "poker farm", and finish my shift down 37 BB. Do I even get the chance to have the +45 BB session tomorrow?

On top of that, there's a definite cost involved in finding out if a given employee is a winning player. It's not like you can dump 100 people into the play money pool (or even micro-limits) and say "Learn!". There is far less cost involved with an MMORPG. There is a LOT of zero-revenue time spent learning how to even be a .2 bb/100 player at even 2/4.

Overhead/startup cost is also much greater. Let's assume that the equipment cost is the same (1 station per employee). If you're going to put your employee at .5/1, you would need to bankroll each player with AT LEAST $100 (and probably more). MMORPGS cost less to play in places like China and the like (partly because they can't afford $15/month). Even at the U.S. rate of $15/month, that's almost 7 months worth of play!

From a "farming" standpoint, there's little financial incentive to try poker over any MMORPG.

Now, I'm not saying that there won't be people in foreign countries who will play and win, and be happy winning at a much lower rate than your average american. In fact, I think the individual player is the only one there's any amount of concern about. However, those individuals fall under the same fish/shark rule that any other poker player would. For every third world player who comes in and is happy at .2 bb/100, there will be 5-10 more who lose money trying and the barrier to entry is much higher than that for a company.

Yes, if you suddenly added a large # of marginal winners to the playerbase, it would impact the existing winning players AT THAT LEVEL. I don't think worrying about this scenario happening is any more worthwhile than worrying about extracting the maximum from a flopped Royal Flush. It's so unlikely, and there are so many other things you could be thinking about that would have a greater EV.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if I undertsand your logic, you're basically saying you only want to play against people in your own wealth bracket, and you don't think poor people should be allowed to play with rich people?


[/ QUOTE ]

I really can't understand where you got this from. It's not even remotely like anything the OP has written. Are you just making things up or did I miss something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think the point of this thread is something along the lines of a concern that when people in poor countries start playing online poker more, good players will be happy to play at lower limits because the profit at those levels will be high compared to what other jobs pay. And, that this will make it harder for the current players to make money, since there will be a worse player to fish ratio...

Then, the poster I replied to said:

[ QUOTE ]
I think it will be exported quickly, unless poker sites segregate the players. I'm hopeful, if the government ever legalizes and regulates the sites, that they require it to be US vs US only.. it even makes sense when one considers that it would limit capital drain from the usa.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, sorry for assuming too much in my post. Let me rephrase my question. The poster would like to limit play to US vs US players. One reason stated is to limit "capital drain from the usa." ... presumably capital moving from the usa to people in poor countries. So, the poster doesn't want to play online poker with people from foreign countries. I wanted to clarify if this was for pragmatic (profit) reasons, or if he thought the "capital" drain, or something, was a morally bad thing.

Also, limiting play to US vs US only would also exclude European countries, for example, which hasn't been the topic of this thread. So, is that something that this poster doesn't like too? (the non-american players currently in the internet pool).

Hope my question is clearer now...

[ QUOTE ]
Here are the problems with the OP's argument as I see it.

1. Most of these countries have a poor economy because they have a small middle class. There are wealthy and poor people with not much in between. Introducing a game to these countries will also bring wealthy players who will splash around at the higher limits.

2. Winning 15/30 players do not grow on trees. Few adults that do not currently know the rules of poker could be winning players at 15/30. The lower limits you could teach someone a formulaic approach to win, so any affect would likely only be felt there.

3. Most "sweatshops" do not require much training for the work involved. It will likely take months of training before any employee is profitable. The employees will be paid a low wage to train, but it still takes time and money, plus you have to have someone educate them. I think setting these sweatshops up is easier said than done.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I agree, small middle class. However, even their upper class (my main concern) is poor by USA standards a high school graduate can go to Pizza Hut and make more waiting tables than a college grad in these developing countries.

2) I realize 15/30 players don't grow on trees. I've got pretty strong analytical skills (not communication) yet I'm fairly far off from beating 15/30. Do I think i could if i focused more? Probably. I'm not sure what % I estimated had the mental ability to beat it, but i think i suggested less than 3%. This is hardly growing on trees!

3)Highly disagree. Smart people could beat the .5/1 tables with less than 80 hours of practice, assuming they are given the right guidance.

Correct, I think the good players from foreign countries will be more apt to play full time, as its advantageous vs their real world job. As more players enter, the tables will tighten and good players will be forced to play lower limits if they want to remain profitable, at which point it will not be favorable for many pros in the developed nations to play.

I would be fine playing US players only. I prefer to play with whichever players are most +EV for me. I see no moral issues. As such, i prefer to play with an average USA player over an average person from a third world country because the average USA player (per my assumptions) will have more disaposable income and tend to be less inteligent.

[ QUOTE ]
Correct, I think the good players from foreign countries will be more apt to play full time, as its advantageous vs their real world job. As more players enter, the tables will tighten and good players will be forced to play lower limits if they want to remain profitable, at which point it will not be favorable for many pros in the developed nations to play.

