I know nothing of high-stakes games, so I'll plead ignorance on that one. Are the winners beating the same game over a long run? Even if there are some immortals that do, I'm guessing they're like the top 0.(lottsa zeros)1% of players; most of us will never be remotely close to that good.

And my guess is that most players (especially recreational players like myself) will only play a lol small sample size of hands within our one human lifetime. Combine the luck/variance factor over that lol sample size with a tougher table, yikes.

Gbankingonreincarnationsothatmypokerresultswilleve ntuallybegintoconvergetotheirexpectednumbersoveraf ewdozenlifetimesG

The only way that this would be mathematically possible is if Poker had a closed form solution which it currently doesn't. In fact, given the randomness of the cards + the influence of human emotion (tilt, fear, etc) it will be IMPOSSIBLE to solve the game.

What do I mean by closed form solution?

Like Tic-Tac-Toe. That game is solveable and thus, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a competent opponent to beat another competent opponent.

Also, the game not only has to be solveable (which poker isn't) but the solution to that game must be 'reachable' by the average player with the average IQ.

Chess is a game that has pretty much been solved, yet the solution to chess does not lie within reach of the average player with the average IQ. It takes a genius IQ + years of hard work and rigorious study to "solve" chess.

And poker is more complex than Chess.

So I don't mean to come off as a douche, but you are 100% flat out wrong here with that assertion. Not just for poker, but any game on the planet.

Mathematically, if a game is not solveable, then a better player will always have an edge over a lessor player. This is not a statement of opinion, this is a statement of simple irrefutable mathematical fact.

If you don't think so, then simply name another game that conforms to your argument. And after racking your brain, you will see that you can't.

Not sure if I am in that group, but I am looking at it for every stake, not just 1/2. Although 1/2 is a good place to start. For the higher stakes though, with time people are not only going to be better technically, but also meta-game. I think we have reached or are very close to reaching all the technical details and concepts. The next logical step is to start discussing meta-game and adjustments. It's only a matter of time before the meta-game posts catch up to the technical posts. Could be a few years down the road but it's coming. I think we in the LLSNL forum are setting it up already. We preach all the time to give as much detail and history as possible. I realize that detail is important to discussing the hand, but it will evolve to wanting very deep detail and history so that we can analyze what the other person may be thinking. It's what we tell people to do while they are playing, and soon it's what we will tell people to start posting. They might already talk about that kind of stuff in the MHSFR forum, IDK as I havent visited there in a while.

If I were to play online could I not say that the game is mathematically solveable? Everything online seems to be about ranges, hud stats, and EV. All mathematics in the grand scheme of things.

(and I am just posing a question really, not stating a truth.)

But poker is a game that is raked.

/endofstory

(i.e. Proving that a better player will always have an edge over a lessor player does not prove the game is beatable.)

Yes, there are tons of mathematics involved in online play HUDs, stats, etc, but that doesn't mean poker is solved, not by a longshot (especially for no-limit).

Solveable means that based on the initial conditions and the boundary conditions, you know for 100% certainty the correct play.

Given the ever changing dynamics of a poker game that just will never be the case.

Incidentally, very little in the real world is solved because it doesn't take too many parameters/variables to make something unsolveable. Even with computers the best we can do is "approximations".

Anything more than 5 parameters/variables is pretty much impossible to have a closed form solution.

An example (as far as games goes) is Tic-Tac-Toe. That is a very simple game and we can solve it because it only has 2 parameters: Xs, Os, in a 3x3 matrix.

Now, if you were to take that same game, add just one more parameter and increase that matrix from 3x3 to 9x9, and then merely add one random component (a wild parameter that can pop up anytime and in any position) the game would become a nightmare to solve.

And poker is much more complex that that. Variable position, variable initial conditions (card holdings), variable betting, board texture, board development, HUMAN BEHAVIOR, etc and it is just flat out impossible to solve.

the best we can do is an 'approximation' and the approximation changes as the game evolves and players get better.

Think about it,
even if the game doesn't get tougher,
it's always changing, so you do have to be constantly adjusting your game,
and trying to figure out what your opponents are doing to adjust.

Sure live games are not as ridiculously easy as 5 years ago, but I wouldn't describe it as 'tough' now by any means.

They just aren't shoving 200bb with JT for value any more

umm, yes it does.

Proving that Usarian Bolt is faster than Betty White proves that he will more frequently beat her in a foot race.

in the case of poker, you are saying that the skill differential between two players will not be greater than the rake?.

