OK, I've got my asbestos jammies on, here we go... =)

[Insert diatribe about U.S. poker scene, I live here...]

Having said all that, I really love the game and not just as a money-making vehicle so I still play. Play-money HUSNGs on Stars. And I gotta say, I really haven't noticed that big a difference between play money and $5's.

I read a lot of people lol'ing and talking about how if money isn't involved, everyone plays like a loon. I don't know if my experience is short-term and anomalous but I find just as many nits playing 530 (play chips) as I did playing the microstakes. I mean, limp-stabbing nits to death is something I find myself doing about 35-45% of the time.

Granted, perhaps every 7 or 8 games I get a guy who is just open shoving every hand, but it's generally people who seem to be playing to win (albeit doing it badly, people credit donks on paired flops like it's fun to do).

So that's my rant. I'm curious about other people's findings on the subject. And I'd appreciate it if those throwing their 2c are people who actually play play-money games.

Poker is ALL about making $$$. Take away $$$, it's analagous to ****ing without a dick. Mods, please close this useless thread now.

So what you are basically saying is that there is no play money hu cuz everyone is solid and you want fellow play money players to post itt and confrm this?

Whoa. Holy crap. No.

I think the level of play is horrible. I did mention that in my original post, didn't I?

I'm merely positing -- it's a theory which, by definition, I'm prepared to accept as being incorrect -- that the current state of play-money affairs may not be quite as bad (and therefore useless) as previously thought.

I'm positively floored that the concept of re-examining traditional beliefs in light of a shifting poker landscape vis a vis the collapse of the US market is getting this kind of response.

Same team y'all, same team.

all the smart players are at the play money tables because the rake is lower, obviously
the problem is knowing if your ROI is good or bad when it's 0/0

what is this i dont even...

The point of the post is that there are two types of people who (a) come to 2+2 and (b) play the play-money tables; people who are unwilling to deposit (broke, afraid of losing real $$) and those who cannot deposit (U.S. market).

[Agreed, it's physically possible to find rooms that'll accept USD but after losing their first roll to the DOJ bs, many are not willing to do it again.]

And they're here because they're interested in learning. Imagine that! And the standard logic that is ...way past overwhelming here is that play-money is utterly useless past learning game mechanics.

And I agreed. Then I was forced to either play-money or not playing at all and I chose the former.

Do I think the play sucks? Yes. Do I think it's worse than the lowest possible stakes of real $$? Absolutely. Do I think that if one can deposit, it is better to do so than to play play-money games? Definitely.

Do I think the play is substantially worse than $1 (ie, any more drastic than the difference between $2 and $1)?

No.

Hence the topic.

After a few months of play-money games I thought it might be useful to revisit the argument as to how much value -- previously held to be precisely zero -- that play-money games offer to new players. Or, put another way, I thought it might help new players get a grasp on things like tilt and BRM while not causing them to develop bad habits any worse than bottom-tier microstakes would.

I was trying to explore what I viewed as possibly useful resources for the new player that were previously overlooked.

Call me naive but my view of 2+2 has always been quite high, a place where players come to learn and the regs, like scientists, are ready to assess positions purely in terms of -/+EV. And, to borrow a phrase, re-evaluate on the turn.

And that's all I asked; is there EV to be had here when previously there was thought to be none?

You'd think that with the state of affairs and the explosion of study groups (which regularly play each other with play-money) there would be an interest in the answer. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people have learned world-class chess without ever betting a cent seems entirely lost. So far all I've gotten is WTF and a regurgitation of the standard logic.

But who knows, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's a reason why poker is just different that I have not yet considered. That even the wholesale subject is treated as pure anathema is a testament to adaptability, creativity and imagination in the face of a changing landscape.

I'll leave the lack of these features and the implications for your game to your own conclusions.

fold pre

Is this thread one giant level?

i think you were expecting a massive congratulatory pat on the back for making this thread or whatever, but its one giant fail

watch this:

you are wrong

you spelt DEFENCE wrong

imo, 9% rake is way too high for the fast paced 50bb structure, and with no virtual rakeback nor even an imaginary vip club system that rewards us, i have no idea how you can say games are good right now

plus logistically pokerstars is a joke, i tried to deposit a bunch with monopoly bills to play the nosebleed games but no luck, seems like you need to grind your way up from 1000. no wonder higher stakes games are dead, no recreational player can climb the ladder

There is no money is real money so I'm switching to play money. It's good to know there are still fish. I'll get back to you after I get a decent sample to be able to properly compare.

no money in playmoney every one is

this is too damn funny i didnt even think it could get this bad

You're projecting.

What I expected is for someone, likely a mod, to consider my reputation, realize that what would normally be a crappy level was actually an attempt to re-evaluate some dogma and promply shoot my idea to sh*t with some sound logic.

Of course, you could just look at my post history and notice that I don't make a habit of being a troll.

You could also look at my post history and see that I don't have a habit of posting and then sulking/bitching/arguing when people don't agree with me.

Maybe I'm blinded by my admiration for the game in a strictly game theory light. Dunno.

Still, as of this writing, nobody has even attempted to explain how high-level chess (and Go/Baduk, now that I think of it) can be learned worldwide without a cash element and yet poker cannot. It's reasonable to argue that due to its incomplete knowledge, bad poker players can take a very long time to realize they're bad, if ever. This explains why money is a more central element to poker than it is to chess/Go. What it doesn't explain is how people still manage to become pro/dan level without that incentive.

Barbra, when I consider a question and the answer eludes me, I often go find someone who is smarter in that field, listen, then ruminate on that answer. That was my goal here.

So yes. In that light this thread is definitely a fail.

So /thread unless some intelligent conversation shows up.

Actually, this thread is picking up. I see a lot of potential here (for farce that is). We just need IheardJoeBlows to write a rap about you...hehe

good lord at that vid..... one time real money zynga?

i love the text that pops up to teach people about probability:
the probability of an inside straight draw turning into a straight after the flop is 38.4%
the probability of a pair turning into a set after the flop is 20.4%

poker is for money and reputation, not for fun -.-.. i'd rather go spend my time in other stuff

yeah everybody knows its 50%.
There are only 2 options either it does or it doesnt.

ELO

I am really disappointed this isn't a level but okay, I'll play along if it makes you feel better.

You already mentioned incomplete knowledge hindering the learning process ... I'll just call it the luck factor. The luck factor doesn't just make it harder for bad players to realize they are bad, it also removes any prestige from winning. If you win a chess tournament there is no doubt you were the best player that day. If you win a poker tournament it's highly likely you were just the luckiest player that day. No one is going to spend years working to be crowned the worlds biggest luckbox. That's why you need money involved. FWIW, it isn't just poker ... there aren't many adults playing competitive Uno.