ITH Poker Forum

[mchilger]

What are your impressions of the future of poker? Specifically I am referring to the profitability of games like limit cash games and nl cash games.

Matthew

[Ed Miller]

I think people will always play poker. It's a game deeply rooted in American culture, and gambling games with bluffing have a long history. So I think there will always be home games and new players learning the game.

To that end, I think live cash games will always be profitable, and to the extent that they stay legal in public cardrooms and casinos, I think those games will continue to be profitable also. It's too popular a game, and too many people who play it have no ability or interest in playing well, so a dedicated player will always be able to make money.

Online, however, I'm not remotely sure about. It's such a volatile thing. Ten years ago it barely existed. Five years ago it took off. Three years ago it was a money-making nirvana. Today some of the games are already getting a lot tougher. Five years from now... literally who knows.

I think online play has some major problems associated with it that it will have to overcome to be a long-term thing. Botting is potentially a total killer, and the ease of colluding and multi-accounting is another problem. It also tends to be a bit of a meat-grinder... it doesn't take someone long to lose their $100 or $200 initial stake, and after a couple of reloads, a lot of those players you lose for good I bet. During the boom, it wasn't such a problem, but once you try to get more new players on board during a less boomy time, they may have to do something to "flatten" the pay structure, so to speak, (i.e., more promotions) to get more people hooked.

And of course there are legal issues also.

So I don't know about online poker. It could be booming in 5 years, or it could be mostly busted, and I really am not sure which.

As for limit versus no limit, I also don't really know. No limit is obviously king of the hill right now, and I don't see that changing in the next five years or so... at least I doubt people will have drifted back to limit within that timeframe. If I had to guess, I'd sort of guess that limit hold'em is on the same path as stud was once hold'em really started to catch on, and that if/when no-limit gets replaced at the top, some other game will be the one to do it.

Having said all that, if you play live, I think you can count on both limit and no-limit games to be eminently profitable. Only problem with limit is you may have a harder and harder time finding a game.

I wrote a piece in my blog on this topic a few months back called Does Poker Keep Getting Harder and Harder?

[nsidestrate]

When I was in Las Vegas last month for the early WSOP events, I was sad to see how much more difficult it is to find good mid-limit Hold'Em action. 30/60 was very much hit or miss at the Wynn and virtually non-existent at the Venetian. One table seemed to run at the Mirage most of the time and there was good action at the Bellagio. This was during the WSOP, which should be the most active time of the year. Many of the regulars were talking about focusing on no-limit since that was where the big action is at these days. Even when there were games at the Wynn, the games were tougher and more difficult than they have been. Many of the players were comfortable short-handed and didn't make the usual mistakes of live players without much 6-max experience.

It seems like the limit action has dried up, but it could be that I was happier playing 15/30 in the past. NL seems to be stronger than ever. And more donktastic than ever.

[DTheater]

they may have to do something to "flatten" the pay structure, so to speak, (i.e., more promotions) to get more people hooked.

hmmm, back at the beginning full circle with brilliant bonus deals again then. I can see the sites resorting to that in order to entice everybody back, hopefully its a never ending circle.

[mchilger]

My feeling is that Limit Hold'em is going to be tougher and tougher and may die out. One problem with Limit is the quality of poker books on the subject. With ITH, Small Stakes, Winning Tough Hold'em Games, etc., there are now a lot of good books on the subject to help players with a relatively simple game (compared to NL). New players like to play NL so comparitively speaking, there are fewer fish in the sea in Limit games. The poor players have been weeded out and fewer players joining the fray. I'm speaking more about online poker right now but Nside's post is worrisome.

Good limit players should probably be looking at switching or at least adding NL cash game skills to their repertoire.

Having said this, Ed just released a NL cash game book, Professional NL Hold'em. He has a 2nd volume coming out later this year. Harrington has a cash game series planned. Books over the next couple of years will probably make NL games tougher also, yet they are behind the curve of limit games.