I would be fine playing US players only. I prefer to play with whichever players are most +EV for me. I see no moral issues. As such, i prefer to play with an average USA player over an average person from a third world country because the average USA player (per my assumptions) will have more disaposable income and tend to be less inteligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for explaining. IMO, we're better off with a larger pool of players in general. Maybe you'd be happy if the poker sites provided a reliable geographic location of players, based on IP? Then you could choose tables with US based players...

I still think the full-time players will move up in limits as they improve. Most people want to make more money if they can. Plus the equilibrium of fish-sharks is not easy to predict. If the number of sharks increases, the relative number of fish drops, making the game less profitable for sharks, so some sharks will stop playing, which increases the ratio of fish... its a dynamic system, that doesn't necessarily have an equilibrium solution.

The restrictions you propose sound like a big gamble from EV perspective... What if they somehow stop Americans from accessing foreign poker sites (maybe with a china-style firewall?), and it turns out that the rest-of-the-world sites are more fishy than the US sites? US players will be pissed to be excluded... I guess the US casinos would be stoked though...

[blackize]

I refuse to read all these posts. But here is why you are wrong.

It takes money to play poker. You need substantial capital for a bankroll and to buy computers and pay for your internet connection. Just this investment alone will hinder people in underdeveloped nations from playing.

Now how did you learn to play poker? You probably bought a book and then lost a bunch of money honing your skills. I would venture to say that most players do not become profitable for several months. The people in these countries don't have the time or the money to invest in learning poker.

[scrapperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
The people who will take up the game will be people who recognize their own intelligence and mental acumen and furthermore recognize they will be +ev at the tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, people seem to think that becoming a winning player like joining the army.

Let me tell you how many of the people that play poker think they are +EV. 99%. Only 1% tell the truth to themself. Even the largest dumb ass in the world thinks he is smart. In fact every person I know thinks they are smart.

That being said, even being top 1% IQ is far from a lock that you are gonna be a winner. There are tons of factors here, intelligence is just one of many. IMO steam control and dicipline are just as important. And there are 10 or so other factors that need to be added in. There is no possible way of knowing if you are going to be a winner before you start playing and prove you are a winner.

[ QUOTE ]

Again, people seem to think that becoming a winning player like joining the army.

[/ QUOTE ]

I bought sshe, read it and deposited 600 bucks into two poker sites. I have never redopisited money and quit my job 1 month after. Before I did this I was very confident this would be the case. After a few months of playing I talked to two friends of mine that I thought would be interested in playing pro. Neither had ever played cards before(one was a professional chess player at one point in his life). One of the friends has had the same experience i did, and the other I am backing at the end of december in complete confidence that my money will be safe. IMO IQ and good analytical skills are very big factors in winning at online poker. Starting at low stakes, it is definately enough to keep you afloat until you develop the better understanding to move up(coupled with good guidance). I'm sure there are a handfull of people here at the forums that started as break even or slightly winning players before quickly becoming consistent winners.



[ QUOTE ]
Let me tell you how many of the people that play poker think they are +EV. 99%. Only 1% tell the truth to themself. Even the largest dumb ass in the world thinks he is smart. In fact every person I know thinks they are smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is largely an american additude. This ego is non existent in other places. People from developing nations are very practical and realistic. I have already mentioned this. It's just another reason why there will be more fish to sharks from countries like america. I talk about this because I am a second generation american and most of my family are from Mexico and south america. People from these place simply do not have these attitudes.

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, even being top 1% IQ is far from a lock that you are gonna be a winner. There are tons of factors here, intelligence is just one of many. IMO steam control and dicipline are just as important. And there are 10 or so other factors that need to be added in. There is no possible way of knowing if you are going to be a winner before you start playing and prove you are a winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but I would be much more willing to back someone with a 140 IQ then your average joe. and I think top 1 percent is like 160 and up. I would back these guys no question.

[ QUOTE ]
I refuse to read all these posts. But here is why you are wrong.

It takes money to play poker. You need substantial capital for a bankroll and to buy computers and pay for your internet connection. Just this investment alone will hinder people in underdeveloped nations from playing.

[/ QUOTE ]



You should have read the whole thread as this was already addressed. Yes people in developing nations have a harder time getting computers then people from developed nations. Crayzee put up a good link explaining that. It is not impossible and many people in these nations already have computers. His link even explained how it is becoming easier to get computers for these people and that computer use in these places is going to take huge jumps in the coming years.

[ QUOTE ]
Now how did you learn to play poker? You probably bought a book and then lost a bunch of money honing your skills. I would venture to say that most players do not become profitable for several months. The people in these countries don't have the time or the money to invest in learning poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly why fish in these places won't take up the game, and why the ones that do will quit very quickly. That leaves only sharks, and soon to be sharks to take up the game. The ops argument as I understood it was that the ratio from these countries will be different, and they will settle for lower wages then current professionals. This makes complete sense to me. The only real question is how likey is poker to become popular in developing nations. I think it is unlikely to happen in the near future, but it will eventually.