Im a very good player, and I do everything you said in your post.Hopefully some of these hoodied drones will read it.

I would say the "boom" is happening now. The popular streamers are well into the thousands of viewers. Jcarver has over 21k viewers at the moment. Thats equivalent to filling up an NBA stadium.

Thats what helped kill it. Before regulation and sites started leaving the US it was doing pretty good.

on bovada they don't let you play more than 4 cash tables and the games are great and filled with fish always

Next boom if were to happen will only do so if US comes back into the online scene again. They were the guys who promoted poker to the masses around the world.
Without their marketing power, we in EU are playing regs who are getting stronger, and fish who ether deposit ones and leave, or deposit and learn how to play, and taking a bite out of your edge.

Yeah, but if you can only play 4 tables then you will have to play at higher stakes to make reasonable money.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

When the US come back, then most problems will go away.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If there is to be another poker boom, it will not be led by the current industry leaders, namely the casinos and legal poker rooms. And with online now out the window, who/what/where can the next poker boom come from?

This thread is a pretty good skeleton of a S.W.O.T. analysis- strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats. And the content is mostly weaknesses and threats.

Poker relies on casinos and poker rooms now, and on a business model that really doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of profit for the mother ship. Here is CA., poker rooms have the Attorney General on their side with a "moratorium" on new poker room licenses, as well as Indian Gaming controlling the full service casino industry. How many thread have we seen about rake increases, bigger "jackpot" drops where the casino gets a 25% management fee, $2.00 jack/drops in FL, room closings, a complete shunning of other, slower forms of the game such as stud, omaha, limit and other games that are more kitchen table familiar to newbies......

And yet, we all look to poker rooms and casinos to lead us out of this funk. Ain't gonna happen.

Remember, it was Eric Holder and Barry O who presided over the shutdown of online. And yeah, the cheating scandals were not dealt with properly. But I scratch my head when I see and hear FanDuel and other online fantasy gaming sites going ahead full steam. Why are they legal and Stars, FullTilt are out the window?

But others look to some form of online/interactive as the salvation to the poker industry. Ain't gonna happen.

I played at Rockingham Park a few weeks ago on a visit to New England. They moved their poker room out of the dumpy basement, and took over a part of the simulcasting theater, so now its about half and half. And there is food, and generally, more people milling about in the area.
13 cash game tables and two mtts running on a Friday night. Its snowing outside. And the kicker is.....New Hampshire limits cash games to limit poker only, with a $4.00 bet max with four raises only
Now this is a room that always had a decent mtt following, but they have managed to grow their cash game attendance measurably by doing a few things differently. Its just one place I found that was actually growing and not downsizing.

If they can figure out what works for them, I really do think other places can figure out what works for them. Not the same things, but no business can just keep copying other models and ideas without accommodating the customer feedback.

Well we haul in mike and vince, gus, and shauna once again ldo, thazzit! I need to rerererererewatch em wpts! Puchkov is going to make a pooch bet, the pool man is jumping into empty pool, the electrician short circuited etc etc. Im down for all that! Rinse n repeat! Go! Im allin!

No s*** genius.

Now go figure out the rest.

The Ayama (AYA.TO) quarterly report came out for the last 3 months of 2014, and it looks (?) like they're *still* churning out a 24% profit, is that right? Even after stopping service to those 30 countries, after the new tax laws went into effect in the UK, and with all the debt Amaya acquired to buy PokerStars in the first place, the decline in traffic more generally, etc.

Amaya posts huge jump in adjusted profit; seeks Nasdaq listing

'adjusted profits': C$85.7 million
'quarterly revenue': C$368.6 million


Can't help but wonder if lower rake would help increase traffic - because oftentimes time when there's a well-crafted promo that essentially acts as rakeback, there seems to be enough increased traffic generated to pay for the promo? Not sure though, like sometimes there's so many moving parts to things, that the only way to know if something would help is to give it a try?


And companies are so reluctant to try, so we never get to find out for sure. Maybe the bulk of money would just wind up going into grinders' pockets, and wouldn't help to increase traffic too much in the net, but who's to say for sure - it'd be interesting to see sites give it a try, and be able to once again market poker as a game where you can actually win $ at the tables ... it's getting a lot harder to be able to say that with a lot of the games these days Just tourneys, really ...

Welcome to the real World where money is not so easy to come by. In truth poker is STILL less competitive than basically all other forms of investment.

So stop bitching and making excuses and try working harder you bunch of pussies.

That just makes it sound like your views of online poker were formulated pre Black Friday because you're American - because I think most people are probably making more in stocks these days than poker. Hardly anyone's profiting these days with poker except the sites, because their rake rates are also stuck in 2011, and the market's changed completely.


