I've got no quarrel with what you posted.

Going in reverse, any movement to reducing the buy in is going to make the game friendlier to the casual player. There's absolutely nothing magical about 40BB. I think trial and error is going to find the sweet spot. Most likely 80BB is going to be easier to implement to start.

As for the frequency of all ins, one nice thing about NLHE poker is that if you want more all ins to occur, you have the power to make that happen.

I doubt that ever happens. From my unscientific observation poker on ESPN is down by at least 80%. It's gotten old, the same tourney stuff over and over. Sweating a medium stakes live game would be fun for a while but even that would get boring. I remember some columnist years ago suggested just showing 1 hole card on the TV shows. Maybe that would work to increase viewer interest.

Poker show producers can learn from reality TV producers.

Nobody wants reality in their reality TV. Script, or at least semi-script that ****. Make someone the Villain, edit the shots so one guy looks like a total wanker and everyone roots for him to get stacked repeatedly. Make someone the Hero, edit the show so when he wins everyone feels satisfied. Stop picking people based on talent, and instead, pick people who can't stand each other personally and let the sparks fly.

This is why half the WSOP footage are the personal interest angles.Good poker? No. Good TV? Yes.

Sadly I think this is the best formula for a Poker show to get high ratings.

you mean those that prefer SNGs. i don't think same can be said for cash players.

I was not talking about hole cams. I'm talking about a version of the show "Luck" centered around the poker world vs the horse racing world. Real actors, real entertainment, just the right amount of poker content. If you don't live the live mid-high stakes professional life (maybe you do, idk) you have no idea how actually interesting, filthy, sad, glorious at times, scandalous, devastating, violent, self-destructive, sexual, strategic, back-stabbing, etc, it all can be.

I think the games are just so bad right now. I mean playing in NJ and the games there are getting worst. The rake is pretty high and the rewards are terrible. If this is the future of the regulated online market in the U.S., it is a dark future indeed. People are attracted to big tournament prize pools but not attracted to playing for 6 hours+ and barely winning anything. The other issue with online poker is the trust factor. People still are not convinced it is not rigged. Cheating scandals and sites closing up with all the money also does not help the industry.

OIC. That might actually be a good idea. I've never played super high, biggest was 100-200 7CS and later 60-120 LHE (rarely played NL) but mostly at the 20-40/30-60 levels. I was introduced to the NYC poker scene by a player at the Taj (ended up playing at the inspiration for the Teddy KGB club in Rounders and then the Mayfair Club) so I put in enough time at clubs that Koppelman (decent 7CS player, fyi) thought interesting enough to write a script about. Your characterization is spot on. The dark side of poker tends to get over looked, maybe it'd be good TV.

The exclusively online players don't realize how important/true this is and for an example I'll give the example of video craps: A while back Casino Arizona removed the computerized craps game (AZ doesn't allow real craps) and replaced it w/ one that still takes bets the same way (smoother interface than the old) but added a unit that has actual bouncing dice so that everybody can see the roll is random and that the computer isn't screwing the players over bec it knows where your bets are. Same goes for the roulette machine where an actual roulette wheel spins w/ a ball. The games are popular. I can't say if business is up but they are in constant use.

Man people like you are disgustingly fake, what has happened to you people that you think fake is ok?, don't you have any dignity and pride and honor left in you?, so sad what people do just to make money, so sad.

I'm not going into detail about where I play and due to the money in this area maybe things here are an anomaly but I don't think so. I play both live poker and online poker. The two games are light years apart guys.

Online is basically dead. Still some action on one US facing site at decent limits and overall but even that is a far cry from live. Online games are tough to beat and supposedly reaching equilibrium play (lol but can't argue with sauce letting us know zoom winrates are down to 1bb. I would be curious to know what you beat 2.5/5 zoom for sauce?). Tables are usually 6 reggish players maybe a rec sprinkled in here and there.

In live poker I am observing something completely different. Rooms are just about as packed as ever. I have 10 rooms within 30 min that each spread 10-30 tables apiece. 1-2 to 10-20 plus a bunch of limit, Omaha hi/lo, and stud8. Play as a whole seems to be devolving. The young players who have gotten into the game since Black Friday are almost all terrible. Seems like there is a generation from 25-35 taking all the money that grew up 20 tabling. People can't really do that anymore so improvement is slower.

Wow, you sure make a lot of personal judgments based on what he thinks makes for good TV.

Few unconnected points/questions.

For a recreational player, what level of LHE would give the equivalent "rush" to playing 1-2 NLHE? I think we need to answer that question first before we can compare "like with like" to know which format people lose faster in.

Just ban petjax already.

Are Spin & Gos really good for operators? Doesn't it result in lucky winners hitting big then cashing out? In which case how are they different to skill players cashing out? Operator behaviour suggests they are though.

