I only dabble at playing online because I suck at it, but I think it's because the games are reasonably solid and there's not enough fish playing and going busto.

I've read a few references in some threads to (mostly) Pokerstars wanting to expand its business into the Asian market, but this will pretty much make the whole website PlayPokerBots.com

Should Pokerstars/FTP/Cake/Etc.. be marketing their businesses towards mainstream n00bz and just try to get back the old belief that "Poker's 100% a game of luck and YOU could be the next poker millionaire!!!" and just plug the **** out of things like Sunday Million with a "Who wants to be a millionaire?!?!" kinda catch... try and lure in people who would be playing the lottery etc...

Maybe bring in stuff like "Come and play this $25 donkament with NBA superstar ________" - I don't live in America, but I'm assuming nobody outside poker circles real gives a **** about DN, Durrrr, PH etc... (compared to NBA/NFL/Baseball players)

Is it the poker sites responsibility to loosen up the games and bring in the fishes?

Giving poker a lottery like catch is exactly what we're trying not to do.

We want to separate poker from other games like roulette and the lottery.

Poker is a skill game and we want it to be defined to be a skill game (like chess)

Sure it will bring in noobz but it would also bring in noobz who want to play a skill game vs. noobz who want to play a lottery.

A recent example of sites trying to get more "fish":

http://www.egrmagazine.com/news/4256...the-fish.thtml

They describe the contributed method backwards.

How about in this article:



http://www.egrmagazine.com/news/2582...icensees.thtml

The only way to save online poker is to limit stacks to 10 bb and use a hyper-turbo structure for all tournaments. This levels the playing field and allows the fish to gamble it up and win. Would you want to play Kasparov for money in chess at even odds? How about Woods in golf? Same goes for poker. As a hyper-turbo dream crusher, I say bring on the shortstackaments.

Op, it's hilarious that you describe your play as "only dabble at playing online because I suck at it" and proceed to decry "there's not enough fish" in the same sentence.

Did you consider that you are a fish? And if you played more, there'd be one more fish regularly playing?

People play poker. People are winners. People are losers. (Except the bots of course).

Your dehumanizing condescending tone is pathetic.

As to the question, until some sort legalization and regulation comes along, online will continue to slowly implode on itself.

Sure in terms of legislation, it needs to be defined as a skill.... and obviously I agree that it is a skill-based game.

But in terms of players + sites making more money (obv #1 priority) .... Promoting the game as a game of luck and trying to get fish to believe they actually have a chance is +EV.

I smoke the **** out of everyone at my local casino... but I don't exactly say to them "Haha you called $100 with a gut-shot on the turn and are complaining that you lost??? you're an idiot" .... I say something like "Man, that's tough luck, sometimes you just don't get the cards you want hey!"

Not positive I agree with shortstackaments... though durrrr is arguing for this kinda thing quite a bit (wanting high-ante games... though he still plays NLHE 200-1000bb deep but HU it's probably more interesting playing deep). I don't mind an aggressive action game, but at the same time, I like to see good players win.

I don't really see how this makes sense.

I win at live games because there are bad players. I lose online because there aren't as many bad players. I'm hoping that more bad players come online so I can win at online..... pretty standard imo.

'dehumanizing condescending tone' - wtf?

Right, but we need to think as a whole poker player community.
What do we want poker to be?
Skill or luck?
Obviously it is skill, but ask someone walking down a street and chances are they'll tell you it's luck. It's a huge misconception.
Legislate it as skill but promote it as luck?
Could that work?

In my opinion
If it's gonna be viewed as luck
Then yes, plus EV, but the game itself will lose prestige and poker players in general will be viewed with little respect as strictly unethical gamblers. No benefits, law issues etc. However we will definitely make way more profit from loose gamblers.

If it's gonna be viewed as both (kinda like it is today)
I think we'd need to go one way or another here, which is kind of the state we're currently in.

If it's gonna be viewed as skill
Loose gamblers will definitely be scared away, but what about chess players or strategy enthusiasts who will take a shot at our game (low stakes yes). It may bring better players, but we'd all be viewed as highly intelligent people, and the game would have a lot more respect.

what are you talking about.....we want ppl to think that anyone can win. We arent trying to convince congressmen to pass a bill, we're trying to convince joe sixpack to deposit and play.

I totally do not want more strategy enthusiasts playing.... would totally make the game harder and I don't want that.

I like it being viewed as a mixture of luck/skill (I honestly think its about 80/20.. maybe 70/30.. with skill being the higher).

I live in Aus, so I couldn't really care less about legislation. (pls no flame!)

I think that claiming skill in parliament and luck in public can be done and citing the honest reason for this (to attract **** players) is fine.

I also think a strategy that makes people feel OK about being losing players is +EV... which the whole "keep playing the lottery and you'll win it eventually" thing comes into play

The lottery thing I'm talking about is only really relevant for MTTs as you can win huge amounts quickly... which is what dreamers want.

I couldn't care less if the public think that great poker players are just luck-boxes... the poker community know that's not the case and I'd rather have money than the respect of people who have no idea.

Edit - Actually, heaps of great poker players are luckboxes, my bad ... hachem, cada, eastgate.

Mizrachi bros = ftw

lol I love how people think that politicians are eyeing the online poker games to see how much luck there is. Every time someone mentions a different form of poker that is more luck-based people are like "yeah but then they won't legalize it because they'll think it's luck". News flash, the ones who think it's all luck are not going to change their mind because poker sites are advertising tourneys/hyper-turbos/variance-fests, they're going to think back to the home game they played last Friday when they got sucked out on. The intelligent people realize that as long as there are decisions to be made it is a game of skill while the idiots will continue to believe that it is all luck. Now of course I'm completely against the shortstack/hyper-turbos/etc. and luckily most people are with me. But don't hide behind the politicians will think it's luck argument, that's just a bunch of bull****. I want the trend to be towards deepstack poker because I make more money at it and I enjoy it more (in that order of precedence). Contrary to what OP is claiming there are plenty of fish and there are plenty of regs crushing the current games. Sure not as much as 5 years ago and obviously live is softer, but if you put in the time and work it is still possible to make a solid amount of money at this game.

zach just won this thread