FACT: this was a thread on r/poker i found funny enough to take a screenshot of

can confirm that this FACT was deleted

Every video from every site is downloadable lel. Do u even browser extensions? This is so tilting to read about. And yes training sites killed online poker. Especially RIO. I improved more with rio (1 month sub everything dled. Umad?) than by CRs, DC and Leggo combined. Thanks rio for opening my eyes on what u had to do to be a winner in 2015. Dont want to run simulations all day to have the stress of playing on top. Probably not smart enough to even doit with much success even if i wanted to become a poker scientist. So it was a blessing to have the poker dream killed for me and transition to a rl job. But then again i was never a midstakes balla. miss the being ur own boss lifestyle so i feel you guys.

When more people like me see the dream is dead training sites will die too. But the merchants will.be laughing all the way to the bank by then

"eastern"european idiot checking out

What would that be? I keep on seeing how good RIO is but I can't picture how they are any different from any other site. What exactly makes them so awesome?

And speaking of training site, I haven't played a lot since the BF but I can't help but notice this new mantra that you have to have coaching to beat the games today.

The stupidest example of this was Bryce Paradis back in 2006/7/8. He was crushing nosebleed fixed limit holdem, which capped at 1k/2k back then, and made 3million USD IIRC.

He then decided it would be a good idea to give away all of his secrets to success (mainly math that wasn't well known) on a training site that he had part ownership in. I couldn't fathom how one would give away information worth literally thousands of dollars an hour for $30 a month in subscription fees.

The model made absolutely no business sense to me then, and still doesn't now.

It had the effect of making high stakes FLHE incredibly more difficult and saturated. I used to sit alone at 150/300 and 200/400 on multiple sites all day and wait for action. After a couple years of those videos proliferating, there were 2 dozen other guys with me on every site (or more). I estimate that his dissemination of FLHE information to the masses added years to my retirement age and helped to lower the life expectancy of online FLHE games, which, believe it or not, still thrived back in those years.




--
Kahn

Uhm googols nose disecting every other hand with crev, dvoress and that american guy talking about and using solvers, sauce talking in depth about common and obscure situations and doing the math on what hands exactly to use to have a perfect amount of bluffs in given situation re the betsize;why 6s7h should be a bluffing hand on a certain runout while 6s7c is bad. those european guys era7er and the other one being 1.5bb winners at 500z and giving advice on how to make the game even worse so that 1.5bb is actually crushing the game.teunuss disecting other players game. Barewire with awesome insight to hu at high stakes and i havent even played 20k hands of hu in my life but i find the videos fscinating. And ofcourse a comic relief of watching tobe4tunas-no disrespect i think he was a big crusher in 2010 and its sad/comic to see how bad i was and how good the games actually were back then for people in the know and how next level the game of 2016 crushers must really be. If we get all this great advice right now what exactly must the crushers be holding back. Sorry but to me the dream is dead when u have to be a scientist to get 3bb/100 at 500z

Havent watched a rio video for since last summer so i probably messed uo some names

As I have said several times earlier, you could get DC by signing up for rakeback.

I still play online poker today.

I am not a mod of NVG, I do not have those powers.

Note the title is "losing player...", plus he says the videos are "too advanced", and he'll have to redeposit, you are very welcome.

How does that prove that poker training sites brought new players to the game?

Leave him alone. He cant prove ****. He could just come here, be honest and say "DC made me a bunch of money but was ultimatively not good for the lifecycle and health of onlinepoker" - power to him.
Instead he chooses to claim they were good for poker. The real sad part is that there is a nonzero % chance he believes what he is saying which would be scary in some way...

As I said earlier, players would sign up for rakeback, get DC access, deposit, play, and then we'd run promotions at them by looking at what videos/coaches they watched, and run other promotions at them to get them to "try what they learned" with re-deposit bonuses.

I've seen the data. It's not based on a simpleton hypothesis that the rise in training sites obviously equals the decline in online poker.

If you were trying to (capable of?) participate in an intellectually honest argument you would've written "It's not based on a simpleton hypothesis that the rise in training sites obviously equals a decline in online poker."

not sure if you're being purposely obtuse, but hes a 10bb loser and i looked up some FACTs on people's rake DATA and new changes put micro rake at 8-14bb/100 depending on playing style.

so stars should thank training sites. and in a way they do by parading around jamie staples.

edit: oh and back in the day ftp made those cardrunners cheats red pros. fun times

Not impartial, and seemingly dishonest.

I don't think he can considering how invested he is in the gambling industry. Which is why he keeps saying he's seen the data multiple times and expects people to take his word when all the evidence / opinions suggest otherwise.

I do agree with you that it would be sad if he actually believes what he's saying

There is nothing more I can say. DeucesCracked had 10,000s of customers, 10,000s of depositing rake back/bonus online poker players, and most of them went broke.

Do I really have to you that not all DC members become online pros?

