Poker is dead. No point in playing, everybody pack up your bags and move on. I'll stay here to make sure everything's alright when you leave.

Poker comes poker goes same as any game...let it get legal then another boom...another good movie...as good as Rounders would really help....seriously how hard can it be to make poker interesting...why are all the movies crap...

I've played almost 400k hands of 25/50+ since Jan 1, 2013. I'm not even one of the highest volume regs in the games I play, either.

with like 1/8th of them Holdem, right? cause you know that's all we mean when we talk about poker round here. THE UNLIMITED TEXAS HOLDEMS!!!1!

Nah, it's like 40% holdem. I've only been playing PLO for about a year.

yeah, nobody cares about the NL holdem +2 card game, ike.

I have no doubt the poker sites are acutely aware of the trust issue, but if they acknowledge it, they only increase the level of distrust. You can bet they have people reading and probably contributing to every significant thread on the subject here and elsewhere too.

I did assume NLHE, but it's not that the games run occasionally I have to correct myself... they run semi regularly, 3 or 4 handed at most and with long intervals of the tables being dead,mostly becoming more active when a worse reg joins. I don't like this dynamic to the game. How often are top pros playing top pros without rb/sponsorship?

I did say there were exceptions. And also I only refer to online poker, not live. And that guy hasn't played since 2012. Poker is a rapidly changing game by the way.

@ike

400k hands in 28 months lol

Post graph or GTFO

That guy made his 225k hands at 10 evbb/100 z500 from July 2014 to some days ago. So yes, he is crushing the game nowadays.

Don't know why you say that he is not playing since 2012.

PS:

The OP is spot on for 99% (or the overwhelming majority) of people playing NL cash games. Anyone that lists one or a handful of players that are the exception is being a twit. Really don't see much difference in players dreaming/trying of being that one guy to chances of binking an MTT.

Makes me wonder why MTTs aren't more popular with players again, myself included.

Every single time a "poker is over" thread comes up no one ever mentions one of the main actual reasons for the decline of the recreational player and the tougher entry barriers to entering an elite level of the game.

In 2008 the world entered an intentionally created housing liquidity crisis. For many people things were different over night as they had their liquidity/equity wiped out. People that were pulling equity out of their homes and playing for recreation were put on serious notice that the days of printing home equity money were over.

Solid, good, and elite poker players were vastly unaffected because they were driving income from poker. Poker is not something these players would cut from their lives because they need it to live. Yet for them to exist, it is essential that new people are taking up the game and others are playing time to time with disposable income. Disposable income across the world has dried up considerably because of the housing bubble. Obviously governments around the world are facing massive liquidity issues. As taxes go up and employment goes down, it will become impossible for certain people to play poker. For poker to be full of people who don't play all the time, there needs to be money to lose. Employment must be high. The social and political climate are very important to the viability of poker. A vibrant poker economy is the by-product of a vibrant, productive society that has generated lots of disposable wealth.

What is happening now is the game is full elite players, great players, and good players that have not changed their MO because the derive income from poker. There are still people who are having fun just playing and plenty of "bad" players who will give it away. These players just might not keep showing up forever and then the question is who will replace them.

Poker, its popularity, the type of people who play or don't play, are all directly related to how good or bad the world is doing as a whole. Poker being popular or not is a direct result of productive economies (instead of a doomed housing bubble!) and the hard working people that drive them.

No longer can the guy who bought his house in 2004 take a loan out for 50k in 2005 and just get the money back in equity increases in 2006. The poker boom was partially because people like to play, but very much to do with how freakin' easy it was to print money with your house for a couple years in America.

Surprised no one has mentioned this one yet, but I believe the downfall to poker is when AI computer scientists build a robot that can solve NLH. They will probably post it on the internet as an open source to show the world how smart they are. As a result the game will be ruined since everyone will know the correct frequencies and it may be easier to replicate than what people may think. Technology is advancing at an exponential rate. I remember 10 years ago when my family and I had dial-up. The idea of an Ipod was unthinkable. It isn't too far off that the game will be solved as complex as it is.

As far as noticing cheating and what not, I have barely noticed anything unusual. But you definitely are right about people being paranoid. I see in the chat all the time "bot, bot, Bot! BOT!" The players aren't even robots, because they react very human-like. Still people freak out about it.

HUDs are also bad for poker. Basically HUD-happy poker players buy one to achieve an advantage, but fail to realize that everyone else can get one too and cancel out that advantage. In the end everyone pays 50 some bucks for nothing. Meanwhile Recreational players who probably would not even want to look at a HUD just stop playing online and do something else like watch TV or whatever. Even if this wasn't the case, I think HUDs ruin the creativity and very essence of the game. Poker should be played with your cards, chips, and brain. Nothing else. I get flamed for this a lot for some reason, but it is just my opinion and I feel quite strongly about it.

