Gambling is only a 'problem' if you lose while doing it. stevek has decided that everyone loses at poker, so obviously he figures that there's a direct linear relationship between the amount you play and the size of your problem. I happen to know he's wrong, so I would say that the extent of a 'gambling problem', such as it is, is related to how much one loses relative to one's income/assets.
I guess you could say that a guy who consistently wins is still an addict, although at that point the addiction doesn't really worth talking about.
In any event, your friend's condition aside I think the original point I made was an interesting one. >>
He will hit a HUGE tourney every once in a while but overall he's down. Gets in the mindset of, "lose a few here, win a big one there, it will even out" and doesn't look at the whole picture. Win one tourney for $5k but lose 6 at $1k
Not only does he owe me, along with others, money but the IRS as well
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i><<< But if someone plays poker for 2 months straight 90% of us won't hesitate to say that he has a gambling problem. >>>
Ummm...yes....because that would be true.
The problem with gambling addiction versus other addictions is nobody thinks they are going to get rich drinking whiskey, nobody thinks they are going to get rich snorting cocaine, and nobody thinks they are going to get rich smoking four packs of Camels a day. A gambling addict gets the adrenaline rush thrill physical stimulation of the "gambling high" whether winning or losing money, plus the constant hope that the next bet could win a super jackpot, be the start of a gambling hot streak or maybe just pay the rent. All that combined makes for one tough addiction.
It has been stated that gambling addiction is one of the toughest addictions to break and that may be correct. This is a fact - gambling addiction has the highest suicide rate, and attempted suicide rate, of any other addiction and that includes drug addiction.
Steve >>
That may be true, although that doesn't answer the $64,000 question-- i.e., is the relationship between gambling addiction and suicide a direct causal relationship or a correlative relationship? >>
That is a good question Boo. For example, Las Vegas has the highest suicide rate of any city in the United States. And of course Las Vegas has the most gambling of any city in the United States. The question has been pondered whether or not Las Vegas "gambling" deserves this reputation because possibly those "predisposed" to suicide come to Las Vegas to do it. My opinion is that it may be a bit of both...suicidal people coming to Las Vegas and also that the gambling is a trigger. But the fact remains about suicide rates and gambling addiction as pointed out in the link in my last post.
To answer your question directly - Gambling addiction and suicide is definitely a correlative relationship for some. In my opinion the majority of gambling addiction suicides are from a causal relationship - IE: In the majority of suicides attributed to gambling...I believe it is the lost money, lost assets, huge debts, and other daunting financial burdens as well as devastating personal problems such as divorce that are the main factors. Of course your question will never have a definitive answer because the dead tell no tales.
<< <i><<< But if someone plays poker for 2 months straight 90% of us won't hesitate to say that he has a gambling problem. >>>
Ummm...yes....because that would be true.
The problem with gambling addiction versus other addictions is nobody thinks they are going to get rich drinking whiskey, nobody thinks they are going to get rich snorting cocaine, and nobody thinks they are going to get rich smoking four packs of Camels a day. A gambling addict gets the adrenaline rush thrill physical stimulation of the "gambling high" whether winning or losing money, plus the constant hope that the next bet could win a super jackpot, be the start of a gambling hot streak or maybe just pay the rent. All that combined makes for one tough addiction.
It has been stated that gambling addiction is one of the toughest addictions to break and that may be correct. This is a fact - gambling addiction has the highest suicide rate, and attempted suicide rate, of any other addiction and that includes drug addiction.
Steve >>
This is pretty much what I suspect as well. It almost seems as though there 'has' to be a causal relationship, although I suspect, like you, that it's a little bit of both. That may be true, although that doesn't answer the $64,000 question-- i.e., is the relationship between gambling addiction and suicide a direct causal relationship or a correlative relationship? >>
That is a good question Boo. For example, Las Vegas has the highest suicide rate of any city in the United States. And of course Las Vegas has the most gambling of any city in the United States. The question has been pondered whether or not Las Vegas "gambling" deserves this reputation because possibly those "predisposed" to suicide come to Las Vegas to do it. My opinion is that it may be a bit of both...suicidal people coming to Las Vegas and also that the gambling is a trigger. But the fact remains about suicide rates and gambling addiction as pointed out in the link in my last post.
To answer your question directly - Gambling addiction and suicide is definitely a correlative relationship for some. In my opinion the majority of gambling addiction suicides are from a causal relationship - IE: In the majority of suicides attributed to gambling...I believe it is the lost money, lost assets, huge debts, and other daunting financial burdens as well as devastating personal problems such as divorce that are the main factors. Of course your question will never have a definitive answer because the dead tell no tales.
Gambling is only a 'problem' if you lose while doing it. stevek has decided that everyone loses at poker, so obviously he figures that there's a direct linear relationship between the amount you play and the size of your problem. I happen to know he's wrong, so I would say that the extent of a 'gambling problem', such as it is, is related to how much one loses relative to one's income/assets.
I guess you could say that a guy who consistently wins is still an addict, although at that point the addiction doesn't really worth talking about.
In any event, your friend's condition aside I think the original point I made was an interesting one. >>
He will hit a HUGE tourney every once in a while but overall he's down. Gets in the mindset of, "lose a few here, win a big one there, it will even out" and doesn't look at the whole picture. Win one tourney for $5k but lose 6 at $1k
Not only does he owe me, along with others, money but the IRS as well >>
There is a term for friends like yours-- 'variance consumers'.
BTW, you won't be doing him or yourself any favors if you lend him any more money. Let him hit rock bottom. Otherwise he'll just keep drifting.
<< <i>There is a term for friends like yours-- 'variance consumers'.
BTW, you won't be doing him or yourself any favors if you lend him any more money. Let him hit rock bottom. Otherwise he'll just keep drifting. >>
Oh believe me, he's cut off. Wish I did it a while ago but I felt bad for the guy. And it wasn't just me but all of our friends.
Oh well, live and learn.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Gambling is only a 'problem' if you lose while doing it. stevek has decided that everyone loses at poker, so obviously he figures that there's a direct linear relationship between the amount you play and the size of your problem. I happen to know he's wrong, so I would say that the extent of a 'gambling problem', such as it is, is related to how much one loses relative to one's income/assets.
I guess you could say that a guy who consistently wins is still an addict, although at that point the addiction doesn't really worth talking about.
In any event, your friend's condition aside I think the original point I made was an interesting one. >>
He will hit a HUGE tourney every once in a while but overall he's down. Gets in the mindset of, "lose a few here, win a big one there, it will even out" and doesn't look at the whole picture. Win one tourney for $5k but lose 6 at $1k
Not only does he owe me, along with others, money but the IRS as well >>
Perfect point by Stown!
<<< Gambling is only a 'problem' if you lose while doing it. stevek has decided that everyone loses at poker >>>
Now, now Boo...you should know that you aren't quoting me accurately. I have clearly stated that poker played without a rake is a game of pure skill whereby the best players will win money in the long-run...most poker players who play in private games already realize this. I have also stated that raked poker played online or in a casino cannot be beat in the long-run, and I firmly stand by that statement because nobody yet have proven me incorrect...NOBODY...and nobody ever will because they can't. But let's please stick to the topic of addiction here okay? I don't care to respond to further comments about raked poker in this thread. Thanks!
Well I guess this thread has kind of strayed IMO. We went from Poker to gambling in general, which covers a vast array of things. Hell, people that play Russian Roulette are gambling and possibly committing suicide, so they certainly increase the percentages
Gambling is only a 'problem' if you lose while doing it. stevek has decided that everyone loses at poker, so obviously he figures that there's a direct linear relationship between the amount you play and the size of your problem. I happen to know he's wrong, so I would say that the extent of a 'gambling problem', such as it is, is related to how much one loses relative to one's income/assets.
I guess you could say that a guy who consistently wins is still an addict, although at that point the addiction doesn't really worth talking about.
In any event, your friend's condition aside I think the original point I made was an interesting one. >>
He will hit a HUGE tourney every once in a while but overall he's down. Gets in the mindset of, "lose a few here, win a big one there, it will even out" and doesn't look at the whole picture. Win one tourney for $5k but lose 6 at $1k
Not only does he owe me, along with others, money but the IRS as well >>
Perfect point by Stown!
<<< Gambling is only a 'problem' if you lose while doing it. stevek has decided that everyone loses at poker >>>
Now, now Boo...you should know that you aren't quoting me accurately. I have clearly stated that poker played without a rake is a game of pure skill whereby the best players will win money in the long-run...most poker players who play in private games already realize this. I have also stated that raked poker played online or in a casino cannot be beat in the long-run, and I firmly stand by that statement because nobody yet have proven me incorrect...NOBODY...and nobody ever will because they can't. But let's please stick to the topic of addiction here okay? I don't care to respond to further comments about raked poker in this thread. Thanks!
When your teenage son or daughter heads over to their friend's house for a night of innocent poker or other card game, that's much better than sending them off to a bar or a house party, right? Maybe not.
Young people aged 18 to 24 have the highest incidence of gambling problems compared to other age groups, according to the Responsible Gambling Council. Our area is not immune to this trend, as the Homewood Community Addiction Services, which helps young people combat gambling problems, has seen its caseload double in the past four years. It is a scary thought, but one that continues to grow, especially with the help of multi-million-dollar televised poker championships and winners of large jackpots being portrayed as heroes.