The concept of lowering prices to try and increase demand is a generally accepted practice - anybody who's taken Econ 101 should know that ...

Market PLO better, get people to play it more, have more fun, Boom.

Hey man, I must admit I just posted that half joking. Haven't been here at all much lately and must confess to not even reading the thread. Poker is indeed very competitive nowadays but I still believe that the mainstay grinders had it so easy for so long that their understanding of a hard dollar is just so skewed. If people put the same time into the markets (or other forms of gambling like sports betting) as they do to to beat poker, then there is still no guarantee that these other markets or sports can be beaten. It's incredibly hard everywhere and I really don't think poker is any harder than the rest.

Actually just a few hours ago Galfond and his training sites came to mind. What in the hell was that guy doing? Don't tell me he hasn't taken years off the PLO market. The guy himself is only break even on FT since early 2009. I wonder if he ever asks himself why?

P.S. I'm not American.

GL

EDIT: Obviously the markets & sports betting can be beaten, I'm just highlighting that they are no easy gravy and being good at poker is no guarantee to success in one of the other fields. In fact for sports betting the % of winning players is significantly lower than for poker. We hear of a lot more winners from other areas coming to and beating poker than we do of ex poker players taking their skills elsewhere and killing it. The vast majority of poker players would still likely be better staying where they are and working even harder.

It won't. For another boom to happen people need to think that this game is an easy and quick way to make money. TV poker has started to pander toward the people who already play the game by constantly featuring a table full of known players and providing more complex commentary.

A good example is the position graphic on the WSOP broadcast, originally Lon and Norman would call cards only and that was great then the position graphic came in and fish learnt something in an hour of TV that what would've taken them a at least 5 times that playing to figure out.

No doubt it's entertaining. Serious question as I'm a NL guy. When a fish deposits and jumps into let's say anywhere from 50c/1-3/6 PLO, how long do they survive? I know the increased variance means they can run well over the short term.

The small amount I do know about the PLO pool is it's starting to look tougher than the NL one at those stakes. There are guys grinding midstakes PLO who used to play a lot higher and have been around for years. I'm wondering if the bloodshed for bad players and recs would be even quicker. More likelihood of variance keeping them hanging around for a while on occasion, but surely in those player pools they don't last long?

You say you haven't been posting much lately - but more importantly, you haven't been playing much lately it would seem. Which is what is making me wonder what exactly your beliefs about the current state of poker are actually based ON?


Was noticing over a year ago that tables were becoming more filled with more regulars playing longer hours, trying to compensate for smaller edges, which was making tables harder with something of a downward spiral effect. And from the speed with which people are responding to complex scenarios - everybody's just so incredibly bright and well-informed these days ... nobody's slacking, and hard work just isn't going to result in enough of an edge to overcome PokerStars' 2011 pre Black Friday rake, when there's fewer people with money to burn playing casually.


I mean like, everybody's entitled to their opinion ... it's just hard to understand the foundation for yours. It sounds like you've made the assumption that if a poker site offers games to play, that they must only be charging a reasonable fee, and couldn't possibly be price-gouging, because that would hurt them to not let there be winners at the game, when the whole allure of poker is the opportunity to win money? So therefore, if games are harder these days it could only possibly be due to increased competition from other players and not because the site is charging too much rake, therefore everybody must need to work harder is what you must be thinking I guess?


But PokerStars basically has a monopoly - and apparently the economies of scale are quite high, so it's a lot more risky for smaller sites to try experimenting with offering lower rake the way PokerStars can with their 24% profit margin, and C$85mil of profits last quarter. And people keep playing, because with poker in the short-term, it's sometimes hard to tell how things are going in the long-term.


Was thinking that myabe Amaya's plan might be to milk PokerStars for all it's worth in the short-term, to try and buy up more companies that they think have more longevity, rather than to bother trying to revitalize online poker? But online poker is where Amaya has it's monopoly - all the other areas would have lots of competition ... think maybe investors were hoping to see Amaya focus more on trying to grow online poker, and maybe that's why AYA.TO has been so flat, I don't know?

This is a long thread with lots of words just to say the phrase proper full scale legalization in the USA. Nothing else would come close to that impact outside of some sort of Chinese boom.

I've logged 42k hands this year on two euro sites, broken down as follows: 11k HUNL, 21K HUPLO & 10K 6MPLO at all limits from 1/2 to 5/10 & about 400 hands @ 10/20 6MPLO. I am down about 3k after running slightly above EV. I haven't played at all on Stars.

So yeah, you are correct that my finger is not exactly on the pulse and I'm sure you have logged more and are far more in touch, but I have been playing.

