If you're in the 23-25%, 48-50%, 73-75%, 98-100% of players in Clarke example you're set. Winning or losing won't matter much if the calculation isn't based on win rate but "skill" instead. Just don't get better by any amount and you can print money.

Anyone play on bovada? Is it worth/possible to deposit money on there?

Stupid poker convo awaking urges.

I have money on there. Not proud of that fact tho

Seriously, I wanna deposit if a site works.

seals and clubs is the best. bitcoins ftw. real easy to deposit and cashout.

Yeah not being able play is so lame

and? I wouldnt really care at all as long as I am not getting bumhunted. I doubt I would be so bad that I would attract the vultures, but you never know. I am sure that a lot of recreational players like myself would like to play for the sake of playing rather than in an attempt to maximize EV. Its taken me about 4 years to miss the game at all, but I wish I could play from time to time now and my hourly win (or loss) rate wouldnt matter much to me as long as it isnt outrageous on the losing side.

sure, but I'd much rather play with either a completely random assortment of people or some casual (regardless of skill level) players than a bunch of nitty pros and a few fish even if it sacrifices winrate.

While I only cared about the money for a few years when I got more serious, I initially started playing bc it was fun and competitive and breaking even while having fun is cheaper than most entertainment. I would love to be able to play as a fun, competitive outlet again. I imagine most non-degens play the game for these reasons and this would attract those players. degens will play anyways so their opinions dont matter.

so you want to play against players who are worse than you and without players better than you.

and you think this setup will create such a situation for you.

lol at u

Huge allure of playing online poker at heavy volume is possibility of getting good enough to make a career out of it, even if you really aren't that good. That is why they bombared us with all these pros in advertisements. Don't see why anyone would even bother if this becomes standard.

some poker sites use bitcoins now?

thought it was funny you could get drugs delivered to your house using the coins.

no. there is a difference btwn bumhunters and better regs. I am perfectly ok being in a game where there are 6 slightly better players and 2 slightly worse players even if this means i am a 1.5bb/100 LOSER. I would prefer this to the state of the games in late 2008 when I stopped playing regularly when tables (and sometimes whole limits) broke when 2 or 3 multitabling fish quit.

I even played HU for a while and deliberately sat with the better players in order to get action and often was denied not because they thought they werent better than me, but that they werent enough better than me for it to be worth their time. thats bad for the games long term.

pure bs here

out of the hundreds of millions of people that have or do play poker I doubt that even 1% of them hoped to make a career out of it. I mean, realistically what, maybe 500k people thought they might have a chance to make a good living doing this and 5-10% of them actually did? I'm sure a lot of you guys have better estimates. If you could lure more of these casual players who play elsewhere into online poker sites it would be good for both the game and the overall player pool even if it does kill off the profession of online poker pro for all but a few dozen or hundred people in the process.

exactly

which part?

i dont feel like grinding wiki rite now but you are clearly suffering from a common bias. that one where you mold the prospects of a scenario so that it seems advantageous to you without realizing the quite obv impact and downside.

i may get to it later.

mostly that you would be happy being a big loser. and that this would stop ppl from bumhunting.

victor, have you ever played craps or any pit games?

some people like those things. I happen to be one of them. I also like poker. In both instances I am willing to take long-term losing gambles for fun and the chance (albeit below 50%) of profit. I will not take gambles with odds that are so tilted against me that they will result in rapid losses nor will I gamble at stakes higher than I am comfortable with. I will also not gamble on things that dont have some entertainment value (craps) or some intellectual stimulation (poker). I sometimes gamble on things where I think I have an edge without the prior conditions being involved (poker at times, sports, prop bets). However, while a perceived edge is a necessary condition for me to 24 table poker, make a sports bet for any amount that matters, or make a prop bet that has no outside entertainment value; it is not necessary if there is other sufficient stimulation or fun to be had.

With regard to these preferences, many people like me exist.

not big. marginal. and as a marginal loser you could be a big loser or big winner for quite a while. I imagine a 1bb/100 loser could probably win 10 BIs a lot of the time due to normal variance. I mean, we've seen guys who are 4bb/100 winners go on 25 BI downswings so we definitely know the converse is possible (4bb/100 loser on a 25 BI upswing). I havent posted in strat forums in quite a while nor do i know what new thoughts are out there, but I imagine that you'd still need 50k-200k hands to differentiate btwn a 1bb/100 loser and a 1bb/100 winner. You simply couldnt do it much faster and if I was a true 0bb/100 winner at a skill level I would be fine playing with a group that is -5 to 5 bb/100 players.

this is just a non sequitor. like wtf is there to address? cool, some ppl like to gamble. just dont see how this new situation would get more ppl gambling.

besides, you already said the reason you would play again is bc you think it would help you make money.

More people are willing to gamble when they know theyre not going to lose it all right away. Have you ever walked into a casino with a non-gambler who wanted to give it a try but only wanted to risk $20, $50, or $100 and wants to try blackjack or something rather than slots? I have had this experience a bunch of times and a lot of them result in them seeing table limits and deciding not to try because $20 is one hand of BJ at a $15 table or they watch for 5 minutes and see someone lose $100. When the only option for a poker game is one in which regs come swarming then lots of players wont play. Look at high stakes private games with people who are independently wealthy and the lengths they go to to keep pros out. Some of the players in the game have to know theyre losers as it stands, but they dont want to lose faster and would quit if that was going to happen.

no, I said I "wouldnt mind trying to make a few extra bucks. " This doesnt imply anything about my ability to do so, just my desire to try.

I think you guys are getting sidetracked.. is it possible to deposit/withdraw money from Bovada or some other site?

CDL, the reason there was a poker boom and not a craps boom is because it drew a ton of people who were smart enough not to degen gamble often, but thought they could have their cake and eat it too with poker, gamble and have a positive expectation at it (though few actually did). This is just making poker more like craps. Obviously there will still be people who prefer this method of flushing their money down the toilet over others, but there is significant downside to this.

As to your previous question, its not just how many people who have ever played poker that is relevant. It is the percentage of people who put significant time (and rake) into it without actually being that good.

exactly, people got into poker because of the perceived notion that everyone else was a fish and you could outsmart them, it's not going to be easy to convince casual players that they're actually bad and you're trying to protect them, the first reaction is always going to be "they're not going to let me play with the fishes"

I am pretty sure that the poker boom and huge wins are strictly associated with mtts. After that some of those players were drawn to cash even though they knew the huge scores weren't available. There is no way they are going to separate player pools in mtts so people will still have their shot to get rich quickly. Even the most delusional fish dont really think they can turn $100 into $1MM at cash games in 2 weeks. They do know you can at mtts though.