Gamblers are often portrayed as stereotypical slot-machine addicts or people with deep, dark secrets who are sneaking out of the house and gambling away their families' savings. The reality is much worse and parents may not think of gambling in the way it actually plays out with young people today. Buying lottery tickets or playing poker in your buddy's basement on a regular basis can lead to problems -- big, expensive, emotional problems.
Tailoring counselling and other programs to youth is one way to help them understand the problem and get help. A play showing up on the Ontario high school circuit works to reach youth on their own territory and portray gambling as a problem, not a cool way to make some cash on the side.
Earlier this month, the Mercury detailed the life of University of Guelph student Mark Zettel, a 20-year-old who was making thousands playing poker online five or six hours per night, much more cash than many of his peers made working part-time jobs. After realizing he didn't like how moody he felt when he was losing, he decided to scale back the play. For many others his age, however, changing habits and removing themselves from the gambling world is not something they can do alone.
A poll released by the Responsible Gambling Council found that 37 per cent of those aged 18 to 34 play poker for money. Card games are not as harmless as they seem, or as good an alternative for teenagers that some parents may believe them to be. Poker, like all forms of gambling, can be habit forming. If young people become hooked before they are even 20, it is hard to think what might transpire in their lives if their play gets out of hand and they fail to get help.
<< <i>A poll released by the Responsible Gambling Council found that 37 per cent of those aged 18 to 34 play poker for money. Card games are not as harmless as they seem, or as good an alternative for teenagers that some parents may believe them to be. Poker, like all forms of gambling, can be habit forming. If young people become hooked before they are even 20, it is hard to think what might transpire in their lives if their play gets out of hand and they fail to get help. >>
So 18-34, 37% play poker for money. Right off you're thinking 'wow', but let's take a look at that.
-they don't specify how often they are playing for money. -they don't specify how much they are play for.
They quote a stat of '18-34', then immediately after talk about what will happen if they get 'hooked' before they reach 20...what happens to someone who gets hooked when they are older?
<< <i>Never gamble with money you can't lose. My grandfather once told me this... >>
Good advice. And also good advice is don't gamble on games in which there is no chance to make money in the long-run. Raked poker is for suckers, chumps and fish.
You wanna "gamble"?.....fine.....then do it in smart ways such as buying real estate, long term stock investments, or starting your own business - that's taking a chance the right way in which long term there can be an excellent opportunity for success!
On a side note, I alway played on Party Poker. The day the bill was passed, my account was shut down.
Are there still REPUTABLE online sites where I can still play for real money???? What method of deposits and money transfers to you use? Are they safe? Legal ramifications now???
I need a fix.
Even if I agree with you Steve (which I'm not sure I do), I still like to play for a little fun. And if I blow a $100 a week, it's still cheaper than a date at the movies and dinner out with a couple of drinks.
<< <i>PokerStars Game #7238545184: Hold'em No Limit (25.00/$50.00) - 2006/11/30 - 11:50:52 (ET) Table 'Phaedra IV' 6-max Seat #6 is the button Seat 1: rikker1 ($1129.25 in chips) Seat 3: mujully ($9441.80 in chips) Seat 4: WolfOnlce ($6949.25 in chips) Seat 5: DAINFINITE1 ($7567.35 in chips) Seat 6: Murdering_M ($5550.10 in chips) rikker1: posts small blind $25.00 mujully: posts big blind $50.00 *** HOLE CARDS *** Dealt to DAINFINITE1 [As Ac] WolfOnlce: raises $50.00 to $200 DAINFINITE1: raises $225.00 to $700.00 Murdering_M: folds rikker1: folds mujully: calls $700.00 WolfOnlce: folds *** FLOP *** [Ad 4d 4s] mujully: checks DAINFINITE1: checks *** TURN *** [Ad 4d 4s] [Kh] mujully: checks DAINFINITE1: checks *** RIVER *** [Ad 4d 4s Kh] [8c] mujully: bets $1200.00 DAINFINITE1: raises $4500.00 to $5700.00 mujully: calls $4500.00 *** SHOW DOWN *** DAINFINITE1: shows [As Ac] (a full house, Aces full of Fours) mujully: mucks hand DAINFINITE1 collected $ 13205.00 from pot DAINFINITE1 is sitting out *** SUMMARY *** Total pot $13205.00 | Rake $3 Board [Ad 4d 4s Kh 8c] Seat 1: rikker1 (small blind) folded before Flop Seat 3: mujully (big blind) mucked [Kd Qh] Seat 4: WolfOnlce folded before Flop Seat 5: DAINFINITE1 showed [As Ac] and won ($13205.00) with a full house, Aces full of Fours Seat 6: Murdering_M (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
I love raked poker, looks like my family will get some good christmas presents. >>
Good for you. But then sometime, possibly tomorrow, possibly the next hand, your opponent is going to have pocket 4's and bury you. You gonna post that hand? No...you'll probably quit playing raked poker...an expensive lesson learned.
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
I agree with you about poker in private games but not poker in raked games. Admittedly I think Randymoss84 played that hand nicely with the two checks. But there's still that variance at play whereby the other player could have been slow playing pocket 4's and Randymoss84 gets crushed instead.
And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.
I have not seen any documented proof whereby anyone can overcome rakes like this in the long-run. Yes, some fortunate player can get a huge positive variance of winning say a million dollar online tournament, which is basically like hitting a lottery - then it might take many years for the rake to grind out his bankroll, all things being equal. But the math is clear...eventually given enough time and enough hands the rake, even a small rake, grinds out all bankrolls. There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake.
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
I agree with you about poker in private games but not poker in raked games. Admittedly I think Randymoss84 played that hand nicely with the two checks. But there's still that variance at play whereby the other player could have been slow playing pocket 4's and Randymoss84 gets crushed instead.
And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.
I have not seen any documented proof whereby anyone can overcome rakes like this in the long-run. Yes, some fortunate player can get a huge positive variance of winning say a million dollar online tournament, which is basically like hitting a lottery - then it might take many years for the rake to grind out his bankroll, all things being equal. But the math is clear...eventually given enough time and enough hands the rake, even a small rake, grinds out all bankrolls. There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake.
Steve >>
Steve,
You've said before that you believe a non raked game can be beaten, but that a raked game cannot be. Can you tell me what, in your opinion, is the largest win rate that a player playing in a non raked game can hope to attain? If you could, phrase your answer in terms of big bets per hour. If we take something like a $2-$4 poker game, for instance, you might say that a non raked game can be beaten for one 'small bet' per hour, which in this case would be $2, or one 'big bet' per hour (which in this case would be $4), or some fraction thereof.
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
A loser man a loser. The overbet is so easy to spot. I was ROFL when he called. You'd think when you move up in limits they'd get better.
Steve- I could live my life being scared, yes. Heck I could die tomorow in a car accident, get robbed anything, but then again live life to the fullest and for the moment. If he had 44 then he played it well.
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
I agree with you about poker in private games but not poker in raked games. Admittedly I think Randymoss84 played that hand nicely with the two checks. But there's still that variance at play whereby the other player could have been slow playing pocket 4's and Randymoss84 gets crushed instead.
And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.
I have not seen any documented proof whereby anyone can overcome rakes like this in the long-run. Yes, some fortunate player can get a huge positive variance of winning say a million dollar online tournament, which is basically like hitting a lottery - then it might take many years for the rake to grind out his bankroll, all things being equal. But the math is clear...eventually given enough time and enough hands the rake, even a small rake, grinds out all bankrolls. There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake.
Steve >>
Hey steve, there are options called rake back for online sites. They pay you up to 2/3rds of your rake back to play and sign up under them via sites. If your not to lazy and do research you can beat rake, just gotta have motavation. Also private games, I'd never bring 10k into a private game for fear of cheating, Getting arrested(it is a illegal you know) or not getting my money if a big hand went down IE robbed or them running out without paying.
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
I agree with you about poker in private games but not poker in raked games. Admittedly I think Randymoss84 played that hand nicely with the two checks. But there's still that variance at play whereby the other player could have been slow playing pocket 4's and Randymoss84 gets crushed instead.
And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.
I have not seen any documented proof whereby anyone can overcome rakes like this in the long-run. Yes, some fortunate player can get a huge positive variance of winning say a million dollar online tournament, which is basically like hitting a lottery - then it might take many years for the rake to grind out his bankroll, all things being equal. But the math is clear...eventually given enough time and enough hands the rake, even a small rake, grinds out all bankrolls. There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake.
Steve >>
Steve,
You've said before that you believe a non raked game can be beaten, but that a raked game cannot be. Can you tell me what, in your opinion, is the largest win rate that a player playing in a non raked game can hope to attain? If you could, phrase your answer in terms of big bets per hour. If we take something like a $2-$4 poker game, for instance, you might say that a non raked game can be beaten for one 'small bet' per hour, which in this case would be $2, or one 'big bet' per hour (which in this case would be $4), or some fraction thereof. >>
I don't have to "believe" a non-raked game can be beaten...I already know and most poker players who play in private games already know that the best players do win money in the long-run. The fact that the best players win money in private poker really is not debatable - poker played in private games is strictly a game of pure skill.
Poker played against a rake is a game of skill only to the extent that skill will allow a player to lose their money slower - but eventually their bankroll will be lost. In theory it sounds logical that all a player has to do to win against a rake is be a percentage better than the other players versus the rake percentage. But in practice it doesn't work. And the fact is that nobody has ever proven with documented evidence that they are beating a rake long term.
Granted, if a skilled player was only ever playing little old ladies from Pasadena who knew absolutely nothing about poker, then yes a rake could likely be beat. But little old ladies from Pasadena aren't playing online poker. If they gamble online they are playing non-thinking games such as slots and roulette. Those who understand poker only a little bit generally play video poker.