Is live poker really less popular now than in the USA now than in the period pre the NLHE boom? I thought that at one time it wasn't even spread in Binions outside WSOP time. Hard to tell from Eastern Slovakia as we've only had live poker clubs since about 2008. At least from here running nightly tournaments seems more popular than cash. They occasionally get a single table running with people knocked out of the tournaments but it's much smaller. Tournaments correspond more with what people have seen on TV and, crucially, offer the chance to be the winner for a day ("win a live poker tournament" works on a bucket list better than "have a winning live cash session") rather than just claw back some of the lifetime losses - so it has more to offer the recreational player.

What about more rake-free poker live? My live casino game often misses the guarantee so long term it's net rake free. They make their money in the slots and other tables games. Plenty of bar owners hire a couple of musicians to play so they can fill their bar and make the money back on drinks. What about hiring a couple of poker dealers? (obviously depends on local laws). The kind of people who go to those conferences don't want to hear that but it's the future. Aria think it's plus EV for them to hold a $500K rake free tournament because they hope to make the money back elsewhere, the model could work at other price points too.

i liked hbo's luck but i think they were killing horses. shoulda just steered the script away from horseracing and towards more poker and sportbetting. no one cares if poker players die. looool.

Being a guy whos hosted many private and public games before and after the boom (and still do) I think I have an idea of what makes poker economies tick.

People play poker for several reasons:

1. money "pros"
2. challenge "gamers"
3. sickness "degens"
4. boredom "timekillers"
5. camaraderie "regfish/omcs"
6. VIP treatment "ego players"

There are sub categories and most players are a mix of a couple of em (with some level of #3)

The problem with online poker is only 1 2 and a tiny bit of 3 are left. There used to be a ton of 4 but theyre gone. I dont see how this is gonna change. Live poker is mostly 5 and 6 and all of them felt "burnt" by online poker. It wasnt online pokers fault, they were never gonna stay, it didnt fit their needs.

If online poker becomes legal theyll get some 4's back but not in the cash games. Theyll fire up a tourney while the wife is away or during a boring conference call at work. I used to always here Recs talking about playing online when bored at home, I never hear that anymore. HUDs and Mass tabling killed it. No rec wants to play every hand HU in a raised pot. Its just not fun. They need other recs as buffer, guys they can limp with, Mass tabling destroys this in online cash but its still available in small tourneys and in live poker.

Poker is going through a strange time right now. The boom is over but a lot of pro level players still remain. They have empty resumes and burnt a lot of bridges to become a pro poker player and now they gotta stick with it. The games went through a severe unbalance but are getting more balanced out as many of these pros go broke or leave poker. I actually see young guys come in the casino now who cant play!!!

NLH is part of the problem. Its really a horrible game as currently spread. Its the easiest game for a training site to teach a defensive breakeven strategy. Many Many #5's play that strat now and clog the games. buy short, play tight, get to showdown. repeat.

A game change would help A LOT! If somehow PLO or limit mix could become the new thing youd see a small poker boom. Making the regs switch games and having new players come in with no ready made breakeven strat would get the poker blood pumping again.

Casinos dont like this because other games tend to be slower and collect less rake than HE. Casinos have massive rake at low levels because of real world B&M necessities but relatively tiny rake in big games. I only rake $6cap in my uncapped 5-5-10-mississippi PLO game. Its microscopic rake.

Rake needs to be low enough that the #5s, the camaraderie/timekiller guys, can come in every day, order their steak and eggs and start games without being raked off the table. You can either do that or hire house players. Having the games form naturally is better for everybody though.

Cliffs: Attract new players to a game other than NLH, force regs to change games to chase them. BOOOOOM!

I don't have direct experience but I would think anything pot limit is a non-starter because beginner players don't know how much is in the pot.

If it has to be fixed limit then at least let it be something like (across 4 rounds of betting) $1 - $1 - $2 - $5 so people can chase their gut shots if they want but keeping in the bluffing element of the game on the river.

The problem is that the people with the power to make any real change would prefer the next big game to be Caribbean stud, and it's hard to see why that would be any worse a table for groups 5 and 6 to socialise round.

there is no real ENDURING social aspect to table games, this has been true forever, no group of guys shows up every tues and thurs to play blackjack, never has happened because everyone knows they are losing. in poker a group of guys can convince themselves they are competing. that the best player will win. they will use selective memory to convince themselves they are as good as anybody in the game. social poker games have existed since day 1.

Casinos have always THOUGHT they wanted to get rid of poker. Steve Wynn proved them wrong. Some poker, at the right level, actually drives revenue.

pot limit is a small problem, ive always run pot limit games. this is where a REAL pro earns his stripes. he always knows the pot and helps the newbies, makes them feel part of the group and speeds the game.

I agree with limon that poker has different categories of players and each group has it's own challenges to grow the number of players. The needs and goals for each group can be very different but it's up to current players and room managers to create an environment for recreational players to be drawn in by action, room quality (seat management, TVs, drink service, promos, etc), social engagement at tables, and a sense of a fighting chance. Comps and rake are less of an issue.