Why are you presuming that I am presuming that sites couldn't possibly be price gouging? I don't get that bit at all tbh

I dunno man, I respect all you say and yes poker is significantly harder than even last year, but I still don't see it as harder money than elsewhere. That was the only point I was making. Personally I make my money elsewhere on horseracing and tbh the difference is just so big. It is so so so much harder. I only beat it because I have been studying it in depth for 30 years now (I'm 40) but I can assure you if I had the same knowledge of poker I would still be crushing. I have been playing poker since 07 but am basically a complete novice in comparison, but can still break even in 2015 with zero off table work. If I don't work 40+ hpw @ the horses I'm dead meat. And as for sites gouging money in sports betting: dude, it's like being a blackjack player, they do no want your business. At least most poker players have the chance of a game. There are only two sites where one can trade with hidden identity against other players rather than the house (i.e. actually have a bet) and one of them (Betfair) takes 60% of winnings once you are a long term winner over a certain figure & a certain number of markets. The last sentence is not a joke. That means there is only one real site left and they are so going to introduce the same type of premium. I'm hoping to get another year or two out of it after which I predict there will quite literally be zero options left. Honestly, poker is just so much an easier playing field to find an edge and then get rewarded for that edge. As far as I'm aware other forms of sports betting are even harder to find an edge. Sorry man, I just don't see how poker players have it so hard compared to other forms of gambling.

Yes, it's incredibly hard but still likely the most possible.

P.S. I know my point is not exactly relevant on how to find another boom and I apologize for that.

GL

There was a NLH boom. Nlh is pretty much dead now. The reasons why have been statet on here a million times in the last 3+ years and are mostly correct.

If the media would somehow hype other poker formats and people get interessted, it could happen.
It depends a 100% on the media and the trend factor.

as a fish, i dont like the US sites available, seems as if im playing robots... but i still play cash live, if the table isnt reg fest

I don't see how. It happened before because of the media and the internet in general was just becoming widespread and so new players were attracted. These new players didn't know how to play but many of them still won and some won bucket loads because everyone was so bad. Now everyone is good, so even if the biggest media push of all time were to happen, new players still wouldn't last like before as the sharks will gather and the newbies will die fast.

Not many people will keep up with a trend that involves getting owned and losing their cash at the same time.

I see your point that a concentration on poker formats other than NL would help, but skilled NL & PLO players will still have a big edge against a total novice, even if the other format is one neither has played before.

Hey


Guess the reason it seemed to me like maybe you didn't believe that sites were price gouging was because price gouging pretty much implies that a company is making excessive profits off of customers' lack of available alternatives, rather than just a normal level of profits in exchange for a good/service? So if someone believed a company's profits were taking advantage of customers lack of alternatives, then it would seem more likely that person would see the solution as lower prices, rather than that people needing to work harder? But it sounds like maybe you do think sites might keeping rake levels too high, I don't know?


Something else that maybe confused me a bit was this stuff, like:

• spending 40hrs/week on horse racing
• being down $3k for the year with, despite running above EV
• then saying that if you spent time studying poker you'd be crushing

Because guess if it were still possible to crush poker by working hard, and if it were easier to make money playing poker than doing other things, then wouldn't you have spent those 40 hrs/week on poker instead of horse racing, and be crushing *right now*? On some level, you must actually agree that it's not possible to crush in poker these days, let alone even squeeze out much of a profit at all (with the exception of tourneys, which I mentioned before), otherwise you'd be doing it, right?


We know people are barely making any money at poker these days because of whotfru. Incidentally, my whotfru graph is quite off – it seems to have picked up the worst of things, and have missed the best, but probably everybody says that right?


Guess the larger big picture things I was trying to say maybe, is that am not sure poker works if it's not possible for anyone to win? And that, like ... of course there's other causes to the contracting poker market like you've pointed out – with people just being more knowledgeable these days and stuff. Guess I was just wanting to add that rake may also be a contributing factor to the contracting poker market since it hasn't been recalibrated to reflect all the changes that have happened in the market since 2011 – and that PokerStars can afford to lower rake, if they're cranking out C$85mil of profit every 3 months. Think that was mostly what I was trying to say I guess ...

If for money play were available in the US there would be an incredibly huge boom. A ton of new hotshot names who run hot for a number of years...and it would slowly dwindle away like it did before black Friday.

Its a typical bust and boom cycle. There's just no catalyst for a boom right now.

The google Trends graph would bear that out. Things boomed enormously in 2003/2004 and hit their stabilizing in that graph and you can see the downslide began in 2009, well before BF hit - plus there was no notable change after, so the downslide was real.