Those who at least know the rudimentary fundamentals of poker for the most part play in skill levels according to pot value. Yes, there can be some excellent players at microlimits and some unskilled players at high no limit games, but that is not the usual case. For the most part, the dollar value of the pots determines the skill levels. In a nutshell, generally you're not going to find Phil Ivey playing in a low limit game. But you know what?...with the brutal rake at low limits, even Phil would still lose money in the long-run.
Answering your question about big bets. Now how on earth are you going to accurately predict that? Especially online where it is basically impossible to get tells from any players. All you're looking at is their chip stack and how long it takes them to make a bet. Not any sort of real opportunity to get accurate tells there is it? So basically for the most part sometimes on your big bets preflop, you're going to have QQ versus JJ, and sometimes you're going to have JJ versus QQ - random luck. Postflop there's more skill involved but still there's a lot of luck involved as well. You could flop say trip A's (not a set) and your opponent also flops trip A's but has a better kicker and winds up winning the pot - again...random luck with a big bet win or lose. But the rake is not random...it is constantly eating away and grinding out a bankroll.
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
I agree with you about poker in private games but not poker in raked games. Admittedly I think Randymoss84 played that hand nicely with the two checks. But there's still that variance at play whereby the other player could have been slow playing pocket 4's and Randymoss84 gets crushed instead.
And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.
I have not seen any documented proof whereby anyone can overcome rakes like this in the long-run. Yes, some fortunate player can get a huge positive variance of winning say a million dollar online tournament, which is basically like hitting a lottery - then it might take many years for the rake to grind out his bankroll, all things being equal. But the math is clear...eventually given enough time and enough hands the rake, even a small rake, grinds out all bankrolls. There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake.
Steve >>
Steve,
You've said before that you believe a non raked game can be beaten, but that a raked game cannot be. Can you tell me what, in your opinion, is the largest win rate that a player playing in a non raked game can hope to attain? If you could, phrase your answer in terms of big bets per hour. If we take something like a $2-$4 poker game, for instance, you might say that a non raked game can be beaten for one 'small bet' per hour, which in this case would be $2, or one 'big bet' per hour (which in this case would be $4), or some fraction thereof. >>
I don't have to "believe" a non-raked game can be beaten...I already know and most poker players who play in private games already know that the best players do win money in the long-run. The fact that the best players win money in private poker really is not debatable - poker played in private games is strictly a game of pure skill.
Poker played against a rake is a game of skill only to the extent that skill will allow a player to lose their money slower - but eventually their bankroll will be lost. In theory it sounds logical that all a player has to do to win against a rake is be a percentage better than the other players versus the rake percentage. But in practice it doesn't work. And the fact is that nobody has ever proven with documented evidence that they are beating a rake long term.
Granted, if a skilled player was only ever playing little old ladies from Pasadena who knew absolutely nothing about poker, then yes a rake could likely be beat. But little old ladies from Pasadena aren't playing online poker. If they gamble online they are playing non-thinking games such as slots and roulette. Those who understand poker only a little bit generally play video poker.
Those who at least know the rudimentary fundamentals of poker for the most part play in skill levels according to pot value. Yes, there can be some excellent players at microlimits and some unskilled players at high no limit games, but that is not the usual case. For the most part, the dollar value of the pots determines the skill levels. In a nutshell, generally you're not going to find Phil Ivey playing in a low limit game. But you know what?...with the brutal rake at low limits, even Phil would still lose money in the long-run.
Answering your question about big bets. Now how on earth are you going to accurately predict that? Especially online where it is basically impossible to get tells from any players. All you're looking at is their chip stack and how long it takes them to make a bet. Not any sort of real opportunity to get accurate tells there is it? So basically for the most part sometimes on your big bets preflop, you're going to have QQ versus JJ, and sometimes you're going to have JJ versus QQ - random luck. Postflop there's more skill involved but still there's a lot of luck involved as well. You could flop say trip A's (not a set) and your opponent also flops trip A's but has a better kicker and winds up winning the pot - again...random luck with a big bet win or lose. But the rake is not random...it is constantly eating away and grinding out a bankroll.
Steve >>
I cashed out all but 100 bucks to see if I could beat the micro limits. The rake is pretty wack there. 3 bucks for pots of 50 bucks. I ended up getting it all in QQ vs a5 and lost a race. Oh well, my truck is getting new rims thanks to KQ.
<<< Steve- I could live my life being scared, yes. Heck I could die tomorow in a car accident, get robbed anything, but then again live life to the fullest and for the moment. If he had 44 then he played it well. >>>
Second Post:
<<< Also private games, I'd never bring 10k into a private game for fear of cheating, Getting arrested(it is a illegal you know) or not getting my money if a big hand went down IE robbed or them running out without paying. >>>
Seems like a bit of a contradiction there - LOL. I'm just kidding a bit but what I'm not kidding about and what you don't realize is that all online poker players are the fish...you just haven't been eaten yet. The only sharks are the gambling website owners and they don't take prisoners. Somehow, someway, possibly when you least expect it...you will lose your bankroll gambling online - just a question of when.
You can do all the rakeback deals you want, and do anything else you want - it won't help you in the long-run. Rakeback only allows you to lose your money slower. Hey...I sure hate to spoil anybody's fantasy dream about supplementing their income or making a living playing online poker, and you know...possibly hanging out with Calvin Ayre and dating supermodels. I fully understand the attraction and addiction of gambling. But somebody has to tell you so it might as well be me...and frankly it bothers me when clever gambling website owners prey on their customers. They get rich while their customers get poor.
You seem like an intelligent young man...hopefully you'll figure this all out sooner or later...that no matter how they spin it, you are never going to beat online poker in the long-run. Keep this in mind...there have been millions of online poker players and there has never been one single properly documented winner in the long-run - not one. Of course I've seen guys like you before...you think even if that's the case that you might be the first long term winner - unrealistic fantasy dreams like that can be a sign of gambling addiction.
<<< Steve- I could live my life being scared, yes. Heck I could die tomorow in a car accident, get robbed anything, but then again live life to the fullest and for the moment. If he had 44 then he played it well. >>>
Second Post:
<<< Also private games, I'd never bring 10k into a private game for fear of cheating, Getting arrested(it is a illegal you know) or not getting my money if a big hand went down IE robbed or them running out without paying. >>>
Seems like a bit of a contradiction there - LOL. I'm just kidding a bit but what I'm not kidding about and what you don't realize is that all online poker players are the fish...you just haven't been eaten yet. The only sharks are the gambling website owners and they don't take prisoners. Somehow, someway, possibly when you least expect it...you will lose your bankroll gambling online - just a question of when.
You can do all the rakeback deals you want, and do anything else you want - it won't help you in the long-run. Rakeback only allows you to lose your money slower. Hey...I sure hate to spoil anybody's fantasy dream about supplementing their income or making a living playing online poker, and you know...possibly hanging out with Calvin Ayre and dating supermodels. I fully understand the attraction and addiction of gambling. But somebody has to tell you so it might as well be me...and frankly it bothers me when clever gambling website owners prey on their customers. They get rich while their customers get poor.
You seem like an intelligent young man...hopefully you'll figure this all out sooner or later...that no matter how they spin it, you are never going to beat online poker in the long-run. Keep this in mind...there have been millions of online poker players and there has never been one single properly documented winner in the long-run - not one. Of course I've seen guys like you before...you think even if that's the case that you might be the first long term winner - unrealistic fantasy dreams like that can be a sign of gambling addiction.
Steve >>
I rarely play online poker, I was just dang board in my lecture class today so I put some money on pokerstars. When I won, I was in class and the guy behind me was watching and hit me in the back saying wow.
<<< I cashed out all but 100 bucks to see if I could beat the micro limits. The rake is pretty wack there. 3 bucks for pots of 50 bucks. I ended up getting it all in QQ vs a5 and lost a race. Oh well, my truck is getting new rims thanks to KQ. >>>
Smart move man - I hope you stay cashed out - take the money and run. Unfortunately, I haven't known a gambler yet who quit while they were ahead at raked poker. I thought David Williams was going to be the first one when after he won some big money in a tournament, stated that he was strongly considering quitting while he was ahead...but he went back.
That "pull" for him and everyone else winning a big buck at poker and then believing they have become a poker playing genius...that pull is usually too strong to resist. Of course Williams now has a poker related website, so maybe the move to continue playing is a good business decision for him whereby even if he loses money in tournaments, by staying public he can attract gamblers to his website and hopefully they'll click on the gambling website links and signup so Williams receives his affiliate commissions off of their losses. I have read where some affiliate commission programs pay up to 50% commission. So overall Williams still profits and maybe profits big.
<< <i><<< I cashed out all but 100 bucks to see if I could beat the micro limits. The rake is pretty wack there. 3 bucks for pots of 50 bucks. I ended up getting it all in QQ vs a5 and lost a race. Oh well, my truck is getting new rims thanks to KQ. >>>
Smart move man - I hope you stay cashed out - take the money and run. Unfortunately, I haven't known a gambler yet who quit while they were ahead at raked poker. I thought David Williams was going to be the first one when after he won some big money in a tournament, stated that he was strongly considering quitting while he was ahead...but he went back.
