+1 Long term trend is up /endthread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is just silly. Yes, it's way up from 1998. Even that very cherry-picked metric is down from 2006.

We're still feeling the effects of the boom, and may for some time to come, but the games are definitely harder than they used to be, and certain games (5/10+ cash NLHE) are also much rarer.

And twenty years ago, they were non-existent, except during the WSOP.

Rigth. I literally just said that we are still feeling the effects of the boom.

Poker is clearly not on its last legs and likely to disappear tomorrow. I don't think anyone is arguing that.

But it's not the growth industry that it was in the early 2000s either. I mean, there were WPT stores in malls. People were punting off stacks with 2ndPNK. C-betting was a secret of the pros.

I don't think it will get down to the tiny niche that it was before the boom in our lifetimes. Too many people were exposed, and it's cheap and easy to offer, so I doubt it will go the way of roller-rinks.

On the other hand, the prospects for a new boom are not great either. Even if something brings poker hugely back in to public consciousness, it will never have the low barrier to success that it did in the boom. I mean, I made money online back then without even knowing what a c-bet was. Try that nowadays. People may try the game these days, but few will want to put in the level of study required to be able to stick.

The whole problem with this discussion is that people have been using "fifteen years ago" (i.e. 2003 and 2004) as the baseline for the state of poker. This is patently absurd. That was when the boom was blowing up, and the state of poker was nowhere near normal or equilibrium.

Yes, we are "still feeling the effects of the boom." I live in California. Here, we are still feeling the effects of the boom that followed the 1987 legalization of hold'em and seven-card stud.

Back when we were having the same discussion in 2005 or 2006, I made the same points that I have been making now: that poker has experienced sudden growth before (California 1987, the advent of Foxwoods and Atlantic City poker, etc.) , that afterwards have come periods of contraction and consolidation, and that after the consolidation, the poker economy was bigger after the boom than before.

That is exactly the situation poker is in now: consolidated, but substantially bigger than pre-boom levels.

When I started playing cardroom poker more than twenty years ago, the scene was vibrant and alive. It is still vibrant and alive, and much bigger.

Well, didn't realize you were going to move the goal posts 30 yards. Thought there might be some enlightening point of views...

I don't believe there is a 2/5 game anywhere in the country where a really good player wouldn't be at least a 10bb/hr winner.

I also don't believe he's accurate when he talks about needing to play 2000 hours to make 60k. Lots of good players would be expected to make 60k+ in fewer than 1,000 hours.

I'm 31. Maybe 20% of the people I play with are younger than me. They're not good, but come into the game with some knowledge. I think this young blood is a good sign, just don't expect the same level of gambol from them as you would from some real estate agent taking his first crack at the game in 2005. There was basically a point in time where people thought their odds in the game were equal or greater to their odds in black jack/roulette/craps. Now that time has passed and the game is fading from it's former glory. However, I think it's not past a slow burn at worst. I mean, most people ask this question because they're really wondering if they can still profit from this game. The answer is yes, although it'll take much more off table work than required 10 years ago.

Specifically to the post above:

I think you underestimate how many people are actually really good players. Of the few, who actually profit at the game, those who crush above the all pleasing 10bb/hr mark are of even a smaller portion.

This is way off base imo

I can guarantee you that I know anyone who plays enough hours to matter in my very large room. Its a 40 table room and there are 100s of 2/5 players. Ive talked to many of the players who I would consider the top players. People normally exaggerate so I always assume they are making a little less than what they say and based on that Id be shocked if more than 3 people in my room are breaking 10BBs.

Honestly I don't think more than 4-6 guys are breaking $35/hr at 2/5 in my room.

IMO, winning at 10BBs puts you in the top 0.1% of players.

I am deleting all this derail about "is Parx/Florida hard or soft." Stop it. This is not a thread about that, it is about the general trends in poker. Further posts on the Parx/Florida topic will be infracted.

I realize it started out as examples IRT the general discussion, but it has gone way beyond that.

Similarly, this is not a winrate thread, though that's also related to the topic. We can talk about how winrates are trending, but we are not going to talk about what winrate makes one a good player, etc. We have a thread for that already. I let what we have already go to clear up what I perceive as typesick's misperception, but let's not let it turn in to another derail.

I think lots is a bit of an overstatement

Well, I don't disagree with what you're saying. The vast majority of players are just not that good, and yes, the majority of decent standard 2/5 regs come in somewhere in the $25-40/hr range. However, I happen to know many players who can and do beat the games for significantly greater hourly amounts. Anything less than $70/hr would be very disappointing to these players, with $75-105/hr being the expectation.

I agree with all of this.

FWIW, poker isn't dying, certainly not in the sense that duplicate bridge is dying. However, the dream that anyone with a little drive could live a baller lifestyle as a poker player died. As we know now, it wasn't ever an achievable dream without a corporate sponsor.

People can make money at poker. For some, there aren't any other options in life so they'll do it. For everyone else, they can put less effort in and make more money doing anything else.

You have freedom in poker. However, you have mostly the freedom to fail unless you're disciplined enough to play when others are having fun. Like any other small business owner, you know that you are chained even more tightly than an employee to succeed.

You know many players who are lying to you about how much they make. Those win rates may be possible in L.A. but even there I seriously doubt that are "many" who can do it. I played out there recently so I know what I think is possible based on what I'm used to and comparing it to what I saw out there, but I also didnt see hardly anyone I think could make anywhere close to that even there.

Note the bold caveat.

I suppose my position that "poker is dying (shall we start using the word trending downward)" is that back during the "boom" era, it was possible for employable workers to choose poker as a temporary option and beat its opportunity cost.

It is no longer the case.

(FWIW, I consider opportunity cost of weekend and late night games to be close to zero, provided that it doesn't affect your workday output, and therefore it is not calculated.)

I completely agree that there are still plenty of games for those who are aiming to beat certain hourly wage.

At larger hubs of established poker scenes, it is even more so. There are plenty of games and these games probably will not disappear in the next 5 years or so.

This is exactly the winrate derail I warned not to go on. Several posts deleted. Take that debate to the winrates thread.

Frankly, I think TTHRIC. I'll leave it open in case I'm wrong, but I think everything has already been said. If it just stops getting responses or it stays on topic, fine. If the next posts are derails or bickering I'll lock it up.

Has anyone tracked the number of games in Bravo and seen how they are trending? I would think that would give some good data on how poker is trending.

I think I stated this earlier in the thread, but at the height of our boom only 1 of our 7 rooms used Bravo; none of the remaining 4 rooms use Bravo.

Could probably help tell a useful picture of the trend in the rooms it is used in, but won't tell the complete picture.

GcluelessBravonoobG

There was a guy who was tracking Vegas poker rooms over a decent size sample and there were definitely fewer tables from its peak.

I don't think there is any argument that poker is trending toward a new peak.

Did we get an answer or do I need to read through all 9 pages?

There are two answers:

1. If you started playing poker pre-Moneymaker boom, poker is thriving and nowhere near death.

2. If you started playing poker at the peak of Moneymaker boom, poker is trending significantly downward.

So basically time is a flat circle and McConaughey was right?

Or that time (and dying) is relative.