Hi ATrainBoston:

I think this sort of did happen. My understanding is that after the Thorpe book many casinos changed their blackjack rules so much that the tables went empty. Of course they changed them back after a couple of weeks.

I don't agree this is correct yet it's repeated over and over. A number of years ago I had dinner with Jack Binion (and another friend). Jack's theory, and in which I agree, is that Thorpe showed that basic strategy was a break even game, and it then became common knowledge that blackjack, like craps, was a good gamble. Of course, most people didn't learn correct basic strategy and weren't "not quite good enough counters."

Best wishes,
Mason

If there are no backdoors then presumably this is because of blockers.

Working out how the cards in your own hand affect what possible holdings your opponent could have is just part of being an intermediate to good level cardplayer, not just in poker but in card games generally. If there are people playing who need computers and videos to tell them things like that then the games will be good for a while yet.

I play lower than most of you so maybe the problems you see are still on their way down the stakes to me - but to me it just feels like people want to give all their money away every time they play; I just don't recognise this world of unbeatable games people are talking about.

So the overall volume went up but the casinos' revenue went down, because the edge was much thinner?

Hi Everyone:

I'm just starting to get into this thread and have not read most of the posts, but I want to add something that I'm sure no one has yet mentioned. The reason the games went bad is mainly because of the demise of seven-card stud (and I know that Joe Tall will agree).

Let me explain it this way. In the limit hold 'em games that I play, and this is the main reason I don't play higher, is that there are a number of marginal players who help to start games and keep the games going. Most of these people are around break even or lose a little but they're there day after day.

However, at high limit hold 'em, which is where many of the better players go, the marginal players often cease to exist. That's because against players who play tighter but very aggressively win too quickly from these so called marginal players. While at a limit like the $20-$40 games at The Bellagio, there aren't enough top players to quickly eliminate them. Thus at $20-$40 the balance between luck and skill seems to work, but not so much at higher limits.

Now let's go to no-limit hold 'em. Because of the nature of the game, the marginal players get quickly wiped out no matter what the level. Add in the Internet where players could multi-table and all of a sudden you had low stakes games that became filled with tough players, and that's not the way it use to be.

Yes it's true that good books (like the ones we published) as well as the training sites, coaches, etc. contributed to this issue and probably made it come about sooner, but it was going to happen anyway. And some evidence for this is that the no-limit cash games of many years ago had completely died out way before the Poker Boom began in 2003.

But this brings us to stud. Unlike almost all other forms of poker, stud has a mechanism that allowed the marginal players to survive no matter what the limit. And this of course is the ante that can be adjusted. Specifically, the smaller the ante relative to the size of the bet the quicker a marginal player will be eliminated, and the larger the ante compared to the size of the bet, the longer the marginal player can last. And when it gets too large, the win rate of the professional player will drop to a level that they won't do well enough to keep playing.

Let me be specific. In 1989 we released our book Seven-Card Stud for Advanced Players. The model game we used was the $15-$30 which had a $2 ante. At $75-$150, which had a fair number of games spread at that time in Las Vegas and elsewhere, the ante was $15 which is equivalent to the $15-$30 game with a $3 ante. This increased ante was needed to keep the skill/luck factor in balance because the best players at $75-$150 were far better than the best players at $15-$30.

But there was also a $100-$200 game that was hardly ever spread and it had a $25 ante which is the equivalent of a $15-$30 game with an ante of $3.75. And it's my contention that this ante size took too much skill advantage away for the best players to want to play it, and games like $40-$80 with a $10 ante that was also the equivalent to the $15-$30 having an ante of $3.75 also had no staying power.

So it's my opinion that the reason this thread exists is that the Poker Boom, which featured no-limit hold 'em, and made that form of poker the most popular form by far, killed off seven-card stud.

Best wishes,
Mason

Casino profits went up and they went up by a lot.

Mason

sevencardwhat?

The problem in a way was self-created by poker sites. The mistake was made when they started aggressively compete they offered affiliates rev share model based on rake generated and not based on a loss rate like casinos do.
Thats how the monster of pokerstrategy was born. It was by far the biggest negative impact of all. Sites would compete and many would give like 70% of the rake generated to pokerstrategy to get new players never thinking about how sustainable it was. So pokerstrategy introduced like 3 milion players to poker and that was huge part of the player number increase yet the value for sites was minuscule if not negative (e.g. the infestation of the games with shortstackers and promoting ratholing you can thank Dominik Kofert and pokerstrategy for that)

So affiliated weren't really interested in creating depositors but hud bots that would rake as much as possible. It also create the enviroment cultivated by pokerstrategy were if you were the sucker that couldn't win you would get berated and shamed so you would quit. It create the enviroment were poker was advertised as a way to make money not due to its entertainment value. So if people couldn't win they would quit.

This was the huge problem affiliates have had 0 incentive to advertise among recreational players . So instead they tried to get as many regs as possible. It just couldn't work.