If poker were closer to tic-tac-toe then yes, you would be correct.

However, the complexity of poker is such that the potential for a skill delta to be bigger than the rake will always exist.

Or put more simply, I don't care how many books a donk reads, he still will never be Ivey or Durr.

Not only is poker complex in terms of play, but it is complex in terms of handling human emotion and complex in terms of human physicalities like endurance and mental acuity over time. These factors will always ensure that there will be the potential for highly skilled players to outperform their lessor skilled opponents in a manner that is greater than the "rake".

More-or-less this.

In the case of Bolt vs White, yes he has more skill and will win the majority (ha!) of races. But the overall race would not be beatable in $$$ amount if the amount of $$$ he has to pay to compete in the race > the amount of $$$ he earns based on winning the race.

Right now there are a bunch of Betty Whites at our raked tables, but Betty plays so bad and the rake is reasonable enough the lottsa of us will surely be long term winners if we play with her and the rest of the Golden Girls.

But if games change so that Betty and her friends no longer play at our raked tables and are instead replaced by Mr. Kotter and others who have some sorta clue about the game, I doubt the majority of us are going to have Bolt-ian enough skills to manage to outrun the rake.

ETA: To address your very last line: I disagree, as cleary we can define rake structures that are unbeatable, both mathematically (i.e. 100% rake) as well as practically (you think anyone could possibly be so skilled as to beat a 50% rake, etc.?).

GcluelessNLnoobG

I kinda get what you're saying gobbledygeek. If 1/2 live were the same standard as 200nl online, then it would be tough to beat, but still beatable. However even if you do beat it, given the small edge that most players would have, combined with the low hands/hr rate of live poker, it would take maybe years to get a definitive sample, and your hourly rate wouldn't equate to any kind of wage. Online, with the amount of hands you can play, you can still have a good hourly with that same edge, and it may only take a month or two of play to get a definitive sample size.

However, I think we're a long long way off small stakes live poker becoming unbeatable. Some of the more serious recreational players are getting way better than they were a few years ago, but the advantage live poker has is that it brings in people who are there just to gamble, drink and have fun. I swear half the people I've played with live don't realise the difference between poker and roulette (let's just see which cards win). The other half are too arrogant and set in their ways that they are never going to improve anyway.

5/10 and upwards could be a different story though. I would imagine that a lot of good midstakes online players will have made the transition across to live which would make the standard of the player pool immediately higher, but also the more serious live players will be making use of resources such as 2p2 to improve their games also. There are still going to be rich, gambling fish, so I don't think we're going to see the end of it for a long time, but the future isn't as bright as it could be.

ok, here is what i find. I play quite a bit online now after i completed my certain goal of live play. yes, the games are tough in a sense. Once again, it comes down to adjusting. I play regs everyday. They all have nice winrates of maybe 2ptbb/100 over huge samples. Can i get the edge on them? I honestly believe that i do, merely after analyzing hands in which i have outplayed them, as well as any they outplay me. So far, i am fairly well ahead of that flux. Why? Adjustment. There is NO ceiling because there is always adjusting necessary and whoever adjusts the best....gets the edge.

I used to wonder why Durrr would play HU with say Phil Ivey. They both KNOW about all there is to know. So whats left? Adjusting. Thats it. You can play superbly, but if another superb player out-adjusts you, you lose. And the odd thing about it is this. Edges gained from proper adjustments are usually larger edges. Not some tiny margin which wouldnt even compensake for the rake. Like i can get a certain decent player to finally start shoving AJss over my 4 bets. If the frequencies are good enuff, then his shove is as bad as any fish who shoves it mindlessly.

To me, its why there is no ceiling. Its just different than most avg players want to see. Most avg live players dont really want to out perform other regs, they want to find the fish that just makes TPNK and call down 3 potted streets. Well fine, those games happen often enough, but the truly great player will earn decent edges no matter where he plays live. And all it takes is work. Hard work. Its kind of funny how when you read about all Forbes billionaires etc, what trait is common among them. It is NOT wealth to begin with, education, IQ, ethnicity or anything of the sort. It is merely the ability to never quit. Try and try again, and work harder with each try.

You want to make more money playing poker than college education affords? Well it isnt going to come easy. Like the old saying goes, "If it were easy, everybody would be doing it".

+1 to your post.

I'm the same way. I want to outplay the regs I see live. I know exactly how they play. Still only catch one or two big pots everyother session. How do you exploit someone that only raises AQo AKo, JJ+,AQs and AKs and limp 22-1010, Axs,Kxs, and suited connectors?

