This thread is pathetic.

Blame the coaching sites, the software makers, the poker sites - this is business, bitch!

Either you adjust to the situations you have zero control with or you readjust and move on to something new.

Life isn't fair, tell me something I don't already know.

I've always found it sort of ironic that we're on the site of a book publisher and people like to blame training sites and coaches for teaching people to get better. training tools have always been available. people used to read Super/System. I learned to play by reading 2+2 books and posting on these forums. when Taylor started CR I started watching those videos. before CREV and ProPokerTools there was Pokerazor and Pokerstove. there was always something and will always be something. the fact of the matter is online education is booming in virtually every other industry. you don't see universities crying foul over Coursera, MIT OCW, Stanford/edx educating people for free. they're the ones providing the content and putting their efforts toward adapt to a changing climate, rather than dwelling on the past. you're delusional if you expect people to collude to protect information. if that's your expectation, then there's a little country in Asia that would suit you quite well.

I've done my share of bitching over the years, but complaining about things out of your control is a complete waste of time. so is comparing 2015 to 2006 or 2011 or even 2014 for that matter. poker has always been about staying ahead of the curve and pushing frontiers beyond what is available on training sites and in books. those frontiers are far past what they were in the past, but the bottom line is there is still a large gap between the way people play today and the optimal way to play. there are also incredible games that exist outside of Stars.

it's easy for us to have a sense of entitlement since we had it so easy for so long. I did it for a long time in a much easier climate, and admittedly don't have it in me anymore. I got ahold of a very large database earlier in the year. people are still winning, at least at 200NL. it's just not a 20-30 hour a week job anymore. it likely requires 50+ hours like most other careers. poker as a career guarantees you freedom (unless you're American, of course) and getting to do something that you (hopefully) have a passion for, and something that is mentally stimulating. anyone who got into it for the easy hours and good money is obviously experiencing a rude awakening.

you beat me by a minute saying the same thing as me in 10% as many words. don't I feel like a dick.

How is Bitcoin the answer? If it is it wont be for many many years until its stable and/or widely adopted.

Didn't it lose well over 50% of its value this year alone? Absolutely no way it will work with these swings.

Also, the love for Bitcoin on a forum like this, populated by a certain type of person, in no way reflects the the view of the vast majority of ordinary people (the ones you want playing poker). A lot of players/fish still don't even trust online poker (maybe rightly so given last few years) so hoping they are suddenly gonna adopt something as complex as Bitcoin, THEN start playing poker with it is just a fantasy.

keep the HUDS so you can continue having solid players megatabling and that way you have less chance of landing in a softer game.


the ppl who want them around dont realize that if they were no longer allowed they would beat the game(if theyre a good player of course)for probaly a much better hourly even though theyre playing less tables.

Problem is lack of competition in the industry. Still plenty of money in poker, it's just that stars is taking it all with 500m net profit last year. Stars is making so much money it was sold for over $4BN. They have a monopoly and can do what they want. If they had this monopoly in 2008 they could have increased rake to 10% and we would be in a similar place we are now with stars taking all the deposits and players making very little if any profit.

All the people saying the problems is Coaching, HUD, etc are pissing in the wind. Players were only ever gong to get better and will continue too just like in every other sport/activity.

Nah dog, its more like government regulation and to much rake is killing online poker.

Everyone who thought software coaching and hand feeding the fish info all day is what killed the game

Heck this forum as cool as it is helps kill the game

But tilt helps keep things rolling along

A great reg on tilt is worse then a relaxed fish

All you people saying coaches, training sites are what killed the game. You are oblivious to reason! Can you really be that stupid and egocentric?! You guys should be ashames that you allow your tongue to speak such inaccuracies and everyone in your circle should be slapping the **** out of you

WTF is wrong with people..

+1 this would be incredible

No that would be idiotic? Is this a level? U really think removing microstakes is gonna make the games more juicy? LMAO

While I agree with some of Sqwertys post, most of it is absolutely ridicolous and narrowminded..

Plain wrong! The amount of information available for free and for small money is unbelievable. Why do you think Stars has ist own "coaching-site" with Pokerschool-online?! GTO? 8 years back you were the king when you knew basic ABC-poker. Nowadays probably 80% of all micro-players can play ABC.

I heard a few years ago from a stars employee that it was around 95% at 1/2, likely quite a bit higher now.

I don't think it's reasonable to get frustrated at people improving, everyone wants to improve at what they are passionate about. Saying that poker would be better if your opponents never got better is a waste of time.

A comment I had from a friend who proofread this alluded to the sense of entitlement, and that's just me writing badly. Western pro's don't have an advantage, it's perfectly fine and natural that there are less and less of us every year.

Telepat0r

The fact that you think rising skill-level kills the game and people coaching should be blamed for such, is what makes the statement utter nonsense.. I don't deny the fact that edges have become slimmer because of it, but training sites and coaching are a natural evolution of the environment of a skillbased sport.

It's a natural progression and the rake should reflect these changes in the environment or watch the poker-economy break down slowly because the attainable winrates vs rake-fees are no longer friendly enough to sustain a growing customer base.

But it's not surprising since Pokerstars are not a service made to accommodate the changing environment of poker, but to make most money. These two things are not neccesarily compatible.

The biggest problem online poker has nowadays is the lack of weak players who are willing to lose millions per year. Rake doesn't really matter if your winrate is 10+ bb/100.

There were days when you could use location tells, if I had a guy from russia or eastern europe playing at my table I knew he was a fish. Almost the same applied to most scandinavian guys. Now, if I look at a guys Location and it says Finland, you know hes a full time pro, pretty much the same for most Russians/etc.

You cannot compare poker to that. Or you need to be more specific. People study because they expect to have a good job, well paid and good structured. If you study law you are pretty much safe, there is demand for that. Whats the reason to study poker and climb the stakes if there are no games going?