That "pull" for him and everyone else winning a big buck at poker and then believing they have become a poker playing genius...that pull is usually too strong to resist. Of course Williams now has a poker related website, so maybe the move to continue playing is a good business decision for him whereby even if he loses money in tournaments, by staying public he can attract gamblers to his website and hopefully they'll click on the gambling website links and signup so Williams receives his affiliate commissions off of their losses. I have read where some affiliate commission programs pay up to 50% commission. So overall Williams still profits and maybe profits big.
Steve >>
I watched David Williams play at FTP and he dropped 18k in 2 hours vs Mike the mouth in OMAHA 8. Mikey is very good at OMaha8 and not sure why people play him at that game, play him at NL and he will hand you money.... Supposedly David said he had a 120k bankroll before coming 2nd in that tourny.
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
I agree with you about poker in private games but not poker in raked games. Admittedly I think Randymoss84 played that hand nicely with the two checks. But there's still that variance at play whereby the other player could have been slow playing pocket 4's and Randymoss84 gets crushed instead.
And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.
I have not seen any documented proof whereby anyone can overcome rakes like this in the long-run. Yes, some fortunate player can get a huge positive variance of winning say a million dollar online tournament, which is basically like hitting a lottery - then it might take many years for the rake to grind out his bankroll, all things being equal. But the math is clear...eventually given enough time and enough hands the rake, even a small rake, grinds out all bankrolls. There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake.
Steve >>
Steve,
You've said before that you believe a non raked game can be beaten, but that a raked game cannot be. Can you tell me what, in your opinion, is the largest win rate that a player playing in a non raked game can hope to attain? If you could, phrase your answer in terms of big bets per hour. If we take something like a $2-$4 poker game, for instance, you might say that a non raked game can be beaten for one 'small bet' per hour, which in this case would be $2, or one 'big bet' per hour (which in this case would be $4), or some fraction thereof. >>
I don't have to "believe" a non-raked game can be beaten...I already know and most poker players who play in private games already know that the best players do win money in the long-run. The fact that the best players win money in private poker really is not debatable - poker played in private games is strictly a game of pure skill.
Poker played against a rake is a game of skill only to the extent that skill will allow a player to lose their money slower - but eventually their bankroll will be lost. In theory it sounds logical that all a player has to do to win against a rake is be a percentage better than the other players versus the rake percentage. But in practice it doesn't work. And the fact is that nobody has ever proven with documented evidence that they are beating a rake long term.
Granted, if a skilled player was only ever playing little old ladies from Pasadena who knew absolutely nothing about poker, then yes a rake could likely be beat. But little old ladies from Pasadena aren't playing online poker. If they gamble online they are playing non-thinking games such as slots and roulette. Those who understand poker only a little bit generally play video poker.
Those who at least know the rudimentary fundamentals of poker for the most part play in skill levels according to pot value. Yes, there can be some excellent players at microlimits and some unskilled players at high no limit games, but that is not the usual case. For the most part, the dollar value of the pots determines the skill levels. In a nutshell, generally you're not going to find Phil Ivey playing in a low limit game. But you know what?...with the brutal rake at low limits, even Phil would still lose money in the long-run.
Answering your question about big bets. Now how on earth are you going to accurately predict that? Especially online where it is basically impossible to get tells from any players. All you're looking at is their chip stack and how long it takes them to make a bet. Not any sort of real opportunity to get accurate tells there is it? So basically for the most part sometimes on your big bets preflop, you're going to have QQ versus JJ, and sometimes you're going to have JJ versus QQ - random luck. Postflop there's more skill involved but still there's a lot of luck involved as well. You could flop say trip A's (not a set) and your opponent also flops trip A's but has a better kicker and winds up winning the pot - again...random luck with a big bet win or lose. But the rake is not random...it is constantly eating away and grinding out a bankroll.
Steve >>
Two things:
1) Your argument that the players get better as the stakes increase has one very conspicuous flaw-- i.e., that whether they do, in fact, get better is not nearly as important as HOW much better. If you are playing against terrible players in a microlimit game, and average-to-mediocre players in a 15-30 game, then the fact that the players have gotten 'better' isn't particularly important. Also, I would add that the stakes which most players choose to play at is more of a function of risk tolerance and financial constraint then it is of playing ability--- a fact that you can readily verify, if you so choose, by watching the players in an online 2-4 game and then watching the players in a 20-40 game. You will, in most instances, see the players in both games making similar pre and post flop mistakes.
2) For some reason you choose to ignore the fact that the rake is capped-- usually at $3 when the pot reaches $60. This holds for all games. Thus, the most that a pot will be raked at 1-2 is $3, and the most that a pot at $100-$200 will be raked is $3. If you assume that a strong player in a 10 handed game will win about 7% of the total pots, and that the average pot is 5 big bets, then the 'rake responsibility' of a playing in a 2-4 game is about $4.55 (or one big bet) per hour, while the same number for a $15-$30 player is around $13 (or, to put it another way, about 40% of the rake paid by a 2-4 player when you translate the number into big bets). For players playing higher the number obviously decreases.
The implication here, I hope, is obvious. If you want to say that 'no raked game is beatable' then you're assuming that the most a player could hope to win in a rake-free game at the 15-30 level is 40% of a big bet per hour, the most a 2-4 player could hope to win in the same game is 1 big bet per hour, and the most that a $50-$100 player could hope to win would be around 25% of a big bet per hour. Yet these numbers are dependant on the notion-- a notion, I might add, which does not have any empiracle foundation-- that at each successive increase in stakes the players improve at a ratio that negates the ever decreasing rake responsibility of each player.
How can you determine whether a game is 'soft' or 'tight'? One quick and generally accurate way to do this is to go to any online poker room and look at both the average pot size and the average number of players to see the flop in any given room. Most rooms give you these numbers. If you check this out you will see, on average, that most games above the $.50-$1.00 level will have an average pot size of about 5 big bets, and a '% of players to the flop' number in the 27%-35% range. So long as you agree that the playing ability of a given player is determined largely by a) the % of the time he voluntarily enters a pot, and b) the % of the time he continues on with a hand after the flop, then you by necessity must agree that the above two stastics are a fairly reliable measurement of a game's 'toughness'. If this is true, then you would expect both of these numbers to decrease-- and probably decrease significantly-- as the stakes go up. But they do not.
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
I agree with you about poker in private games but not poker in raked games. Admittedly I think Randymoss84 played that hand nicely with the two checks. But there's still that variance at play whereby the other player could have been slow playing pocket 4's and Randymoss84 gets crushed instead.
And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.
I have not seen any documented proof whereby anyone can overcome rakes like this in the long-run. Yes, some fortunate player can get a huge positive variance of winning say a million dollar online tournament, which is basically like hitting a lottery - then it might take many years for the rake to grind out his bankroll, all things being equal. But the math is clear...eventually given enough time and enough hands the rake, even a small rake, grinds out all bankrolls. There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake.
Steve >>
Steve,
You've said before that you believe a non raked game can be beaten, but that a raked game cannot be. Can you tell me what, in your opinion, is the largest win rate that a player playing in a non raked game can hope to attain? If you could, phrase your answer in terms of big bets per hour. If we take something like a $2-$4 poker game, for instance, you might say that a non raked game can be beaten for one 'small bet' per hour, which in this case would be $2, or one 'big bet' per hour (which in this case would be $4), or some fraction thereof. >>
I don't have to "believe" a non-raked game can be beaten...I already know and most poker players who play in private games already know that the best players do win money in the long-run. The fact that the best players win money in private poker really is not debatable - poker played in private games is strictly a game of pure skill.
Poker played against a rake is a game of skill only to the extent that skill will allow a player to lose their money slower - but eventually their bankroll will be lost. In theory it sounds logical that all a player has to do to win against a rake is be a percentage better than the other players versus the rake percentage. But in practice it doesn't work. And the fact is that nobody has ever proven with documented evidence that they are beating a rake long term.
Granted, if a skilled player was only ever playing little old ladies from Pasadena who knew absolutely nothing about poker, then yes a rake could likely be beat. But little old ladies from Pasadena aren't playing online poker. If they gamble online they are playing non-thinking games such as slots and roulette. Those who understand poker only a little bit generally play video poker.
Those who at least know the rudimentary fundamentals of poker for the most part play in skill levels according to pot value. Yes, there can be some excellent players at microlimits and some unskilled players at high no limit games, but that is not the usual case. For the most part, the dollar value of the pots determines the skill levels. In a nutshell, generally you're not going to find Phil Ivey playing in a low limit game. But you know what?...with the brutal rake at low limits, even Phil would still lose money in the long-run.
Answering your question about big bets. Now how on earth are you going to accurately predict that? Especially online where it is basically impossible to get tells from any players. All you're looking at is their chip stack and how long it takes them to make a bet. Not any sort of real opportunity to get accurate tells there is it? So basically for the most part sometimes on your big bets preflop, you're going to have QQ versus JJ, and sometimes you're going to have JJ versus QQ - random luck. Postflop there's more skill involved but still there's a lot of luck involved as well. You could flop say trip A's (not a set) and your opponent also flops trip A's but has a better kicker and winds up winning the pot - again...random luck with a big bet win or lose. But the rake is not random...it is constantly eating away and grinding out a bankroll.
Steve >>
Two things:
1) Your argument that the players get better as the stakes increase has one very conspicuous flaw-- i.e., that whether they do, in fact, get better is not nearly as important as HOW much better. If you are playing against terrible players in a microlimit game, and average-to-mediocre players in a 15-30 game, then the fact that the players have gotten 'better' isn't particularly important. Also, I would add that the stakes which most players choose to play at is more of a function of risk tolerance and financial constraint then it is of playing ability--- a fact that you can readily verify, if you so choose, by watching the players in an online 2-4 game and then watching the players in a 20-40 game. You will, in most instances, see the players in both games making similar pre and post flop mistakes.
