I do not believe that is human nature, maybe thats the poker mindset but to me humans are born with a good heart.

This 30% number is for 100 spins of double-zero roulette on red. If we bet $10 per spin, over 100 spins our SD is $99.99 and our EV is -$52.60. These are the same numbers as a player playing 100 hands of $0.50/$1.00 poker at -50BB/100. Obviously if we are talking about a "rec" as someone over-bet jamming every flop where they have bottom pair or better then obviously they are going to lose faster than half a stack per 100 hands, but if we mean someone interested in trying to play then that's reasonable. Roulette doesn't have the answer it's not booming either. At least my observation is that the main thing it can offer is a wide variety of stakes - yes when we are live we see the guy standing there alone putting 100 euros a spin on it and wish he'd play poker with us - do we have the players to set up a 100 euro ante per hand game for him to sit in?

I'd say generally you are on the right lines. Mr Minus 50 BB/100 has a 45% chance of being ahead after 10 hands, 31% chance of being ahead after 100 hands and a 5.7% chance of being ahead after 1000 hands. That's why forms of poker based on the losing players doing tons of hands (e.g. flying to a resort like Vegas and playing an entire week, 3-tabling for an afternoon on stars) are in decline, whereas forms of poker that are based on short sessions (stopping off for half an hour at the local cardroom on the way home from work, playing a couple of orbits of 6-max in the pub on your mobile device while you wait for your friends to arrive) are doing absolutely fine.

As for how live players behave. There seem to be some players, I'd call them "amateurs" who might be winning or break-even at the game but in a sense are "recreationals" because they have a recreational motive for playing. They want it to be like a chess club and are always talking strat at the table and what is a good play and what is "terrible". That is their recreational experience and if it scares away the real gambler that the professional wants to make money from they don't seem to care and why should they?

Pokerstars are so bloody stupid. If they really want to go down this route, they should offer it as an optional choice, for players to choose to either reveal their screenname, or to play anonymously.

Or better still, have named and unnamed tables and tournaments, so one can choose. Personally I would always prefer to play in the named route, as this unnamed nonsense opens up multiaccounting options galore, whereas open profile largely prevents this.

Part of the whole attraction is learning how to cope with particular players, if this is removed and every game is like a total new start, against entirely random players, lots of the skill is removed from the game.

Do you not recall back in the day when we had this circular situation:

- Bad reg loads up regular table
- Waaaaaaaaaah, I don't want to play short stackers
- Well then play the deep stacked tables!
- Bad reg loads up deep stack table
- Waaaaaaaaaah, I can't compete in this reg:rec ratio, I want to play fish
- Well then play the regular tables!
- Bad reg loads up regular table etc etc etc

Bad regs have no interest in learning to cope with particular players. Rather than making a choice and getting better, they will whine until the rules change in their favour to give them the one type of game state they can cope with. Good players can adapt. Fish don't care.

The thing about this change is that it hasn't been generated by player demand (where are there hoards of players demanding to play anonymized poker?) but by the site theorizing this will make the game easier for beginners.

And it will be easier at lower stakes, but harder as one moves up levels, so the outcome will be most play will end up at the lower levels, as there will be no incentive for poor players to play against better players at higher levels, and good players will have to drop levels to get access to poorer players.

The bad players will still end up driven disillusioned out of the game, it is just that it will take longer for them to do so.

Maybe they could try beginners tables, for players online for less than a year, as it does take time to learn, so giving players some initial protection may be a good idea, but taking away the skill factor for everyone, just to help bad players, is a big mistake.

Party stealthily tried this, and it went very badly. All it ended up doing was giving an incentive to make new accounts as soon as you leave the protected pool. The players who are best at making new accounts are the new big winners, rather than the players who are good at poker. Meanwhile, you anger all of your existing players.

Thanks, I stopped playing on Party as I set my account there with a female name (I'm a guy) , and left as I got sick of players trying to chat me up!

At present there is the Pokerstars option to hide from player search, which is a helpful option, all they need to do is give the option to also hide ones screen nname if one wants to, or to show it, at anonymous or named tables, then problem solved.

Otherwise this is just dogging, screwing strangers in the dark!

You don't know **** about the human race and live in a bubble if you think this way

Very good post considering a norake environment.
Very stupid poast considering teh environment we currently got

^this
Do you know how insanely high the rake at 5/10 is, given that there is no RB at all? And edges are getting smaller every day

The majority of regs these days don't have English as their first language, and have a quite different culture to the people they win money from, how are they supposed to know what a "fun environment" is?

Really frustrating to see these threads filled with people who have no idea of how hard pro's work blaming everything on them and letting the sites completely off the hook.

Another problem Pokerstars in their lack of wisdom haven't considered or publicly addressed is how this will actively HELP teamwork online.

At the moment say a six player table has five players from the same country, I would avoid it in case they were part of a team.

Under the new proposals, I wouldn't know they are from the same country, and they can easily play in the same room, so would walk into their trap.

And if the five were challenged by the site, they could say it was entirely random they happened to be sitting together, and Pokerstars anonymity would seem to support that defence.

Oh for the good old days when the site was intelligently run with a sensible long term strategy by Lederer and Ferguson.

Bs. Nits by definition will not blow off 10 stacks in a session. Nits will literally not put money in on river without the near nuts. They will fold until they finally have a strong hand and hope the mark spews.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yea you know everything about human race? I guess you hang out with too many scummy people. Go get a volunteer job and see how caring and giving people can be. I am not saying everyone has good intention towards you but there are nice people out there.

People are inherently good. Coinflipper just reads about the top bad 1%, hangs around with the top bad 3% and generally seeks to feeds his cynicism


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One thing you can guarantee about these threads is they tend to bring out some of the more whiny live regs for some reason.

And what then if he does volunteering work, and finds lots of "scummy
people" there? Is there any hope for his view on humanity then, oh judgmental guru?

As poker players are made up from society, it has good and bad people in it, even bad tempered sanctimonious judgmental folk... as jfound can confirm.

You think the collective moral compasses of the poker community is a good sample to judge society on? :/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

totally agreed, well said

i grew up in a wealthy suburb, had non existent family troubles growing up. have been on every continent and some 100 countries in 35 years i have gotten to know/ made friends with the poorest to the richest. at the end of the day an overwhelming majority of the human population is just trying to survive/get ahead in life.

this baby in the womb everyone is a caring human mentality is not reality.

any proactive step towards ****ing over a seat scripter is OK in my book

Seems like a pretty good way to judge the poker world though, doesn't it?

Just to play devil's advocate on this one, I don't see how this is such a bad move from Stars. Average ratio of endboss/rec/struggling reg should improve slightly. It hurts players who are table selecting hard but rec players will likely have a better chance of sitting with other fish which is better for the games in the long run.

I don't buy the logic of this being a cash grab from Stars. I don't think you can argue that traffic will be decimated but Stars will somewhow benefit. Stars don't wan't winning regs playing less, they just want a bigger piece of the pie by increasing the effective rake.

I play exclusively Zoom FWIW so could be complelty wrong

I have seen some really bad know regular maniacs run hot because the rocks could never believe him and because he was always willing to gamble with top pair good kicker but not the nuts ie KQ or KJ. But otherwise weak fish types never get action if they raise except for set over set situations.

For all those severely effected by this tortuously slow progression .

http://theinterviewguys.com/how-to-make-a-resume-101/