Think about if nobody would turn on the TV during super bowl, who would play it?

Fish simply found out how quickly they bleed money online and how well the regs are working on their games. It's not fun playing chess against a pro for money, right?

And to get back to coaching/training sites. People stopped coaching pretty much at one point. At least those, who had or have a huge edge over other regulars and are killing the games.

Lots of interesting theories about what's caused the decline of online poker - foreign exchange fees and deposit issues, HUDs and other programs, training sites, rake, the monopoly, regulations, an increase/decrease in skill gap ... maybe/probably every one of those things has played a part, to varying degrees.

There's also the big thing of online poker losing the US market with all that disposable income, and people loving to gamble. Like if the average amount that fish were willing to lose before quitting used to be $250 with the US still part of online poker while now it's only $100, maybe that $25 hourly that used to be possible at some stakes should be more like $10?

The thing is that that $25 hourly is probably hovering at around more like $6 right now, because while player hourlies have been decreasing, rake has not - I mean like PS has actually gone and *increased* for some games!

And PS can do whatever it wants - but like, the market's changed so much. And while we've all been forced to accept that things have changed, PS is still charging the same rate of rake that they did when the US was still in the market - it doesn't seem like that's sustainable. Like while rake might not be the chief cause of the decline of poker, it does seem to be a big contributing factor, especially to the rate of decline.

I just don't see how poker can sustain itself when there aren't winners - what's a game without winners? Where's the fun in that?

Seem like another online poker is dead thread, meets can't beat the rake, while the cost of living increases.
No one on 2+2, no one who has heard of 2+2, is going to be relatively easy money.
Yes, higher stakes make more sense for increased profits vs. lower rake per hour. But that means you getting old, and can't grind like a nineteen year old with a $200 bankroll mass tabling and case of red bull.
The chess/skill arguments end up drawing dead, cos' it's still gambling, there is still chance involved in the game. Not to say there isn't in Chess, but the factor of your opponent seeing a move that wins, is up to him, not the turn of a card.
And poker is a lot more exciting than chess, yet online it gets to be more of a mathematical probability study that can used to become a winning player. And then it gets boring, dull, and tiring - like chess.
And the more I think about this . .. basically online poker is a victim of it's own success.

The first two paragraphs are well written. Good job. The rest, not so much and the chart is wtf.

I'm glad to see that you and other are taking the time to theorize about the direction of poker and what can be done to deter its downfall. Eventually when other alternatives with lower rake surface, maybe even a few studies can be done. In the meantime, keep up the good work in trying to make the poker sites understand that they are contributing to their own downfall by trying to make the quick cash grab.

In my view the micros are the backbone of the economy... Money funnels up it doesn't come from thin air. Every level needs to have winners progressing forward bringing their money with them else the money doesn't climb the ladder.

You should actually go and see for yourself who is playing on the Bitcoin sites.

Some sites used to think they had to cater to grinders. No more. They have done the math. GL on trying to convince them otherwise.

Nobody is citing the obvious answer to the decline of online poker: government regulation.

As "rants" go, OP's was pretty mild-mannered. I agreed with much of it. (The graphic seems weird though. I have tons of breakeven grinders in my database, although I guess a lot of them are on the verge of quitting). But there are some good counterpoints (and the usual random garbage ofc) in the thread imo.

I was going to say that, dammit!

To use a phrase more people understand...
Poker was marketed as a way to make easy money, either as a regular player, a sponsored pro, an affiliate, or an author, a coach, video producer, poker journalist, software designer, or a mass-tabling HUDbot etc etc.

All these technologies that allow people to make money ultimately lead to a game where no one makes money!
e.g. Writing a book about poker strategy helps the author to make money in the short run, but ultimately makes his games tougher.
Coaching sites do the same.
Tracking sites likewise.
Holecard cameras/TV shows helped cause the boom, but made the games tougher.
Inventing HUDs made lots of money for the PT/HEM guys, but killed off their future customers.
Sites encouraged multi-tabling and the use of HUDs because it brought in tons of rake... but made the games unbeatable/unfriendly to recreationals.

Basically everyone did what they thought was right for them individually - and can't be blamed for doing so - but the net result is bad for everyone.

To quote the wiki article:
The "common resource" was recreational players (aka fish). Who killed the fish? WE ALL DID! The training sites killed them, the tracking sites killed them, 2+2 Publishing killed them, the software makers killed them, the software users killed them, holecard cameras and strategy commentators killed them, forum posters killed them. We're all just as guilty, so it's pointless to wholly blame any specific factor or group.
In a way, all the sites did was provide a "tank" for the ecosystem to exist in. Unfortunately, sites allowed (and in many cases encouraged) the waters in that tank to turn septic. It's undeniable that sites like Pokerstars unwittingly encouraged predatory and parasitical behaviour, with the "Find a Player" function and Supernova goals, for example.

In the final analysis, the online poker boom was a bubble. Those that got in on the ground floor and got out at its peak (Hi Isai and Mark!) look like ****ing geniuses. The rest of us are schmucks for sticking around, because there's no fresh meat in the tank.

And when the games dry up the fish will follow the grinders, where the games are plentiful... Recs want a game and they want one NOW... Between meetings or during lunch... Or before their appointment, they don't have time to sit around and wait for people to reg up or wait for people to join their table. ie: me and one or two other regs kept sngs running on a site for months... I could play ten at a time. Usually kept six to ten games running... I got limited to two tables, they did as well (pretty sure I just gave away which site) cashed out all my money.. came back a couple months later and the games were dead. To this day a year later the sngs still don't run. Recs won't reg games with zero or one player regged, they wanna last minute reg a game that's about to start. It's up to regs and grinders to keep the games going.