2) For some reason you choose to ignore the fact that the rake is capped-- usually at $3 when the pot reaches $60. This holds for all games. Thus, the most that a pot will be raked at 1-2 is $3, and the most that a pot at $100-$200 will be raked is $3. If you assume that a strong player in a 10 handed game will win about 7% of the total pots, and that the average pot is 5 big bets, then the 'rake responsibility' of a playing in a 2-4 game is about $4.55 (or one big bet) per hour, while the same number for a $15-$30 player is around $13 (or, to put it another way, about 40% of the rake paid by a 2-4 player when you translate the number into big bets). For players playing higher the number obviously decreases.
The implication here, I hope, is obvious. If you want to say that 'no raked game is beatable' then you're assuming that the most a player could hope to win in a rake-free game at the 15-30 level is 40% of a big bet per hour, the most a 2-4 player could hope to win in the same game is 1 big bet per hour, and the most that a $50-$100 player could hope to win would be around 25% of a big bet per hour. Yet these numbers are dependant on the notion-- a notion, I might add, which does not have any empiracle foundation-- that at each successive increase in stakes the players improve at a ratio that negates the ever decreasing rake responsibility of each player.
How can you determine whether a game is 'soft' or 'tight'? One quick and generally accurate way to do this is to go to any online poker room and look at both the average pot size and the average number of players to see the flop in any given room. Most rooms give you these numbers. If you check this out you will see, on average, that most games above the $.50-$1.00 level will have an average pot size of about 5 big bets, and a '% of players to the flop' number in the 27%-35% range. So long as you agree that the playing ability of a given player is determined largely by a) the % of the time he voluntarily enters a pot, and b) the % of the time he continues on with a hand after the flop, then you by necessity must agree that the above two stastics are a fairly reliable measurement of a game's 'toughness'. If this is true, then you would expect both of these numbers to decrease-- and probably decrease significantly-- as the stakes go up. But they do not. >>
Boo I clearly understand the "cap" because I used a set $2 number to illustrate the example of you having played 1.4 million hands of poker. Maybe you didn't read my previous post in this thread....." And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.".....so frankly, I don't see how it's possible for you to overcome $500,000 in rake.
Can anyone overcome $500,000 in rake? Well I have watched those guys play on the internet for high stakes. I once watched Mike Matusow lose well over 60K in chips in about twenty minutes. With average pots of 5K, 10K and more, admittedly it could take quite awhile, perhaps years, for a small rake to take affect with some players given variances involved and the size of their bankroll.
But here's the basic dilemma for any online poker player...in the long-run the variances tend to even out....but the rake doesn't even out.....it keeps accumulating to the point where it eventually crushes an online bankroll - just a question of when. Yes, the pot rake is capped but the $500,000 rake figure isn't capped as long as you continue playing online poker. It keeps on growing like an incurable malignant tumor to a bankroll.
Bottom line - There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake. Need scientific proof based on observation? - There has never been one, NOT ONE single properly documented case of anyone ever beating the rake in the long-run.
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
I agree with you about poker in private games but not poker in raked games. Admittedly I think Randymoss84 played that hand nicely with the two checks. But there's still that variance at play whereby the other player could have been slow playing pocket 4's and Randymoss84 gets crushed instead.
And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.
I have not seen any documented proof whereby anyone can overcome rakes like this in the long-run. Yes, some fortunate player can get a huge positive variance of winning say a million dollar online tournament, which is basically like hitting a lottery - then it might take many years for the rake to grind out his bankroll, all things being equal. But the math is clear...eventually given enough time and enough hands the rake, even a small rake, grinds out all bankrolls. There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake.
Steve >>
Steve,
You've said before that you believe a non raked game can be beaten, but that a raked game cannot be. Can you tell me what, in your opinion, is the largest win rate that a player playing in a non raked game can hope to attain? If you could, phrase your answer in terms of big bets per hour. If we take something like a $2-$4 poker game, for instance, you might say that a non raked game can be beaten for one 'small bet' per hour, which in this case would be $2, or one 'big bet' per hour (which in this case would be $4), or some fraction thereof. >>
I don't have to "believe" a non-raked game can be beaten...I already know and most poker players who play in private games already know that the best players do win money in the long-run. The fact that the best players win money in private poker really is not debatable - poker played in private games is strictly a game of pure skill.
Poker played against a rake is a game of skill only to the extent that skill will allow a player to lose their money slower - but eventually their bankroll will be lost. In theory it sounds logical that all a player has to do to win against a rake is be a percentage better than the other players versus the rake percentage. But in practice it doesn't work. And the fact is that nobody has ever proven with documented evidence that they are beating a rake long term.
Granted, if a skilled player was only ever playing little old ladies from Pasadena who knew absolutely nothing about poker, then yes a rake could likely be beat. But little old ladies from Pasadena aren't playing online poker. If they gamble online they are playing non-thinking games such as slots and roulette. Those who understand poker only a little bit generally play video poker.
Those who at least know the rudimentary fundamentals of poker for the most part play in skill levels according to pot value. Yes, there can be some excellent players at microlimits and some unskilled players at high no limit games, but that is not the usual case. For the most part, the dollar value of the pots determines the skill levels. In a nutshell, generally you're not going to find Phil Ivey playing in a low limit game. But you know what?...with the brutal rake at low limits, even Phil would still lose money in the long-run.
Answering your question about big bets. Now how on earth are you going to accurately predict that? Especially online where it is basically impossible to get tells from any players. All you're looking at is their chip stack and how long it takes them to make a bet. Not any sort of real opportunity to get accurate tells there is it? So basically for the most part sometimes on your big bets preflop, you're going to have QQ versus JJ, and sometimes you're going to have JJ versus QQ - random luck. Postflop there's more skill involved but still there's a lot of luck involved as well. You could flop say trip A's (not a set) and your opponent also flops trip A's but has a better kicker and winds up winning the pot - again...random luck with a big bet win or lose. But the rake is not random...it is constantly eating away and grinding out a bankroll.
Steve >>
Two things:
1) Your argument that the players get better as the stakes increase has one very conspicuous flaw-- i.e., that whether they do, in fact, get better is not nearly as important as HOW much better. If you are playing against terrible players in a microlimit game, and average-to-mediocre players in a 15-30 game, then the fact that the players have gotten 'better' isn't particularly important. Also, I would add that the stakes which most players choose to play at is more of a function of risk tolerance and financial constraint then it is of playing ability--- a fact that you can readily verify, if you so choose, by watching the players in an online 2-4 game and then watching the players in a 20-40 game. You will, in most instances, see the players in both games making similar pre and post flop mistakes.
2) For some reason you choose to ignore the fact that the rake is capped-- usually at $3 when the pot reaches $60. This holds for all games. Thus, the most that a pot will be raked at 1-2 is $3, and the most that a pot at $100-$200 will be raked is $3. If you assume that a strong player in a 10 handed game will win about 7% of the total pots, and that the average pot is 5 big bets, then the 'rake responsibility' of a playing in a 2-4 game is about $4.55 (or one big bet) per hour, while the same number for a $15-$30 player is around $13 (or, to put it another way, about 40% of the rake paid by a 2-4 player when you translate the number into big bets). For players playing higher the number obviously decreases.
The implication here, I hope, is obvious. If you want to say that 'no raked game is beatable' then you're assuming that the most a player could hope to win in a rake-free game at the 15-30 level is 40% of a big bet per hour, the most a 2-4 player could hope to win in the same game is 1 big bet per hour, and the most that a $50-$100 player could hope to win would be around 25% of a big bet per hour. Yet these numbers are dependant on the notion-- a notion, I might add, which does not have any empiracle foundation-- that at each successive increase in stakes the players improve at a ratio that negates the ever decreasing rake responsibility of each player.
How can you determine whether a game is 'soft' or 'tight'? One quick and generally accurate way to do this is to go to any online poker room and look at both the average pot size and the average number of players to see the flop in any given room. Most rooms give you these numbers. If you check this out you will see, on average, that most games above the $.50-$1.00 level will have an average pot size of about 5 big bets, and a '% of players to the flop' number in the 27%-35% range. So long as you agree that the playing ability of a given player is determined largely by a) the % of the time he voluntarily enters a pot, and b) the % of the time he continues on with a hand after the flop, then you by necessity must agree that the above two stastics are a fairly reliable measurement of a game's 'toughness'. If this is true, then you would expect both of these numbers to decrease-- and probably decrease significantly-- as the stakes go up. But they do not. >>
Boo I clearly understand the "cap" because I used a set $2 number to illustrate the example of you having played 1.4 million hands of poker. Maybe you didn't read my previous post in this thread....." And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.".....so frankly, I don't see how it's possible for you to overcome $500,000 in rake.
Can anyone overcome $500,000 in rake? Well I have watched those guys play on the internet for high stakes. I once watched Mike Matusow lose well over 60K in chips in about twenty minutes. With average pots of 5K, 10K and more, admittedly it could take quite awhile, perhaps years, for a small rake to take affect with some players given variances involved and the size of their bankroll.
But here's the basic dilemma for any online poker player...in the long-run the variances tend to even out....but the rake doesn't even out.....it keeps accumulating to the point where it eventually crushes an online bankroll - just a question of when. Yes, the pot rake is capped but the $500,000 rake figure isn't capped as long as you continue playing online poker. It keeps on growing like an incurable malignant tumor to a bankroll.