I think by playing in position, which for me is the dealer button. Floating some flops with Axs.

But I'm like you ANL I want the regs money, drunks, recreational and noob players. Anybody who has more money then me or a job. Call me Robin Hood.

I dunno, I guess I simply think there will always be a ceiling where the edges great players have on good opponents will eventually be too small to outrun the rake by any reasonable amount over an extended period of time.

I wanted to take a second to touch on this point. I'll admit to having similar thoughts and fears. While I don't think these fears are baseless, I think the greater risk would be the game itself drying up. In order for poker to still be available, new people have to start playing at the rate that old people stop. Every day poker players stop playing permanently for any number of reasons (boredom, broke, dead, etc.) Some new person will have to step in and take their place. If this doesn't happen, any mathematician will tell you that someday there won't be any poker players left. This calms my feasr a bit, since I don't think this is will happen in reality. That means there has to be some sort of equilibirum point. Booms happen like in 2004, an inrush happens, and eventually we settle to equilibrium. Can you have the opposite of a boom? A mass exodus of poker players? It's possible. I've often wondered how the current economy has affected poker. Obviously recreational players have less disposable income. But have other more serious poker players chosen poker as a full time job because there simply aren't any other opportunities for them? I'm sure there are some.

Back on point, I think at the equilibrium point knowledge gets lost at the same rate it's learned. That means that as older players die off and new ones join, the "average" player skill will level off. While I don't think we're anywhere near that point, I think it speaks to the main concept of the OP. That as long as we stay a step ahead of the competition, we can make some $ in this game. The real fear is how difficult that will be, how long the poor competition will be around, and how quickly new players take up the game.

I can personally speak a bit about the difficulty of games over time. I played 25NL 6-Max 5 years ago. I rarely played at a table with less than 3 50VPIP fish. I crushed the games for 15ptbb/100, or 30 big blinder per 100 hands, over a significant sample. 5BI downswings were rare. Then I got married and got a real job, and my fish tank (party poker) got shut off to US customers. Now I'm running at about 1/3rd of that at 25NL this time around. Fish like that are the exception, not the norm. I imagine I'm one of the few people who played micros 5 years ago and still plays them today to attest to this. The live gamaes on the other hand are only marginally tougher. The regs at the table are probably a bit better, but the fish are still plentiful and many. There are still tons of 8 way limped family pots. So some good news there.

the live poker player well has a while before it dries up for a lot of reasons

#1: Poker gets plenty of TV air time and even people who don't play poker love watching it.

#2: For many people, playing poker at the casino is their social time. Kinda the 2000s equivalent to the 70s bar scene

#3: Winning money is exciting and even a complete fish has winning days

#4: Only takes a very small percentage of the population to sustain the game < 0.1%

#5 99% of players don't keep records so they have no idea how much they win/lose so can delude themselves into thinking they are winning players or at the very least downplay losses

Reposted.

Let me give you a concrete example.

Suppose you have me as a 16/13 player with your HUD. I raise in early position. That would give me a range of roughly the top 8% of hands, 77+, ATs+, AQ+, KQs. However, I'm not playing that range. My ranges are:

TT+, AQs+, AK or

55+, AJ+, A9s+, KJs, KQ, QJs.

You hold 99 and call. The flop comes K85r.

Against my perceived range, you've got 35% equity. If I make a 1/2 PSB, you're BE to call me. In fact if you know I'll triple barrel with air or a hand, it is pretty much BE to call me down. Against my tight range, you've got 15% equity. You shouldn't call me down at all. Against my loose range, you've got 41% equity. You should call me down.

Your problem is that you don't know what range I'm playing. Meanwhile, I know you'll raise if you hit your set. I can fold or stop at any point. Meanwhile, you've got no clue what you are up against.

We won't get into balancing and then going unbalanced to exploit.

I often balance my utg range, then switch back to my nitty range after I show down some trash hand as a winner. Hate when that happens.

But your post is gold. I read it like 4 times and still really can't grasp the magnitude of your thought process. You understand the game like I need to be. From my perspective which I'm generally a live player. You have the numbers on your gears, which add up to a whole. You not only have the feel down, but you have the numbers to back up your thoughts. Which I lack, that's the reason I like strategy talk with online players. They have poker down to a science.

I'm a feel player, I have photographic memory. So I can watch someone play and copy there style. I used to watch all the stakes on fulltilt. From the micros up to highstakes. I just had to see some showdown hands and think what they where thinking in the hand. Bought HOC and lurked forums.


