Not sure why this would be impossible?

My guess would be unlikely to dry up to the point of unbeatable, although I'm guessing it could very easily dry up to the point of being beatable-but-not-by-much.

Gyes,butunlikely,althoughobviouslygettingworse,imo G

Anything is possible, except for this.

If they let you play 10 tables and use a computer to model your opponents.. then yes

Anything is possible. The better question would be what is the probability? and that would ultimately be low.

Though if the government devalues the dollar enough, it could happen eventually

When the min buy is $60 and many go that route, WR ceiling gets low.

Exactly. Populate a table with 9 shortstacking nits with upwards of $200 coming off the table in rake+ (not exactly an "impossible" scenario) and I doubt anyone is going to manage a crushing winrate.

GI'mguessing10-20%(???)ofmytimeisspentattablesnottoofarofftheseG

Rake is the biggest threat to any game. It's very possible 1/2 dies because casinos keep upping the rake.

I must be blessed. It is rare that I sit in a 1/2 game and not feel like 8 of the 10 players have zero chance to leave with money over time. When it does happen a table change always remedies that.

It is 2:20pm on a Monday afternoon and bravo shows 11 1/2 games running at MDL.

As long as the very few winning players can't create 10 or 20 copies of themselves to play at every table like they can by multi tabling online, live low stakes in areas with strong economies will be fine.

Ratio of recreational to serious player is the key.

Sent from my SM-T320 using 2+2 Forums

Let me change the question then: will the lowest stakes offered in a live setting ever dry up? I tend to think not because the fish will always be there even if the poker fad has long since disappeared. I can see us returning to the pre boom days however where all games of significance were in garages etc.

I honestly wouldn't mind that happening too much because the short stacking nits who we all despise don't get invited to those games.

Are the bad players that were sitting at your table 5/10/etc. years ago as bad as the bad players sitting at your table now?

Are there as many bad players sitting at your table now as there was x years ago?

Are the good players sitting at your table better than the good players sitting at your table x years ago?

Are there more good players sitting at your table now as there was x years ago?

Ditto for the number of breakevenish type players sitting at your table now versus then.

The trend in my room (11 years old) is definitely heading in a particular direction; your room might differ, although my guess is that in time most rooms will trend in the same direction. Doesn't mean the games will become unbeatable, but they are likely to become much more difficult to beat and *perhaps* impossible to crush (at least for us mere mortal rec players).

Gnoonenoticestheskyfallingwhenitfallsonecloudatati meG

Depends on the location. I doubt they'll all dry up at the same time. Cities that are tourist destinations and have booming economies and high costs of living will dry up the slowest, if at all. Smaller, poorer cities might die the soonest. The ability of top players to move up is also a huge factor.

I think the inevitable result of the poker boom is what we see now. More exposure brought more players to the game both good and bad and most of the bad flamed out. I don't ever see it trending so far that there are no bad players. There will always be some bad gambly fish who don't care to get better and just want to have fun. I also can see a lot of good/break even players leaving too as their results don't improve and likely go down. I suspect the evolution of poker will be cyclic. The only thing that will make a lasting change IMO is the availability of information which anyone can use to stop being terrible. Again though I think this will be limited due to most people's aversion to hard work and the diminishing returns of concerted study.

This is also huge. In a place where only 1 stake runs (ex. my room, and I'm assuming there are lots of rooms like this) there is nowhere for the better players to go (thus they take up a seat in a game which I'd rather have go to a lesser player).

Gbigfish,crowdedlittlepondG

You're missing the point.

GG didn't say players are leaving the table with money, but rather money is going to the house instead of other players.

I don't see it as cyclic at all, but I'm a pessimist at heart.

Since the boom hit, those who have wanted to play poker did. And they entered a much easier / fun filled environment than the late bloomer trying it out now does (at least in established markets), and yet they still flamed out and quit (or adapted so they wouldn't lose as much). And the old guy who learned how to be good at poker by watching it on TV being replaced by the young kid who has grown up with every bit of knowledge about everything available on their iPhone? Not a good trade, imo.

GpessimistG

Agree, and once again I'm blessed. I'm 100% sure that my hourly at 1/2 is better than some of the 2/5 reg/wannabes in my room that let their ego stop them from playing in the smaller games. And MDL often runs 5/10, occasionally 10/25 NL along with a few different levels of PLO. On Friday there was a very rowdy, drunk 75/150 limit game running right beside my table.



Best games are second or third biggest games in the room.

Keep in mind the poker boom coincided with the front side of an economic boom or bubble depending on your view. When people were flush with cash and using helocs like ATMs it was easy to drop a couple Buyins every week at the card room.

My observation is the worst of the "boomers" that fed lowstakes cash games and didn't learn to lose slower migrated to low buyin tournaments. With rebuys now it's largely unnecessary for them to play cash.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

That, and the migration to big bet cash games made the fish go broke quicker. Even with capped buy-ins, weaker players can't last when compared to limit games where they at least have a fighting chance...

I dont know about everywhere else, but in S.Florida there are 7 poker rooms that I know if within a 1 hour radius and they are all jam packed with players.

I have no idea what stage the poker market is in there, but is traffic increasing or decreasing or staying the same (noting that "jam packed with players" doesn't describe the trending of traffic)?

As of a couple of years ago, our market also had 7 rooms all within a 1 hour radius. 1 of those rooms has since closed, another has just downsized (from 12 tables to 8 tables and now to 5 tables) and is on life support, and (to my knowledge) every other room has downsized (our room dropping from 8 to 5 tables, other rooms I *believe* doing similar).

Yesterday when I left our room at 9:30pm, it was "jam packed" as 4 of the 5 tables were running. But it was a deceiving "jam packed" (only a handful of players on the wait list), no clear must-be-at-table, and not even remotely close to how busy this room could be in the past.

Gcloudsdon'tmakeanoisewhentheyhitthegroundG

It shouldn't be any surprise that the worse the economy is the worse that will be for poker. LOL at anyone saying that the poker in Detroit MI is good. I was recently in the Cleveland/Toledo area and the games there were all short-stacked nightmares. I checked the Brovo app for MGM in Detroit and they only had 2 1-2 tables running during Super Bowl Sunday and my guess is the games were just as bad as northeast and northwest Ohio. Sure, the player pool is terrible, but what good is it when they don't have any money on the table and they still insist on tipping dealers $1 or $2 regardless of how small the pot is when they win (taking more of their money off of the table). Plus, ofcourse the rake is eating them alive, which they are oblivious too.

If you're a pro then you have to live at a big market place where there are thousands of fish in your player pool willing to lose 2-3k+ a year playing poker. If you live in a small market, there aren't that many players in the city that can realistically afford to lose that much, so they basically stop showing up. What's worse is, because everyone is poor, nobody is buying for 100BB's, which further reduces your edge as a semi/pro or professional player.

I play in Cleveland and you're right. The number of short stacks is outrageous. If you don't aggressively table select here you're going to sink your win rate.

Last year before they changed from 1/2 to 1/3 I actually quit playing entirely because I considered the games "dried up." The change in stakes saved it (at least for now).

Yeah I play there too and thank lawd for the switch. It's a decent market now between lack of talent in the player pool and money on the table. 50-200 1/2 was just awful.

How many ppl have a crushing wr now? 4?