Undeniable fact #1: we are all living longer on average, and, that trend is expected to continue indefinitely. ->

Exhibit A:



So? Well this results in there being infinitely more theoretical time for learning poker strategy, (undeniable fact #2). The fertile, core mean age for optimal learning interesting things about poker will widen at a frightening rate. Soon most people will live to 125+ as a standard. Whoever invented 6max could never* have anticipated such an extinction level development.

*in a million years

So even if you do sod all with your life for 62.5 years, like become a dentist or something, hey.. no worries amigo!.. re-lax fandango.. go and sit in your chair sister.. you've still got you an additional 62.5 years to watch youtube videos, smoke cigarillos and grind microstakes. And then with microstakes+ infested with nonagenarian generals.. what then for 'new' or original poker strategy content? Are players going to quibble over itsy bitsy tiny little scraps of EV while everyone's pie grows exponentially smaller year after tedious year?


No, of course not. The game will die way before you do. Rubbish.

Yeah, just think about it. In 60 years, casinos will be full of OMCs, and a new generation of even nittier 125 year olds will be making their debut, tanking 5 minutes per decision with a 4% VPIP.

It's funny that the graph posted by OP Ceres starts from 1900, exactly when Texas Hold'em originated. Maybe it's NLHE that is responsible for longer lives ?

Longer life means you have to treat poker even more seriously if you want to keep playing without ever quitting. But maybe there's an approximate age margin that shows the moment you should quit, I don't know. But definitely you should quit poker after 90.

I'm more worried about the population number (8 252 407 208 people today) which looks more like a phone number than something you can imagine. 100 million poker players world wide - it's cool, but considering people are smarter and smarter, it means millions of sharks instead millions of fish. The star factor also is smaller and smaller and real poker celebrities are more hidden than official in this jungle.

This is a genuinely hilarious post, Ceres


The reason life expectancy was so low in 1900 was largely because of high infant mortality. If you survived infancy then you could expect to live to about 55-60. There's still an uptrend but it's not as extreme as the graph you posted makes it seem.



In hundreds of years (or perhaps sooner) we will hopefully achieve a post-scarcity society, where money loses meaning, and poker will be relegated to the same category as other board games - played for fun rather than as a living.

I don't think that's ever happening.

Scarcity is inevitable for every life form. The more resources we have, the more we reproduce, creating even greater demand. It's a never ending cycle.

As for our lifespan, the trend would probably follow a logarithmic curve. Something like this:



And we're probably getting near the top of it.

Ceres is like a drunken professor, you never know where is the margin between facts and fiction in his posts.

yeah, funny ceres professor

404 not found pretty on the nose most days

2 main errors here:

1) This chart includes the great adult birthing explosion of 1839. Of course the figures will appear skewed and deflated if we start including victorian 50-yr olds baby people.

2) This chart being for England and Wales exclusively. My superior chart (above) is based on global statistics. Big difference.

Maybe they should cull regs every few years like in Clair Obscur or The Purge? Shave off the top 10% of 'pros ' with an engraved watch and a 'yeah thanks but actually buddy, no thanks' letter of lifetime enforced suspension. No site-access across the board. Wipe them off the face of the earth.


To save poker

Human fertility rates certainly haven't followed your logic in the last decades, most wealthy parts of the earth are well below replacement levels. If anything, fertility rates have been inversely correlated with the resources available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fertility_rate

100 years ago, there were 2 billion people in the world, now there's over 8 billion.
It could simply be that developed countries reached their population peak before the third world ones.

The way I see it, resources in the EU and the US have remained relatively stable over the past few decades, while conditions in many African countries were quite poor until recently, but are now improving rapidly.

Another factor to consider is how many children actually survive long enough to reproduce.

Here's the precise statistical measure:

How is a baby losing 76bb/100 in a 6-max game!?
Even folding 100% of hands would only result in a 50bb/100 loss.

What kind of strategy did you feed that baby in your advanced simulation? I want to know.

Baby sees big brother putting chips in the pot. Wants to be like him. Mom steps in and says no on the flop.

It's actually the complete opposite:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fertility_rate

Hint: to see a somewhat wealthy country you need to scroll quite a bit The formula is: the wealthier a country, the less reproduction, the poorer the country, the higher the fertility.

Grandma off to teach her new Red Line Monster course 📈

It's not just some "baby". It's that famous "kid poker" guy from Youtube vlogs and he can do anything.

Aren't these in direct contradiction to each other?

Observing population peaks / plateaus in rich countries isn't consistent with your first post. According to your claim we should see ever higher birth rates until resources become sufficiently scarce to stop further growth. That's clearly not the case.

A population peak makes sense if resources in developed countries stop increasing.

How is that clearly not the case? Most people in the first world countries don't make enough money to support more than 2-3 children. This implies we've reached a resource cap.

Millionaires like Elon Musk still often have dozens of children because they have more resources (money). It makes perfect sense.

More resources = More children on average.

when it comes to children, then also spiritual resources matter, and social too