I think poker may be dying too, because of less action at the tables. I'm playing small stakes 200nl tables online and the games seem very crushable, but sometimes there isn't enough players to play. As of late, it has actually improved significantly. I've never played 500nl so maybe I haven't gotten to the really hard stuff yet. I think the games are very much still profitable here at least. Plenty of good players and occasional super fish. Poker is my second income, but I'm starting to make more at it than my regular job so who knows. Maybe the poker world will thrive after all.

Hopefully poker is still a thing by the time 2025 is around, because I'll probably end up very wealthy if that is the case. I think it is probably a good idea for everyone to keep their options open though. I know I am, because you never know what may end up happening.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 10bb graph over 225k hands since July doesn't really impress me too much. In nearly 10 months this dude has made just over $100k excl rb.

very good medium / low high stakes players can make c100-300k per annum nowadays, but back in this day this used to be $1m+.

Main reason this was the case was due to the death of heads up. Win rates were so much higher in heads up and anyone wise enough to bum hunt from 2006-2012 made a killing. Heads up is dead, due to:

- removal of heads up from websites
- limit of heads up stakes
- reduced liquidity
- player knowledge/bankroll protection

The market is not growing, but as a result of regulation driving reduced liquidity pools and ISP blocking in countries like Greece, Argentina it's fast declining.

In terms of liquidity this may just get worse, with the upcoming regulation in Germany, part ISP blocking in Russia and stance of Canada.

It's interesting because if any of you were to look set any operators accounts the focus is purely on stabilising the decline in the poker market...

For the last year most of my volume has been 25/50 zoom PLO with an average pool size of 10 or so. This game runs almost every day for anywhere from a couple hours to 8 or 12. Yes, usually there's a known weaker player in the game or it wouldn't run. That's how poker has worked as long as it's existed.

Still, I've played a decent amount in games with no obvious spots and over 100k hands of HU, the vast majority of it against other top pros, in that time.

I don't even know if you're lol'ing because it's a high number or a low number.

I'm not posting a graph, sorry. If you think I'm lying about a totally unremarkable claim, I don't see why a graph would change your mind.

I was lol'ing because the number was low.

Wanting you to post a graph was wishful thinking on my part but it was worth a try.

Even if you don't post a graph I also don't want you to GTFO

Btw Ilari's image on stars is paying homage to you. We all love you bro

I'm not trying to brag about my sick volume. I'm just saying it's enough for it to be absurd to say the games never run.

everyone has a theory about why online poker is dying (and I assume this thread only relates to online poker because the live game is certainly not dying).

For me it's multitabling and I've written this before but meh I'll write it again. The thing about multitabling is that it takes the boredom factor out of poker and boredom is one of the key ingredients to making poker profitable. THE GAME MUST BE SLOW!....25 hands an hour, not 1500.

There's a reason why win rates of 30bb are common live and not online and it all has to do with the speed of the game. People have to have high VPIP's. You need 6 players seeing a flop with 50bb's in the pot before the flop is dealt. This is common in the live game and it's why it's so profitable.

The live game flourishes with massive rake compared to online and it doesn't even have rakeback yet it is hugely profitable. The games online are just so dreadful as nut-peddling nits try to eek out a 2bb winrate by taking down the blinds.

The online game is just so marginal that a minuscule rake increase threatens the very existence of the whole online poker economy according to 2+2. You'll never see a 300 page thread created if a live casino increases rake from 10% to 10.05%, that I can guarantee you.

You're right, in a way. It has to do with the fact that it takes months to play 10k hands so live players who run hot are deluded into thinking that their true winrates are insanely high.

I have nothing to add but to thank you all for the debate, is really interesting, keep it coming!

The live game is growing, it's a matter of what games you can get into, especially Macau, where the lowest games are $3/$6. I suggest all mid-high limit players to head out there or at least look into it seriously. You can win life changing amounts of money against absolute fish because they can't play any lower. And these guys are from China and serious degens, actually willing to wager for the thrill with any two. In my opinion it's getting into those games that's tough since there are such long waiting lists for those. Running poker is uneconomical because of the space the tables take so they don't have as many tables as they should since baccarat is the game they live for in Macau. It's the 'standard way to get even'.
Online is more 'accessible' though it would pay off to play live. I'd like to know where you guys play live and why. You don't have to reveal too much on your plans to anything personal but I'm just curious on the live scene and the toughness of say, Bellagio and Aria games at a variety of stakes. Could a 100 zoom player go on to crush those live games in Vegas?

Well, broken clocks are right twice a day. At least he was 'right, in a way' by being wrong.

I couldn't agree more. Couple this with a decrease of cross-border poker money flow (i.e. countries restricting online poker to the confines of their own borders or by simply making it effectively illegal to play online), and you have the primary reason why poker is so difficult.

A general increase in wealth combined with the opportunity to create a truly global pool of players that can play each other without restriction, would bring back a more crushable game. Having the US player pool back, for starters, would make a massive difference to the game.

Does anyone have a chart of how the numbers of online players have dropped? I found one on Pokerscout but it only goes up to 2013 where it showed numbers had declined to 2006 levels.