NL tournaments are getting tougher and tougher. The new players who started 2-3 years ago are maturing and improving. The addition of good tournament books like Harrington has increased overall play significantly. I found overall play at the WSOP this summer to be higher than it was last summer. The cash game books will also help the tournament players.

So overall, all games are getting tougher. Without a new Internet boom which can only be caused by the US legalizing online poker again, players must be prepared for a tougher playing field. Table selection use to be an important quality for poker players, but I think we've moved a step backgames in that game selection is now a key element to consider. Should I play limit, NL, tournaments, or sitngos?

I agree with Ed that new games will crop up. I also think that Omaha will have a resurgence.

Matthew

[Zool1]

Should I play limit, NL, tournaments, or sitngos?

NL Sit'n'Gos are suffering the same fate as limit cash. Not only are they now a lot tougher than they were, but the rake is astronomical compared to any cash game - which is topical in fact, because the regular STT crowd over at the other place are actually talking about a STRIKE, and trying to hold Stars/FT to ransom, promising their future custom to whichever site overhauls it's SnG rake structure to provide a better deal. Some of these guys are donating well into the $1000's per week in rake, so hopefully they can make a difference.

Improved rake notwithstanding, unless massively multi-tabling at low-limits is your thing, I'd stay away from SnGs. The general consensus is that they're now virtually unbeatable above the $200 level.

[Holgininho]

What game do you think will become popular, when the popularity of NL declines? PLO? Razz? Maybe a completely new game? Or none at all?

[mchilger]

Zool, to add fuel to the fire, 2+2 just released a book about sitngos. I suspect that short-term, that book will add new players to sitngos making them more profitable, but once the weak players are weeded out there will just be more players who know how to play.

I don't think NL is going to die anytime soon - if ever. It's a much more difficult game than limit hold'em to master and has a much broader market of players. The games will get tougher (fewer new players entering the market and more books) but there will be plenty of weaker/amatuer players for NL to stay around a long, long time. But I do think more and more players will try other games and I'm thinking PLO will get more popular as the years go by.

Matthew

Matthew

[cybrarian]

I wrote a piece in my blog on this topic a few months back called Does Poker Keep Getting Harder and Harder?

I'm glad I came back to this thread and took the time to read your article. Very interesting, and one point in particular stuck out:

Just as rampant bots will make the games dead, rampant multitablers make the games tougher.

The microview received wisdom re: multitablers is that you want them around because they are more likely to be playing ABC poker, and if you're more observant that gives you a little more edge against them. 1 person at one table playing 9 people who are all playing 3 other tables ought to be happy on that basis. But while those 9 are playing ABC, they're playing tight ABC and are not going to be giving much edge up at any time, and then also if all the tables they're on are tight, it's not like they have a large number of difficult decisions to make, or are missing out on much information by multitabling. Unfortunately, as a former multitabler, that implicates me in the toughening

[Ed Miller]

I wrote a piece in my blog on this topic a few months back called Does Poker Keep Getting Harder and Harder?

I'm glad I came back to this thread and took the time to read your article. Very interesting, and one point in particular stuck out:

Just as rampant bots will make the games dead, rampant multitablers make the games tougher.

The microview received wisdom re: multitablers is that you want them around because they are more likely to be playing ABC poker, and if you're more observant that gives you a little more edge against them. 1 person at one table playing 9 people who are all playing 3 other tables ought to be happy on that basis. But while those 9 are playing ABC, they're playing tight ABC and are not going to be giving much edge up at any time, and then also if all the tables they're on are tight, it's not like they have a large number of difficult decisions to make, or are missing out on much information by multitabling. Unfortunately, as a former multitabler, that implicates me in the toughening

I've heard that reasoning before with respect to bots, but not multitablers. In both cases, I think it's bunk. The reason bots and, to a lesser extent, multitablers are potentially so destructive is that they can vacuum up the dead money very quickly. Even if you, as an excellent player, do have a slight extra edge over a multitabler because they are "ABC", how much money will that edge translate into in, say, a $2-$4 or $5-$10 limit game with a $2 or $3 rake?