I'm just going to be patient and learn day by day. Like I been doing. Good thing I play with terrible players. I would be toast.

I know only a little about HUD stats. I have HEM, but never truly utilized its full potential. All I knew was what was tight and loose, cbet % and other basic things. The reason why I probably looked over what you wrote the first time...

Now with that said. I get what you are saying. However, IMO, it is a matter of time before the questions turn from what do I do in this spot (level 1 'posting') to what does he think I will do in this spot (level 3 'posting). Right now, just as before, the guys who study the most and strive to learn more about adjusting will win, but it will eventually catch up and they will have an equal to small edge.

In the past it was about who made the best technical moves (and it still is for the moment for the most part). In the future it will be who can adjust the best and everyone will be working on adjusting and reading. There are some posts now that ask "how should I adjust to x..." but I think the forums will get even more flooded with them. Concepts, EV, and ranges have all been discussed, the only place to go is meta-game. Just as one can sign up for a new account this very moment and learn in a week (if they took the time) about concepts, EV, and ranges they will in the future be able to do the same thing and learn about meta-game, balancing, adjustments, etc etc and only because the information will be readily at hand.

Now there will still be players who only play the technical side of the game, and one who is more advanced will have an edge on them... but not the same edge that we are all used to. I mean the proof is already there. Look at win rates from the past 7 years or so. A top/good player used to be 10ptbb/100 (a guesstimate) and now the top/good players are 2ptbb/100. That rate will probably go down even more. The fish are not fish anymore, they are OK players.

I truly believe there is a ceiling of knowledge in poker. You can only calculate ranges and EV so many times. The mathematic side is not infinite. Meta-game is a different story. It is somewhat infinite... but at the same time when we start going that far with it we begin to level and start losing the technical side of things, so that in itself is some what limited.

And just FYI, I am an open book on this discussion. I am not trying to say what I post is absolute truth, but rather what my opinion is. I think this discussion can branch off to some other good stuff that I have on my mind but will save.


btw: Can we sticky this? I think it deserves one. Good discussion and respectful. I dont think anyone has gotten out of line or made arrogant or stupid comments.

Amen. The people here with the "sky is falling" predictions of doom are just subject to the inherent fishbowl mentality of 2p2. You realize that 99%+ of the poker playing public, the regular Joe Schmoes at the cardrooms and home games across the entire world, *do not* read forums/blogs, listen to podcasts, participate in coaching sites, etc - nor do they care to.

While the online game I can definitely see being immensely tougher than it once was - especially since now the casual "fish" have to go through so many hoops to deposit and play, the live game, on the other hand has not changed much in the slightest.

In playing predominantly live regularly for 7+ years, I still hear the same old cliched lines at the table, the same "OMG" bad beat jackpot crap, the same crappy bad beat stories, the same wholly ludicrous poker strat spewed, the same mistakes being made by the same supposedly "solid" players, the same of virtually *everything*.

Sure, this is at the 1/2 - 2/5 NL levels, but isn't that the limits most every day regulars would even play anyways? Maybe the number of flat-out whales have diminished at the games with 5+ figure initial buy-ins, but that really only substantially affects less than .1% of those grinding out a living.

As we all know here (being it's 2p2) that playing profitable poker for a living takes a lot of work, study, record-keeping, self-assessment and mental fortitude. You actually think all the Joe Schmoes in your nearest casino cardroom do this at all in almost any capacity? On a Friday night, feel free to politely ask everyone you see there if they've heard of 2p2, Card Runners, Deuces Cracked, Pocket Fives, Wicked Chops, etc. and I'd be shocked if more than 3-4 will answer with a yes.

So how in the world could the live game be getting harder because of the internet if most of these schmucks don't even care in the slightest to *really* improve their game - enough so that they've never visited a forum/site even casually?

Even the more "by the book" regs don't look at the game anywhere near in scope as people do here. They just play good starters and bet when they hit - occasionally throwing in a semi-bluff or check-raising the field for value. But they're able to sustain their easily exploitable regular play against the other half of their opponents who'll call with ATC pre-flop and pot size bets with flush draws. But even they're not improving either... as they're usually the first ones to bemoan their bad luck (and not bad play) when they get felted calling their stacks off with TPTK.

And that's why live play will almost always be juicy. There's no HUD, no PokerTracker, no Sharkscope, no nothing. Almost none do record keeping. Hence why supposedly "solid" players can make the same bad plays for *years* without realizing that they're -EV and continue to lie to themselves that they're profitable, and that their losing sessions are just due to an idiot getting lucky and not their own leaks.