Bottom line - There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake. Need scientific proof based on observation? - There has never been one, NOT ONE single properly documented case of anyone ever beating the rake in the long-run.
Steve
- >>
No, variances don't tend to 'even out' in the long run. They stabilize, which is entirely different. Thus, a player with an edge of 'x' over another will acheive something every close to his expected win rate over an infinite number of trials.
And yes, people can overcome $500,000 in rake, or $1,000,000 in rake, or whatever number you choose to toss out there, provided that their cumulative edge over their opponents is larger than the amount being raked. And this is precisely why I brought up the diminshing effect of the rake in regards to escalating stakes. Assuming a capped rake, you need a progressively smaller edge over your opponents as the stakes increase in order to break even.
It's one thing to say that 'nobody is winning at online poker, because they levels of skill between the players isn't large enough to outweigh the rake'. But it's outright silly to say 'the game can't be beaten'. You yourself agree that a rake free game can be beaten. Well, if the amount being raked is less than the amount being won, then obviously the game is beatable. Say that a guy is winning in a private, non raked game at the rate of 1 big bet per hour. If that game were suddenly to be raked, and the rake amounted to 40% of a big bet per hour, then he would just win at a rate of 60% of a big bet per hour. The fact that the game is now raked wouldn't completely wipe out his future winnings, just reduce them.
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
I agree with you about poker in private games but not poker in raked games. Admittedly I think Randymoss84 played that hand nicely with the two checks. But there's still that variance at play whereby the other player could have been slow playing pocket 4's and Randymoss84 gets crushed instead.
And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.
I have not seen any documented proof whereby anyone can overcome rakes like this in the long-run. Yes, some fortunate player can get a huge positive variance of winning say a million dollar online tournament, which is basically like hitting a lottery - then it might take many years for the rake to grind out his bankroll, all things being equal. But the math is clear...eventually given enough time and enough hands the rake, even a small rake, grinds out all bankrolls. There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake.
Steve >>
Steve,
You've said before that you believe a non raked game can be beaten, but that a raked game cannot be. Can you tell me what, in your opinion, is the largest win rate that a player playing in a non raked game can hope to attain? If you could, phrase your answer in terms of big bets per hour. If we take something like a $2-$4 poker game, for instance, you might say that a non raked game can be beaten for one 'small bet' per hour, which in this case would be $2, or one 'big bet' per hour (which in this case would be $4), or some fraction thereof. >>
I don't have to "believe" a non-raked game can be beaten...I already know and most poker players who play in private games already know that the best players do win money in the long-run. The fact that the best players win money in private poker really is not debatable - poker played in private games is strictly a game of pure skill.
Poker played against a rake is a game of skill only to the extent that skill will allow a player to lose their money slower - but eventually their bankroll will be lost. In theory it sounds logical that all a player has to do to win against a rake is be a percentage better than the other players versus the rake percentage. But in practice it doesn't work. And the fact is that nobody has ever proven with documented evidence that they are beating a rake long term.
Granted, if a skilled player was only ever playing little old ladies from Pasadena who knew absolutely nothing about poker, then yes a rake could likely be beat. But little old ladies from Pasadena aren't playing online poker. If they gamble online they are playing non-thinking games such as slots and roulette. Those who understand poker only a little bit generally play video poker.
Those who at least know the rudimentary fundamentals of poker for the most part play in skill levels according to pot value. Yes, there can be some excellent players at microlimits and some unskilled players at high no limit games, but that is not the usual case. For the most part, the dollar value of the pots determines the skill levels. In a nutshell, generally you're not going to find Phil Ivey playing in a low limit game. But you know what?...with the brutal rake at low limits, even Phil would still lose money in the long-run.
Answering your question about big bets. Now how on earth are you going to accurately predict that? Especially online where it is basically impossible to get tells from any players. All you're looking at is their chip stack and how long it takes them to make a bet. Not any sort of real opportunity to get accurate tells there is it? So basically for the most part sometimes on your big bets preflop, you're going to have QQ versus JJ, and sometimes you're going to have JJ versus QQ - random luck. Postflop there's more skill involved but still there's a lot of luck involved as well. You could flop say trip A's (not a set) and your opponent also flops trip A's but has a better kicker and winds up winning the pot - again...random luck with a big bet win or lose. But the rake is not random...it is constantly eating away and grinding out a bankroll.
Steve >>
Two things:
1) Your argument that the players get better as the stakes increase has one very conspicuous flaw-- i.e., that whether they do, in fact, get better is not nearly as important as HOW much better. If you are playing against terrible players in a microlimit game, and average-to-mediocre players in a 15-30 game, then the fact that the players have gotten 'better' isn't particularly important. Also, I would add that the stakes which most players choose to play at is more of a function of risk tolerance and financial constraint then it is of playing ability--- a fact that you can readily verify, if you so choose, by watching the players in an online 2-4 game and then watching the players in a 20-40 game. You will, in most instances, see the players in both games making similar pre and post flop mistakes.
2) For some reason you choose to ignore the fact that the rake is capped-- usually at $3 when the pot reaches $60. This holds for all games. Thus, the most that a pot will be raked at 1-2 is $3, and the most that a pot at $100-$200 will be raked is $3. If you assume that a strong player in a 10 handed game will win about 7% of the total pots, and that the average pot is 5 big bets, then the 'rake responsibility' of a playing in a 2-4 game is about $4.55 (or one big bet) per hour, while the same number for a $15-$30 player is around $13 (or, to put it another way, about 40% of the rake paid by a 2-4 player when you translate the number into big bets). For players playing higher the number obviously decreases.
The implication here, I hope, is obvious. If you want to say that 'no raked game is beatable' then you're assuming that the most a player could hope to win in a rake-free game at the 15-30 level is 40% of a big bet per hour, the most a 2-4 player could hope to win in the same game is 1 big bet per hour, and the most that a $50-$100 player could hope to win would be around 25% of a big bet per hour. Yet these numbers are dependant on the notion-- a notion, I might add, which does not have any empiracle foundation-- that at each successive increase in stakes the players improve at a ratio that negates the ever decreasing rake responsibility of each player.
How can you determine whether a game is 'soft' or 'tight'? One quick and generally accurate way to do this is to go to any online poker room and look at both the average pot size and the average number of players to see the flop in any given room. Most rooms give you these numbers. If you check this out you will see, on average, that most games above the $.50-$1.00 level will have an average pot size of about 5 big bets, and a '% of players to the flop' number in the 27%-35% range. So long as you agree that the playing ability of a given player is determined largely by a) the % of the time he voluntarily enters a pot, and b) the % of the time he continues on with a hand after the flop, then you by necessity must agree that the above two stastics are a fairly reliable measurement of a game's 'toughness'. If this is true, then you would expect both of these numbers to decrease-- and probably decrease significantly-- as the stakes go up. But they do not. >>
Boo I clearly understand the "cap" because I used a set $2 number to illustrate the example of you having played 1.4 million hands of poker. Maybe you didn't read my previous post in this thread....." And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.".....so frankly, I don't see how it's possible for you to overcome $500,000 in rake.
Can anyone overcome $500,000 in rake? Well I have watched those guys play on the internet for high stakes. I once watched Mike Matusow lose well over 60K in chips in about twenty minutes. With average pots of 5K, 10K and more, admittedly it could take quite awhile, perhaps years, for a small rake to take affect with some players given variances involved and the size of their bankroll.
But here's the basic dilemma for any online poker player...in the long-run the variances tend to even out....but the rake doesn't even out.....it keeps accumulating to the point where it eventually crushes an online bankroll - just a question of when. Yes, the pot rake is capped but the $500,000 rake figure isn't capped as long as you continue playing online poker. It keeps on growing like an incurable malignant tumor to a bankroll.
Bottom line - There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake. Need scientific proof based on observation? - There has never been one, NOT ONE single properly documented case of anyone ever beating the rake in the long-run.
Steve
- >>
No, variances don't tend to 'even out' in the long run. They stabilize, which is entirely different. Thus, a player with an edge of 'x' over another will acheive something every close to his expected win rate over an infinite number of trials.
And yes, people can overcome $500,000 in rake, or $1,000,000 in rake, or whatever number you choose to toss out there, provided that their cumulative edge over their opponents is larger than the amount being raked. And this is precisely why I brought up the diminshing effect of the rake in regards to escalating stakes. Assuming a capped rake, you need a progressively smaller edge over your opponents as the stakes increase in order to break even.
It's one thing to say that 'nobody is winning at online poker, because they levels of skill between the players isn't large enough to outweigh the rake'. But it's outright silly to say 'the game can't be beaten'. You yourself agree that a rake free game can be beaten. Well, if the amount being raked is less than the amount being won, then obviously the game is beatable. Say that a guy is winning in a private, non raked game at the rate of 1 big bet per hour. If that game were suddenly to be raked, and the rake amounted to 40% of a big bet per hour, then he would just win at a rate of 60% of a big bet per hour. The fact that the game is now raked wouldn't completely wipe out his future winnings, just reduce them. >>
Well this isn't a perfect illustration but I liken your analogy to why can't a sprinter run the 100 yard dash in 8 seconds, or why can't a golfer drive a golf ball 600 yards, or why can't a pitcher throw 120 miles per hour. There are physical and mathematical limitations in life and the rake seems to be one of them. I have asked numerous players claiming to be winning money at online poker to simply properly prove it or provide a link to a website in which someone else has proved it with documented, audited information - but none of them have - always some sort of excuse not to.