My experience has been that these players prefer limit games of 7 card stud, Hold 'em, Omaha, Pineapple, Stud8 and OE.

Love this idea. Especially since works to alleviate one thing fish also don't like: dealing with taxes. I believe once I had a guy punt chips to me heads up just so he wouldn't have to report the 2nd place ship to the IRS lol.

There are also things operationally that need to improve: the speed of play, the fluidity of deposit and cash-out options (Neteller in the prime days helped the boom by making the money transfer process smooth AND quick), and the access to affordable games with easy-to-use GUIs OR locally accessible venues (think public transit).

Games will not thrive if ppl have to drive 1-2 hrs just to gamble (unless you have a gambling problem, like 99% of the people on this site). I know with tax+proximity laws its hard, but part of the reason Europe is thriving right now (besides record youth unemployment) is the "dream" that anyone can put a little money on a site, grind it up, use it to buy-in to big live tournaments, transferring cash with a press of a button, and then potentially win millions without little to no hassle.

Hi Mason.

Seems like both you and Sklansky is not mentioning the elephant in the room. The poker rooms take/rake, esp in bb/100 at lower stakes. Its a huge drain on the recs to beat 10-12bb++ to get breakeven.

If you want the games and the poker economy to thrive wouldnt it be good to discuss lower rake when edges go down. Less margins for the operators when competition is higher etc.

Great post.

Hi blopp:

I agree. Rakes are too high most everywhere, and that's part of the problem.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi Everyone:

For those interested, Marco Valerio and I were on Rich Muny's podcast where all three of us were talking about this stuff:

Here's a link to the show:

http://podcasts.ontiltradio.com/medi...-advocacy.html

Best wishes,
Mason

I agree, but to me that shows we don't just have groups 5 and 6. I know you say that people are a mix of the different groups but what you are talking about is people with a strong element of what you call group 2, the challenge gamers, i.e. they want to challenge themselves and beat the other players once in a while, regardless of whether or not it's financially + or - EV long term. Makes sense. Plenty of other competitive free time activities are like that. You pay subs to be in a rugby club or whatever and you go and play other teams and sometimes win even though it's financially downhill.

EDIT: Just so people don't have to scroll back to find what I'm talking about, Limon talked about the following groups of players earlier
1. money "pros"
2. challenge "gamers"
3. sickness "degens"
4. boredom "timekillers"
5. camaraderie "regfish/omcs"
6. VIP treatment "ego players"

There was a guy in here a while back talking about publicising the concept of "effective rake", but he didn't know the formula to calculate it. Perhaps you and he are related?

I don't think the rake is the main problem. Tables used to be a couple of recreational players and a couple of pros and good players had a decent win rate.

Now, due to seating scripts and table selecting games have one recreational player and 5 or 8 'pros', or at least 5 or 8 players playing seriously trying to earn a second income.

When it becomes no recreational players and all 'pros' will you be asking for no rake tables as no-one is winning?

Although I'm not a professional player (I work for a living) I can remember a time when lots of flops were seen by multiple players, players chatted to each other (not just abuse!) and online poker was 'fun', even to those who lost.

Online Poker isn't fun anymore. Because 'pros' stop recreational players from playing with each other they have no-one to gamble with, no-one to talk to and probably don't enjoy the experience.

I would be interested in the numbers of losing recreational players who play regularly and those who just stop. Recruiting more recreational players who will deposit once, hate the experience and stop is just delaying the inevitable.

Look at live poker, if the 'pros' at the table just put on their headphones and ignored the recreational players you think they would come back?

Basically Internet poker offers no entertainment for recreational players, often at considerable cost. No wonder they aren't coming back.

Online poker, not the rake, needs to change.

Imagine a table full of recreational players and no pros. Lots of flops, lots of play and lots of chat. Recreational players would continue to come back to that type of environment and that's what 'pros' need to try and create. Problem is no-one will sacrifice any of their precious ev to do this.

I can see more beginner/recreational only player tables in the future. If you want the fish pool to grow you sometimes have to remove the hunters.

This is accurate. Perhaps "online pros" do not adequately support the environment these days. Regardless of how crucial their mere multi-tabling presence may have been when poker generally was more "entertaining" for rec players, "pros" must do more and better going forward.

(This is true of "pros" in live games as well as online. A silent, headphone-wearing, live game pro is a parasite in the live game economy, not a boon to the ecosystem. Rec players do NOT mind losing in live games, so long as they get some entertainment value from playing, especially at $1-2 and $2-5 levels.)

Entertainment value must be provided. If "pros" cannot make a living off of "entertaining" formats of online poker, yet those formats draw players, then "pros" will have to adapt or some segment of them will become irrelevant to the poker economy.

There still is no such thing as a free lunch, and the poker industry is not some eternally comped buffet. "Pros", live or online, need to provide an aggregate entertainment value to the ecosystem if they want to feed at the trough or catered to as a group.