Turbos, PLO ,CAPs, short stack tables, Hyper-turbos, anon tables. I can't help wondering whether the increasing higher variance/lower edge games coupled with the fast increasing skills of players is going to start killing off the poker pro to the extent that it becomes close to a pit game.

Is this the direction poker is naturally destined to flow, eventually flattening out all the edges? Does poker need pipe-dream pros to thrive or can it survive on just it's latest boomswitched-players? Are the pokersites to blame for their short-sited self-interest?

Removing skill from poker bit by bit is worringly attractive for sites and gamblers short term results, but surely interest in poker as a whole would suffer once the concensous is that its a crap shoot.

Thoughts?

(MODS, originally posted this in BQ, was unsure how to get it deleted)

There's still skill in those games tho

No skill in PLO?, might as well play craps. Really?

Cap doesn't have higher variance, it actually has lower variance. In general the deeper you are the higher the variance is going to be.

I hope to god the post you made was meant sound more like this

"Is offering games with very shallow stacks thus negating high skill edges bad for poker?"

I don't even know how to word it correctly and wouldn't agree with it anyways.

What does variance have to do with anything? As long as skill in the end is the deciding factor.

I'm terrible- just terrible at plo, I can beat like 5plo and that's it. But I realise that there is a redic amount of skill involved.

I think most people play poker to make money.. So as long as you are making money what does it matter ?

Higher variance games are good for the health of poker games (lots of spazztards playing because it is highly luck based).

High variance games like PLO actually have higher skill also... So short term results are more fish-friendly but long term results are better for good rolled players

Games constantly keep being introduced that yield less potential for edges, is this a good direction/option for the long term health of the poker economy?

Maybe PLO was a stretch, but that was introduced years ago and since then a trend of lower skilled formats keep emerging.

People are getting more and more time poor and casual players want to gamble. Give the people what they want imo. With a wife and daughter I personally love a few beers and some hyper turbos.

yes as long as rake as kept low small edge games are better for the health of the poker economy.

From the poker sites' perspective, the ideal would be having pretty much everybody breakeven (not counting rake). Bingofest poker with lower rake is ideal for them. In the end, they'll get all the money.

I wonder how much of the losing players' money the poker sites get and what percentage of the losers' money goes to winning players. The trend seems to be less winners and each winner having a lower R.O.I.

The fact that you titled this thread "higher variance games", when what you meant was "lower skill edge games" is fairly telling that you don't know what you are talking about and haven't really taken the time to think about it.

From the operator's perspective, an ideal game would allow for a core of profitable (at least somewhat) players to get games started and keep them going, with enough variance to keep the recreational players coming back. This is why they moved to fixed limit games and capped buy-in NL games in the first place.

of course, if they are willing to use bots, they don't need regs...

high variance doesnt mean lower skill, lock this **** up

keen up for the TCOOP

OK, It's clear I meant lowering the possible edges in games, spose it could be argued PLO's variance is more optimal for the health of the poker economy than NLH.

It's ideal for the casual players + gamblers, aka the majority. Bigger swings, big/fast action, less tough spots, more wins, causing the majority of players to naturally flow into these games from the higher skilled games if made available. The people spoke and the sites listened.

But are these games at a cost to the image/reputation of poker as a skill game with succesful pros and community. If these aspects aren't kept at a high level then what will seperate poker from any casino table game, thus adopting their level of popularity?

It doesn't make sense to look at it this way.

An example, deep stack no blind increase NL heads up sng.

Winners have massive winrates and these are not really popular for fish, the games are long and they lose a high % of the time.

Professionals can actually make more money in many of the faster, lower edge formats. Edge or ROI does not indicate how profitable something is. The missing variable is length (time).

Yes, if you had a 60 minute SNG with a 2% ROI vs a 60 minute SNG with a 10% ROI, your point about diminishing edges would make sense, but many of the best hyper turbo husng players for example, are making more per hour than they were in turbos (and in turbos, many pros back in 2005-2005 when they introduced turbos, started making more money in turbos than they were in regular speed husngs). The edge per match may be smaller, but if you can get 25% of the edge in 15% of the time, it's a pretty clear decision on which game is more profitable to you.

Formats that are faster seem to attract more players on average, at least that seems to be the trend in many formats. Encourage poker rooms to build formats that are popular, beatable and sustainable, the rest is up to you.

The answer to your question is profit. Sharkscope Skaiwalkurrr or Serkules on PokerStars and filter for super turbo husngs, you'll see what I mean. That is what separates these games from casino games (extreme profitability from the players that play these the most).