I don't wish to pry into your personal financial data - it's none of my business, but presuming you play 10/20, 50/100, or even 100/200 type poker games, it is hard to believe that anyone could overcome a whopping $500,000 in rake - yes in theory someone should be able to throw a 120 mile an hour fastball, but it doesn't happen and nobody beats the rake in the long-run.
I'm not 100% sure about this, I know they're working on it for sure, but I don't think they offer gambling yet on games like chess. You can correct me if I'm wrong and that's fine. But you won't see any articles from me stating that chess can't be beat against a rake. I have played a fair amount of chess and within a given "class" of players it would be possible for the best player in that class to win the games at close to a 100% win rate.
In 6th grade I was a member of a chess club in school and I don't remember ever losing a single game, maybe once or twice at the most I lost an unimportant game - if it had been gambling with a rake I of course would have still won money. But it is basically impossible for the best player in the world to beat even the worst player 100% of the time in poker. As you know with some luck a poor player can even beat up on a good player on any particular night of poker.
There's other "problems" at work online as well Boo as you are probably aware. There is rampant collusion on internet poker tables - to believe there isn't simply is being naive. There are also multiple bots at tables which like the colluders, know each other's hole cards and the individual players have no chance against them either. There also have been strong rumors that a number of gambling websites rig the RNG for their advantage, mainly to increase the speed and action of the games in order to increase their raked profits - I can't substantiate this but it certainly makes sense to me.
With the rake, collusion, bots, and RNG possibly being altered.....frankly Boo I completely feel that the debate about an individual player being able to make money playing raked online poker is over. Even at a rake free online site, an individual player still couldn't win there because of collusion amongst other players.
The only real players who want to keep believing they can beat raked poker are the addicts who don't want to believe the straight forward facts - they don't want to let go of their addictive fantasy dream of making big bucks playing online poker, or maybe just supplementing their income. They use online poker as a way to mask over or escape from their personal problems, in a similar manner as drug addicts do. Gambling addiction for a multitude of reasons is a tough addiction.
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
I agree with you about poker in private games but not poker in raked games. Admittedly I think Randymoss84 played that hand nicely with the two checks. But there's still that variance at play whereby the other player could have been slow playing pocket 4's and Randymoss84 gets crushed instead.
And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.
I have not seen any documented proof whereby anyone can overcome rakes like this in the long-run. Yes, some fortunate player can get a huge positive variance of winning say a million dollar online tournament, which is basically like hitting a lottery - then it might take many years for the rake to grind out his bankroll, all things being equal. But the math is clear...eventually given enough time and enough hands the rake, even a small rake, grinds out all bankrolls. There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake.
Steve >>
Steve,
You've said before that you believe a non raked game can be beaten, but that a raked game cannot be. Can you tell me what, in your opinion, is the largest win rate that a player playing in a non raked game can hope to attain? If you could, phrase your answer in terms of big bets per hour. If we take something like a $2-$4 poker game, for instance, you might say that a non raked game can be beaten for one 'small bet' per hour, which in this case would be $2, or one 'big bet' per hour (which in this case would be $4), or some fraction thereof. >>
I don't have to "believe" a non-raked game can be beaten...I already know and most poker players who play in private games already know that the best players do win money in the long-run. The fact that the best players win money in private poker really is not debatable - poker played in private games is strictly a game of pure skill.
Poker played against a rake is a game of skill only to the extent that skill will allow a player to lose their money slower - but eventually their bankroll will be lost. In theory it sounds logical that all a player has to do to win against a rake is be a percentage better than the other players versus the rake percentage. But in practice it doesn't work. And the fact is that nobody has ever proven with documented evidence that they are beating a rake long term.
Granted, if a skilled player was only ever playing little old ladies from Pasadena who knew absolutely nothing about poker, then yes a rake could likely be beat. But little old ladies from Pasadena aren't playing online poker. If they gamble online they are playing non-thinking games such as slots and roulette. Those who understand poker only a little bit generally play video poker.
Those who at least know the rudimentary fundamentals of poker for the most part play in skill levels according to pot value. Yes, there can be some excellent players at microlimits and some unskilled players at high no limit games, but that is not the usual case. For the most part, the dollar value of the pots determines the skill levels. In a nutshell, generally you're not going to find Phil Ivey playing in a low limit game. But you know what?...with the brutal rake at low limits, even Phil would still lose money in the long-run.
Answering your question about big bets. Now how on earth are you going to accurately predict that? Especially online where it is basically impossible to get tells from any players. All you're looking at is their chip stack and how long it takes them to make a bet. Not any sort of real opportunity to get accurate tells there is it? So basically for the most part sometimes on your big bets preflop, you're going to have QQ versus JJ, and sometimes you're going to have JJ versus QQ - random luck. Postflop there's more skill involved but still there's a lot of luck involved as well. You could flop say trip A's (not a set) and your opponent also flops trip A's but has a better kicker and winds up winning the pot - again...random luck with a big bet win or lose. But the rake is not random...it is constantly eating away and grinding out a bankroll.
Steve >>
Two things:
1) Your argument that the players get better as the stakes increase has one very conspicuous flaw-- i.e., that whether they do, in fact, get better is not nearly as important as HOW much better. If you are playing against terrible players in a microlimit game, and average-to-mediocre players in a 15-30 game, then the fact that the players have gotten 'better' isn't particularly important. Also, I would add that the stakes which most players choose to play at is more of a function of risk tolerance and financial constraint then it is of playing ability--- a fact that you can readily verify, if you so choose, by watching the players in an online 2-4 game and then watching the players in a 20-40 game. You will, in most instances, see the players in both games making similar pre and post flop mistakes.
2) For some reason you choose to ignore the fact that the rake is capped-- usually at $3 when the pot reaches $60. This holds for all games. Thus, the most that a pot will be raked at 1-2 is $3, and the most that a pot at $100-$200 will be raked is $3. If you assume that a strong player in a 10 handed game will win about 7% of the total pots, and that the average pot is 5 big bets, then the 'rake responsibility' of a playing in a 2-4 game is about $4.55 (or one big bet) per hour, while the same number for a $15-$30 player is around $13 (or, to put it another way, about 40% of the rake paid by a 2-4 player when you translate the number into big bets). For players playing higher the number obviously decreases.
The implication here, I hope, is obvious. If you want to say that 'no raked game is beatable' then you're assuming that the most a player could hope to win in a rake-free game at the 15-30 level is 40% of a big bet per hour, the most a 2-4 player could hope to win in the same game is 1 big bet per hour, and the most that a $50-$100 player could hope to win would be around 25% of a big bet per hour. Yet these numbers are dependant on the notion-- a notion, I might add, which does not have any empiracle foundation-- that at each successive increase in stakes the players improve at a ratio that negates the ever decreasing rake responsibility of each player.
How can you determine whether a game is 'soft' or 'tight'? One quick and generally accurate way to do this is to go to any online poker room and look at both the average pot size and the average number of players to see the flop in any given room. Most rooms give you these numbers. If you check this out you will see, on average, that most games above the $.50-$1.00 level will have an average pot size of about 5 big bets, and a '% of players to the flop' number in the 27%-35% range. So long as you agree that the playing ability of a given player is determined largely by a) the % of the time he voluntarily enters a pot, and b) the % of the time he continues on with a hand after the flop, then you by necessity must agree that the above two stastics are a fairly reliable measurement of a game's 'toughness'. If this is true, then you would expect both of these numbers to decrease-- and probably decrease significantly-- as the stakes go up. But they do not. >>
Boo I clearly understand the "cap" because I used a set $2 number to illustrate the example of you having played 1.4 million hands of poker. Maybe you didn't read my previous post in this thread....." And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.".....so frankly, I don't see how it's possible for you to overcome $500,000 in rake.
Can anyone overcome $500,000 in rake? Well I have watched those guys play on the internet for high stakes. I once watched Mike Matusow lose well over 60K in chips in about twenty minutes. With average pots of 5K, 10K and more, admittedly it could take quite awhile, perhaps years, for a small rake to take affect with some players given variances involved and the size of their bankroll.
But here's the basic dilemma for any online poker player...in the long-run the variances tend to even out....but the rake doesn't even out.....it keeps accumulating to the point where it eventually crushes an online bankroll - just a question of when. Yes, the pot rake is capped but the $500,000 rake figure isn't capped as long as you continue playing online poker. It keeps on growing like an incurable malignant tumor to a bankroll.
Bottom line - There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake. Need scientific proof based on observation? - There has never been one, NOT ONE single properly documented case of anyone ever beating the rake in the long-run.
Steve
- >>
No, variances don't tend to 'even out' in the long run. They stabilize, which is entirely different. Thus, a player with an edge of 'x' over another will acheive something every close to his expected win rate over an infinite number of trials.
And yes, people can overcome $500,000 in rake, or $1,000,000 in rake, or whatever number you choose to toss out there, provided that their cumulative edge over their opponents is larger than the amount being raked. And this is precisely why I brought up the diminshing effect of the rake in regards to escalating stakes. Assuming a capped rake, you need a progressively smaller edge over your opponents as the stakes increase in order to break even.
