I obviously mean their poker strategy. Also, I'm largely optimistic about ASI.

stop regging HSMTTs like the Storm and Big 8

FYP

Currently >20 tables of 100nl running and only 1 game of 200nl. Am I missing something?

come to zoom, rec probably prefer play smaller, 200 chessburgers is a lot.

although I'm very surprised the 500z pool has been completely empty a few times last few month

Because at certain times of the day no one starts tables. There are more 2006m running on obscure sites than stars at times just because regs are willing to play to get a game running. If there were 2 guys willing to start tables then there would no doubt be a fair few games running.

why would anyone want to start games, when there's like 2 regs joining and sitting in/out .. if stars fixed this , maybe i would jump to reg tables once in a while

that doesn't seem to happen at 400nl+ tho

I think its pretty dam likely they will invest in it. Or they will just loosen the % of certainty they need to ban people, which i guess is what theyre already starting to do.

Dont get me wrong, they obviously ****ed up really badly recently, but theres evidently been a shift at banning bots/detecting players in the last couple of months

wernt there job offers for security created last year? Around the time all the bots come to light? I imagine it takes time from hiring people to A LOT of discussions as to what actually should be done before any serious actions could be taken, which is why it took quite a while for lot of these bots/suspected bots to get banned


They need their improvement to work by about 3438493985395% though given how long it took kalban/romu to get banned

Not really. I remember a couple of years ago thinking even though poker is declining there'll always be 30+ tables of 200nl running on Stars because surely there's an endless supply of recs willing to lose money $200 at a time. In 12 months from now it will be 20 tables of 50nl and 1 game of 100nl etc. etc.

if you want recs to play then start your tables.

Only have to look at evidence at when i used to table start 400/600 to see fish will always join if you start and wont play if you dont. Quite a few times 600 had more tables than 400.

If regs were to just start 1 table per session it would help a bunch. You dont even play more than 20 hands hu before a fish joins if youre starting.

He does have a point though - the sky is falling. Give it till 2025 absolute latest and cash games will be dead. It will be a combination of factors which will cause its ultimate death, but bots will be the main reason. At this point, if you can't see the writing on the wall, then frankly you need to open your eyes. Don't bury your head in the sand, stick your fingers in your ears and pretend nothing is happening.

The people I feel most sorry for are the guys grinding micros currently, foolishly believing that the dream is still alive. People beating 100nl or higher are obviously still making enough money to justify their time investment (though like I said before, work on an exit plan from poker ASAP).

You might be a completely different person, but are you Jon from PokerVIP? (the Scottish guy with glasses)

They could get better, IF they are willing to invest significant amounts of money and hire the right people. I don't see that happening, given that online poker is already a declining market. So bot detection will get worse, probably at an exponential rate.

As a recreational player in my early days of playing online poker, if I wanted to play a game and there were a) no tables b) all tables were full, I would immediately find a different format to play. Recreationals don't want to sit around for half an hour on waitlists, or start games which they think may take 10-15 minutes to fill (yes, obviously seating scripts mean that games will fill instantly, but they don't know that). They want instant action.

Moral of the story: start games if you want recreational players to play.

imo the bots wont be the main reason unless games go anonymous its just that eventually games get to a point where fish dry up because boom is over and they have literally no shot of winning even in the short term and also ppl from busto countries are willing to put in massive amounts of effort to get smth like 500 bucks a month, although the flipside is that even right now an average beginner just starting out will need months/years of playing/study to get good. Given how easy it is to make 1k profit in a month bumhunting 25nl it actually puzzles me how soft the micros still are. regs from 2008-2010 who were not that good then are still beating those games and those games have stayed relatively soft while 50nl has gotten much tougher over the years.

I also think regs in the future will come more aware of bots, because of basic economic theory . Also in 2016 some random dude w/o playing history isnt just gonna start crushing ssnl+, meaning it would be kinda easy for stars to start detecting nl bots themselves which they have to do eventually.

tbf nl100 is like a special limit in that rgd. Alot of fish have 100bucks to lose every now and then. 100usd is a nice round number, way cooler to sit there w 3 digits than sit w 50bucks. If you take something like 400 thats alot of money for 99% of people. Even if the rec makes like 4k/month post taxes thats 10% of his income. I doubt that 100 is rly going to die but volume prolly further declines
But no doubt that 100 likely will be one of the highest limit which will be running w decent volume 2 years down the road from now

Much more rare to have 2 regs sitting out nowadays, most that sit are willing to play 3 handed (there are some exceptions of course) but that wouldn't be an issue if other people would just play a tiny bit of hu. It's quite frankly ridiculous, at the 200 dollar tables, you're rarely playing more than 10 hands of hu before a table forms yet people still refuse the ever so short term -ev for the massive +ev of a fish joining in 30 seconds.

Yeah I've always thought this in regards to 100nl. Same reason I'd imagine 16nl would be really reg infested on Stars because it's such a strange number that are any fish really going to decide to play 1 table of 16nl? I could be wrong about this though because I've not played a hand of 16nl in my life- which helps my point to a degree.

I would expect the entire player pool at 16NL to be from Belarus/Russia.

yep. it's gto bot vs gto bot

nope, not Scottish and PokerVIP doesn't sound familiar, though I do have glasses bc I am too big of a puss to get lasik.

You guys might well be right about 100NL but I swear you are expounding almost word for word the exact thoughts I had about 200NL ~2 years ago.

this is true btw.. every time i play reg tables and start 200nl tables, recs join quickly all the time and anyway players starting tables at 200nl are bad. i would understand being careful at 600 but jesus ****.

no woolly starts table oh wait...

Yeah I used to think the same about nl200 because this the lowest limit in casinos so I always thought fish gonna seat the game it is familiar with.
For what is worth nl100 is still in a better shape than nl50 due to rake cap. It is basically like the first limit you get reasonable rebate on your rake.

please use spoilers when posting pukeworthy pictures, ty.