Ive already read of at least 3 coaches who think that online cash games are pretty much dead and that its like gambling now where your cards decide the winner. What is your opinion on this?

Durr, PA, PI.

my opinion about cash games being unbeatable.

nano effing noko

R.I.P

Then why are there 3/4 fish on each table?

I know this thread is unlikely to get much love, and there's probably been many similar threads. But I don't pay that much attention, so this is the first one I've seen.

I find that "cards decide the winner" thing interesting. Lately it's seemed to me like skill is just kind of like cover charge to get in the room. ie, if you don't have pretty good skills, you either are gonna redeposit a lot or be out of the game pretty quick. The unskilled people pay the rake for everybody, while the skilled regs are left to play a zero sum game where luck determines the winner.

Yeah, some regs have more leaks than others, but in the overall scheme of poker skill the leaks create very, very small edges. Small enough that they can easily be overcome over a long sample by variance. Like for example, I generally suck, and one of my leaks is calling 3bets with small pp's too often. But how many extra times do I have to hit a set to make it not a leak, results wise, over a pretty large sample? Because it's *almost* justified already, not very many at all. Not saying that makes it less of a leak. Just saying I don't have to get insanely lucky to overcome it. Just a little lucky.

There are obviously people apparently proving this wrong, although it could just be that black swan idea. Somebody has to get lucky, and we'll inevitably worship whoever it is. I mean, everybody thought Durrrr was untouchable, till it turns out he wasn't.

One way to overcome this would be to play at stakes that you outclass. People used to talk about being overrolled for a game. Maybe in the future they'll look to be overskilled for the stakes. Of course, eventually everybody will move down to a game they can beat, and then that game will become unbeatable, and everyone will have to move down again.

If you want to be ahead of the poker curve, you better move down first.

Yep, that's the way it is. At least on those Thursday nights that I've been drinking.

which coaches are these, and links to where they state this opinion?

Your thoughts near the end make a lot of sense imo. Playing in a game that you outclass is def smart. Not only that, but who ever said being over rolled was a bad thing?!?!?

[ ] dead
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/54...-games-655028/

Is this a new rule they use?

online poker will be dead when greedy arrogant people no longer exist

You know whats funny? Before I even clicked on the link I knew it was going to be one of Boywonders most recent graphs. Boywonders graphs dont mean **** imo. He is way more talented than most of the regs he plays with. Its not like any random poker player can achieve or do what he does.

What's your point though? Poker is competitive: you need talent and effort to be successful. Yes, you can no longer print money at the table just by following simple rules. In this sense the games are dead for a lot of people, even people who used to win a lot of money. It's still very profitable for some others and not just because they run good.

Just look at any Online site, the high stakes are done with. Ive been thinking that it came down to who got cards a long time ago, but you will get those believers who think poker is going strong, Online is DRIED up, Live Action is where its at, allthough its only good on the weekends.

maybe he just ran good over 600,000 hands

It is much harder than it's ever been, but these are the factors which make poker not "dead":

1) There are still enough fish that it's never "fishless" completely at basically any level (though sparse for sure at higher levels).

2) There are tens of thousands of poker players playing online--this means there's a large pool. When I log onto Pokerstars and see 100k people there, and see thousands playing cash, I mean, there isn't much in the world that 10's of thousands of people can have an edge on me in if I work really, really hard. This should be the attitude of anyone who considers himself of above average intelligence.

3) It is well known that a great number of regs have spewy leaks and are tempted to play robotically, therefore there is a good amount of room to exploit most players at your tables, up through NL 400 at least.

4) There is HU, there is PLO, there are always new games and variants that are softer than other areas where you can focus if you desire.

M

i hope all the regs think online NLHE is dead and gtfo so I can have the left over fishies all by myself

How can it be dead when there are still people crushing every stake over large hand samples and making $xxx,xxx per year? Sorry to say, but that isn't luck.

Strange thing to start saying

Links to coach quotes or GTFO

People at casinos say 2-5NL live is unbeatable.
I agree, if you aren't as good as the other players, YES. It is unbeatable!!!! Gasp...

Unless those guys sit at every one of your tables and continue to crush you. If you need to become world class first and reach the boywonder level before you can make any money, the game is more or less dead.

And if the players improve their game to a decent level, eventually all tables will be filled with people of equal skill, all slowly losing to the rake while breaking even, and only the new Ivey can make a few bucks.

Making $xxx,xxx at any game/sport makes you a professional, last I heard it's hard to become a pro at anything...

Yes, the easy money of poker is gone - stop bitching.

Never really understood why this topic generates so much interest. ALL stakes are beatable because they are played by humans. Humans make mistakes. Tom Dwan makes mistakes, Phil Ivey does, nan-****ing-noko does too. Ask him. Find a level you can beat and play there consistently until you have the money, experience and knowledge to move up to the next level and beat that. If you fail to beat it, move back down and gain some more knowledge and experience.

When people say "the games are dead" are they really saying "it's not fair, I can't crush 5/10 for $500k a year"? Tough ****. You ain't good enough

so how beatable would the games be if the edge you have due to human mistakes (+rakeback) is less then the rake?