Honestly, the real money doesn't come from the people who are just a bit too "ABC," especially not at smallish limit stakes. It comes from the really bad players. And bots and multitablers are designed to suck their money very quickly. Eventually, after large quantities of sucking, that money will dry up, and when you sit in most games, it will be a much tougher crowd.

Perhaps those games will still be beatable by an excellent player, but I have two questions:

1. How many people are going to spend the time and money necessary to improve to become an excellent player if they have to navigate that mine field?

2. What will that do to the overall profitability, not only of that game, but the games above it? The guys that were making $200k/year plus playing limit hold'em a couple of years ago, most of that money they made was originally deposited in $100 or $200 chunks by bad players who then played $0.50-$1. If those $0.50-$1 games are dominated by bots and/or multitable specialists, then that money will never trickle up. It will enter the site, go to the bot, and get withdrawn. The money at all the limits will dry up as a result.

[cybrarian]

Well, if you're going to have a tight player sitting in your game, you'd probably prefer that they're multitabling, but that's about as far as the benefit goes. To illustrate your point as clearly as I think it can be:

If you're at a table of 5 good players and 5 really bad players, then (assuming you're in the former category) you will be looking forward to a fun and profitable time. But what happens if you replace those 5 really bad players, who have got bored losing their money slowly, and decided to go play some NL donkaments instead, with 5 reasonably good bots or 5 reasonably good multitablers? You and the other 4 good players still have an edge, but it's going to be a whole lot tougher to keep winning.

I just mentioned it because I hadn't really considered it that way before reading your article.

1. How many people are going to spend the time and money necessary to improve to become an excellent player if they have to navigate that mine field?

Good point. Time was when you could sit down at almost any level and find enough weak players. At some point, and I don't know if it was a sudden or slow transition, that changed. And then low limit cash games became all about making a little bit from playing while making a lot out of bonuses. And I suppose if the bonus amount dwarfs any attainable earn rate, what did we expect would happen?

2. What will that do to the overall profitability, not only of that game, but the games above it? The guys that were making $200k/year plus playing limit hold'em a couple of years ago, most of that money they made was originally deposited in $100 or $200 chunks by bad players who then played $0.50-$1. If those $0.50-$1 games are dominated by bots and/or multitable specialists, then that money will never trickle up. It will enter the site, go to the bot, and get withdrawn. The money at all the limits will dry up as a result.

Do you mean this is a sort of trickle-up system, where lots of bad players give small amounts to better players who then move to the next limit and do the same, and so on until you reach the top of the pyramid? And is that money now moving into the hands of the top tournament players instead? (Who might or might not choose to donk some of it off at a high limit cash game, but that's not going to make up the shortfall)

What advice (if it's possible to be so general about it) would you give to someone who right now was trying to work their way up through the limits at limit cash tables? Is it even worth their time? Should they just move to short-handed, or even NL?

[therivierakid]

Ed, do you not think the sites' ability to spot bots will improve as the bots' ability improves?

I have quite a lot of faith in the bigger sites (Stars, Full Tilt) that they will keep up with the bot merchants. The smaller sites, I'm not so sure.

[mchilger]

Short-handed is clearly more profitable than full ring games. How many tables you can multi-table at once might eliminate some of that edge, but for those that play 1 or 2 at a time there is a lot more money to be made in short-handed.

Matthew

[Ed Miller]

Ed, do you not think the sites' ability to spot bots will improve as the bots' ability improves?

I have quite a lot of faith in the bigger sites (Stars, Full Tilt) that they will keep up with the bot merchants. The smaller sites, I'm not so sure.

I'm skeptical that the sites will be able to control botting, especially if the botters become sophisitcated while the sites become complacent.

[the_hawk]

I'm skeptical that the sites will be able to control botting, especially if the botters become sophisitcated while the sites become complacent.

After all, bots generate rake, too. Lots of it.