Well the thing is, if you protect the recreational player you are right you might be taking -40bb instead of -60bb per fun player, but what you have to see is that there will be more recreational players, so instead of having 5 -60bb fish you'll be having 10 -40bb fish, for example. So the win rate you get per recreational player decreases but your win rate in general does not, that's my point.

Getting another boom is simple, and already in place:

Make a account for daily fantasy sports

play

profit

Others are less convenient to play and take longer to learn the basics. Plus small amounts of money risked adds to the fun.

Because poker is competitive enough now that you will never get two fish at the same table above approx. 25NL, this only holds in zoom only.

I am not talking about fish per table, but fish you will play against in the future. If you have more fish in the poker economy this means more fish you will play against in the future.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using 2+2 Forums

Edges are tiny already. If we take 50NL as an example, if one -40bb/100 fish plays against 5 equally skilled regs, ignoring the effect of position on the fish, everyone loses in the long run pre-RB.

Of course, if you look at each case individually you'll reach a negative conclusion. What I am trying to say, in the long run it will be + EV because if you increase the recreationals life expectancy it means you will play against fishes who would have already extinguished by then. Sorry if my grammar is off I am not an english speaker.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using 2+2 Forums

Nobody cares if the fish exist if you lose anyway.

Your grammar is fine.

usa, usa, usa

Bring back HSP with the guy from Welcome back Kotter.

As a player I have to agree but poker isn't readily available for a lot of people. It wouldn't surprise me if constant readers, as I am, are also at less risk of dementia. Anything to keep the brain working.

No way it's gonna happen like that. Online poker already has a very tainted reputation with all of the scandals. It's also not a cultural phenomenon anymore.

You don't manufacture booms like this; many factors have to come together, most of them organic and timing-related.

Poker is heading towards a fully mature albeit much smaller industry. The trends in traffic have declined in both overall liquidity & interest almost everywhere. This isn't just in player traffic but everything revolving around the poker economy. Poker advertising, ratings, media (which do drive traffic of casual observers/new liquidity) have all disappeared no matter where you are globally with a few exceptions. People need to accept it will never be the same again, regulation or not. There is always money to be made but the pool is shrinking daily & it appears no sign of slowing down.

It's like trying to recreate the .com bubble, there will always be moments in history when greed & opportunity hits a parabolic limit & never reaches that level again. Then it recreates itself in another form (cough DFS).

It's been said ad infinitum but I'm saying it again: No Limit killed the poker economy. With limit, the chips go around and around the table and trickle slowly down into the rake box while everyone has a great time...chips are flying...people are talking...there's a great atmosphere of socializing and gambling mixed together and the rec. players can play every hand because it's one small bet to call. This is the exact opposite of No limit where nobody talks...people tank forever on every hand...the rec. players go broke on 1 hand...no fun.

I walk into a cardroom that used to have 20+ tables of 4-8 to 15-30 Limit before NL took over, now I see 2 tables of 1-2 NL with a bunch of university kids with a min. buyin of $40 in front of them...I turn around and walk out the door. I'd rather have my eyeballs plucked out with a spork than sit at one of those games. The rake is too high now and there isn't enough money on the table.

Did No Limit kill the boom? Can the next boom be a resurgence of Limit Holdem?

Limit hold'em is far too close to solved to ever become popular among humans again. I get the point about limit games but a game needs to be more complex to survive; but somehow I doubt we can get fish to learn LO8.

A governing body is probably the next / only way to have another boom. There's too much distrust in the general public regarding poker currently and there's not a whole lot being done to resolve it. Once a month a online poker room closes and there's loads of people left out of pocket. News about bots, MA's, ghosting is weekly/daily. Black Friday was of course huge but the likes of the UB scandal probably caused more distrust than any other one incident. Most believe additional software is aiding others to take their money quicker.

Can anyone guarantee safety measures against these types of incidents in an online cardroom? Probably not and their probably never will be anywhere that. And the general public believe it will stay like that also. If somewhere could achieve this, along with a trusting governance, individual nations might return to being part of a worldwide player pool again (e.g. Italy, France)



The element of 'everyone has a shot of winning' is completely gone from poker now (in tournaments at least) which was the main element that caused the first boom. Now bigger tournaments are structured to suit the pro's which of course they have to be since they make up the majority of the fields now. No where will run them if they can't make guarantees' and profit. The number of recreational players in a tournament will continue to drop off the more pro's are in a field thus reducing the chances of winning. A tough cycle to break.

Recreating the notion that anyone can win, combined with trust in all the elements of governance of the game, would be the major boost that's required to starting a new boom.

make Justin Bonomo the world poker president! He is the true and only sjw and obviously knows better than everyone else...

/s

We just need one big ass market which is regulated, no separation of countries. The whole world in one market were everything is regulated would be phenomenal. Current big countries which are banned are USA, italy, france, greece out of the top of my head. If those countries just were able to play without any administrative hassle to deposit poker would still be booming I personally believe. And if poker sites were also allowed to do marketing..... I can only imagine poker to be still booming.. nothing more and nothing less.

I could not agree more. If you could undo Black Friday, I still think we would have seen poker declining the last 5 years though as it seems gambling in general is down. A lot of money has moved to DFS too.

Where does it go from here? I think you can look at bowling (in the U.S.) for a hint. Bowling's 'golden age' was during the '60s & early '70s. It went out of favor for awhile and bowling alleys began to close up shop. It saw somewhat of an uptick in popularity in the 90s, but the last 10-15years has seen declines again. I forgot where I read it but it's estimated there is something like 25% fewer bowling alleys in the U.S. now than there was around '98/'99.

Poker will stick around just not as the pop-culture phenomenon that it was. As you said, there is always money to be made. Poker might just be more a part of the background now. It will still be televised on ESPN just like PBA Bowling. It may even see a small resurgence in the future as the online gaming regulations get worked though but that is a long way off IMO.

this

Pokerstars needs to stop whoring itself out to any country that rejects a global player pool.

Threaten to pull out of France, Spain, Italy, etc. if they refuse to give their players access to the global player pool and take away all tax revenue generated in those countries from online poker. As the competing sites simply aren't big enough to motivate players in those countries to continue playing online poker if they pull out. The industry will die in those countries if Pokerstars pulls out and those governments will get nothing in the way of taxes from online poker. Pokerstars players in those countries won't move over to smaller sites and continue playing. They'll simply stop playing poker and likely the player pools on the smaller sites will disappear, as well.

Either, they'll accept a global player pool and make MORE MONEY by motivating more players to get online and play, or they will lose Pokerstars and the industry as a whole and make nothing. I'm pretty sure which one they'll choose when given the ultimatum.

This is the solution. Pokerstars needs to play poker and make the bluff.

I actually just did a search and found this article talking about how Italy is considering globalizing the player pool again. So, maybe these governments are already waking up. This is from June:

Italy Looks To International Pool Sharing To Save Strangled Market

https://www.cardschat.com/news/italy...d-market-12753

no limit started the poker economy bro, lol. no one cares about the dudes winning the WSOP limit events. if no limit was never offered we would be no where close to where we are today. Well, i can personally say, my pockets wouldn't be near as full.

I agree with you but putting aside your own welfare and thinking of the rec. players and getting them to come to the games might involve a game you don't want to play, was my point.

Why would a game being solved kill it's chances for popularity?