The games will get tougher as time goes by simply because when the avg grinding reg who enjoys about a 5bb per hour winrate at 2/5 say now has two players who are super adept at playing LIVE using all the tools that an adept online player uses, the game is now MUCH harder to beat for the avg reg. His winrate goes down. There is nothing i like better than the sprinkling of the daily regs in the game since i can literally manhandle them when in position. Put two of us on each end of the table and now the avg grinder has nowhere comfortable on the table. Its not that way yet, but its coming. ESPECIALLY if you aspire to play say 5/10 and higher. And if you want to really make a super nice living, 5/10 is about the lowest you can do it at. Yea, 75k a year at 2/5 is fine for awhile, but who wants to play 2/5 NL the rest of their life?

****Bump****

99%+, wow, really? So that means if you wander into a typical North American cardroom which has ten (TEN!) 1/2 NL games going you only expect one (ONE!) player in that whole room to be attempting to better themselves at poker via books, internet, etc.? And I guess if you're in that cardroom, that means that one guy is you? Methinks your range is a little tight.

But all of this is part of the live game setting, even true solid players should (and do) participate in this. You've never consoled a fish after stacking him by spewing some nonsense about "You had gutshot to the nuts, you gotta see the river when I shove on the turn, nothing you can do, I woulda played it the same way"? And "solid" players usually butcher a hand every so often (don't we all?); that doesn't mean it won't be difficult to win long term sitting a table full of them (as opposed to one that is half full of bad players).

dgiharris makes some good points above about why he thinks it'll take a while before live poker dries up. And while they'll probably never totally dry up, methinks they'll definitely become harder. If you replaced the two worse players at the last table you played at with decent regs, methinks the table probably just went from juicy to meh at best, and that's the future.

Gtheskywilleventuallyfall,it'sjustamatterofwhen;un tilthen,enjoythesunshineG

dgiharris makes some good points above about why he thinks it'll take a while before live poker dries up. And while they'll probably never totally dry up, methinks they'll definitely become harder. If you replaced the two worse players at the last table you played at with decent regs, methinks the table probably just went from juicy to meh at best, and that's the future.

Gtheskywilleventuallyfall,it'sjustamatterofwhen;un tilthen,enjoythesunshineG[/QUOTE]




tHE interesting thing about tons of exposure to high quality info. regarding game play (plus tons of TV exposure in general) is that it does two things.

1- Allows studious players the ability to ramp up in skill much faster than normal.
2- Entices more and more players (with money to burn) to play.

So all in all, you get a collective unit of better players + wealthy fish in the decent sized games.

Most routine players must make sure that they are included in the "upper shelf" crowd, and not in the innocent bystanding routine regular crowd. Because the most of the routine grinders will just be that the rest of their lives.

Its sooo easy to see. How many of you have seen the same faces at either 1/2, 2/5, or 5/10 for the last year after year after year? Its because of complacency/lack of study/No deliberate practice/and so on. Most grinders are like sheep. They find a tolerable spot where they eek out profit, and just never strive to get any better. Its pitiful. Compare that to online where the players pay for coaching and move up thru several limits within one year.

Live players overall (as a whole--certainly not every single one) are putrid when it comes to study and the pursuit of rising in skill to higher levels. It usually boils down to "taking a shot" at higher levels. lol What a dumb idea. Like the next play or two has any bearing on whether you can handle the limit or not.

what game are all the degenerate gamblers going to switch to??
I'm not saying live poker isn't going to get tougher,
but worrying about it becoming unbeatable is laughable.
the vast majority of players i see in 2/5 games are just degen gamblers, even if they are pretending to be poker players.
no amount of learning is going to change who they are.
and they are'nt interested in learning anyways.
they are interested in gambling.
and NLHE is the perfect gambling game that is meant to lure them in.

in a way, this is kind of a trap, because it's so easy to keep going w/out feeling the urgency to improve yourself when most (all) of your opposition is standing still.

I like what you're saying ANL, and i agree, believe it or not,
keep your eye on the prize, and be thinking about moving up
to where 'they respect your raises', lol.
so keep working, focusing, improving...

it's funny, on a few occasions i've told someone when asked,
that i could tell them what the secret to winning at poker is.

of course, i did'nt spill the beans, though, but it's so simple, i'm actually in amazement that they can never figure it out for themselves.

it's so obv, but no one ever thinks of it:
you work harder than the next guy, that's the secret of how to win at poker.