It's one thing to say that 'nobody is winning at online poker, because they levels of skill between the players isn't large enough to outweigh the rake'. But it's outright silly to say 'the game can't be beaten'. You yourself agree that a rake free game can be beaten. Well, if the amount being raked is less than the amount being won, then obviously the game is beatable. Say that a guy is winning in a private, non raked game at the rate of 1 big bet per hour. If that game were suddenly to be raked, and the rake amounted to 40% of a big bet per hour, then he would just win at a rate of 60% of a big bet per hour. The fact that the game is now raked wouldn't completely wipe out his future winnings, just reduce them. >>
Well this isn't a perfect illustration but I liken your analogy to why can't a sprinter run the 100 yard dash in 8 seconds, or why can't a golfer drive a golf ball 600 yards, or why can't a pitcher throw 120 miles per hour. There are physical and mathematical limitations in life and the rake seems to be one of them. I have asked numerous players claiming to be winning money at online poker to simply properly prove it or provide a link to a website in which someone else has proved it with documented, audited information - but none of them have - always some sort of excuse not to.
I don't wish to pry into your personal financial data - it's none of my business, but presuming you play 10/20, 50/100, or even 100/200 type poker games, it is hard to believe that anyone could overcome a whopping $500,000 in rake - yes in theory someone should be able to throw a 120 mile an hour fastball, but it doesn't happen and nobody beats the rake in the long-run.
I'm not 100% sure about this, I know they're working on it for sure, but I don't think they offer gambling yet on games like chess. You can correct me if I'm wrong and that's fine. But you won't see any articles from me stating that chess can't be beat against a rake. I have played a fair amount of chess and within a given "class" of players it would be possible for the best player in that class to win the games at close to a 100% win rate.
In 6th grade I was a member of a chess club in school and I don't remember ever losing a single game, maybe once or twice at the most I lost an unimportant game - if it had been gambling with a rake I of course would have still won money. But it is basically impossible for the best player in the world to beat even the worst player 100% of the time in poker. As you know with some luck a poor player can even beat up on a good player on any particular night of poker.
There's other "problems" at work online as well Boo as you are probably aware. There is rampant collusion on internet poker tables - to believe there isn't simply is being naive. There are also multiple bots at tables which like the colluders, know each other's hole cards and the individual players have no chance against them either. There also have been strong rumors that a number of gambling websites rig the RNG for their advantage, mainly to increase the speed and action of the games in order to increase their raked profits - I can't substantiate this but it certainly makes sense to me.
With the rake, collusion, bots, and RNG possibly being altered.....frankly Boo I completely feel that the debate about an individual player being able to make money playing raked online poker is over. Even at a rake free online site, an individual player still couldn't win there because of collusion amongst other players.
The only real players who want to keep believing they can beat raked poker are the addicts who don't want to believe the straight forward facts - they don't want to let go of their addictive fantasy dream of making big bucks playing online poker, or maybe just supplementing their income. They use online poker as a way to mask over or escape from their personal problems, in a similar manner as drug addicts do. Gambling addiction for a multitude of reasons is a tough addiction.
Steve
- >>
Well, I can agree with about 60% of this. You're right when you say that if I played Gary Kasparov 1000 times in chess, he would beat me 1000 times. And further, as I know all too well, bad players will have some very big nights playing poker. Collusion is not nearly the problem you think it is, since while players may trade info regarding their starting hands to each other via PM's or something very few players actually know what to do with that information. I can't speak to the bot issue, although I do know as a fact that some sites have been caught using them, while other sites (namely Party) have not done a very good job of weeding them out. However, bots are at their most effective in one table tournaments, which are essentially mathematical exercises, as opposed to in ring games.
But you cannot say that 'the rake is the rake'. Apparently you know some people who have done quite well in private home games. If this is indeed the case, then ask them what their win rate is per hour. If they're solid players that number should be somewhere just short of about 1 big bet per hour. Now do the math on how much is raked from, say, a 15-30 game. You will see that in this case the amount of rake each player pays is less than 1 big bet an hour, which means the game can be beaten provided that your opponents play poor enough.
I agree that there are some games that cannot be beaten. A six handed 1-2 limit game, for instance, is basically a waste of time. Ditto for a 2-4 game if your opponents are at all aware. But to say that the rake has anywhere near the same effect on a 10-20 player as on a 1-2 player is to simply ignore the math. You've brought up the original hand a couple times, and mentioned that if the villian had quad 4's then our hero would have gotten stacked. Well, yeah-- that's true. And, in fact, there are plenty of situations in poker where the only beneficiary is going to be the rake. If I have KK, and you have AA, or if I have AA and you have KK, then in either case the result will almost certainly be the same, so in the long run neither of us make money in that spot. But what happens when I have AK, and you have AT, and an ace flops? I'll tell you what happens-- I win 85% of the time. And THIS situation is entirely different than the AA vs. KK situation, because any savvy limit hold 'em player will tell you flat out that you do not cold call raises with AT. Bad players make those kinds of pre-flop calls, and they cost them a lot of money.
The simple fact is that in a hold 'em game against mediocre players you will run into many opportunites to put your money into the pot while enjoying an overlay that's substantially larger than the rake.
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
I agree with you about poker in private games but not poker in raked games. Admittedly I think Randymoss84 played that hand nicely with the two checks. But there's still that variance at play whereby the other player could have been slow playing pocket 4's and Randymoss84 gets crushed instead.
And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.
I have not seen any documented proof whereby anyone can overcome rakes like this in the long-run. Yes, some fortunate player can get a huge positive variance of winning say a million dollar online tournament, which is basically like hitting a lottery - then it might take many years for the rake to grind out his bankroll, all things being equal. But the math is clear...eventually given enough time and enough hands the rake, even a small rake, grinds out all bankrolls. There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake.
Steve >>
Steve,
You've said before that you believe a non raked game can be beaten, but that a raked game cannot be. Can you tell me what, in your opinion, is the largest win rate that a player playing in a non raked game can hope to attain? If you could, phrase your answer in terms of big bets per hour. If we take something like a $2-$4 poker game, for instance, you might say that a non raked game can be beaten for one 'small bet' per hour, which in this case would be $2, or one 'big bet' per hour (which in this case would be $4), or some fraction thereof. >>
I don't have to "believe" a non-raked game can be beaten...I already know and most poker players who play in private games already know that the best players do win money in the long-run. The fact that the best players win money in private poker really is not debatable - poker played in private games is strictly a game of pure skill.
Poker played against a rake is a game of skill only to the extent that skill will allow a player to lose their money slower - but eventually their bankroll will be lost. In theory it sounds logical that all a player has to do to win against a rake is be a percentage better than the other players versus the rake percentage. But in practice it doesn't work. And the fact is that nobody has ever proven with documented evidence that they are beating a rake long term.
Granted, if a skilled player was only ever playing little old ladies from Pasadena who knew absolutely nothing about poker, then yes a rake could likely be beat. But little old ladies from Pasadena aren't playing online poker. If they gamble online they are playing non-thinking games such as slots and roulette. Those who understand poker only a little bit generally play video poker.
Those who at least know the rudimentary fundamentals of poker for the most part play in skill levels according to pot value. Yes, there can be some excellent players at microlimits and some unskilled players at high no limit games, but that is not the usual case. For the most part, the dollar value of the pots determines the skill levels. In a nutshell, generally you're not going to find Phil Ivey playing in a low limit game. But you know what?...with the brutal rake at low limits, even Phil would still lose money in the long-run.
Answering your question about big bets. Now how on earth are you going to accurately predict that? Especially online where it is basically impossible to get tells from any players. All you're looking at is their chip stack and how long it takes them to make a bet. Not any sort of real opportunity to get accurate tells there is it? So basically for the most part sometimes on your big bets preflop, you're going to have QQ versus JJ, and sometimes you're going to have JJ versus QQ - random luck. Postflop there's more skill involved but still there's a lot of luck involved as well. You could flop say trip A's (not a set) and your opponent also flops trip A's but has a better kicker and winds up winning the pot - again...random luck with a big bet win or lose. But the rake is not random...it is constantly eating away and grinding out a bankroll.
Steve >>
Two things:
1) Your argument that the players get better as the stakes increase has one very conspicuous flaw-- i.e., that whether they do, in fact, get better is not nearly as important as HOW much better. If you are playing against terrible players in a microlimit game, and average-to-mediocre players in a 15-30 game, then the fact that the players have gotten 'better' isn't particularly important. Also, I would add that the stakes which most players choose to play at is more of a function of risk tolerance and financial constraint then it is of playing ability--- a fact that you can readily verify, if you so choose, by watching the players in an online 2-4 game and then watching the players in a 20-40 game. You will, in most instances, see the players in both games making similar pre and post flop mistakes.
2) For some reason you choose to ignore the fact that the rake is capped-- usually at $3 when the pot reaches $60. This holds for all games. Thus, the most that a pot will be raked at 1-2 is $3, and the most that a pot at $100-$200 will be raked is $3. If you assume that a strong player in a 10 handed game will win about 7% of the total pots, and that the average pot is 5 big bets, then the 'rake responsibility' of a playing in a 2-4 game is about $4.55 (or one big bet) per hour, while the same number for a $15-$30 player is around $13 (or, to put it another way, about 40% of the rake paid by a 2-4 player when you translate the number into big bets). For players playing higher the number obviously decreases.
The implication here, I hope, is obvious. If you want to say that 'no raked game is beatable' then you're assuming that the most a player could hope to win in a rake-free game at the 15-30 level is 40% of a big bet per hour, the most a 2-4 player could hope to win in the same game is 1 big bet per hour, and the most that a $50-$100 player could hope to win would be around 25% of a big bet per hour. Yet these numbers are dependant on the notion-- a notion, I might add, which does not have any empiracle foundation-- that at each successive increase in stakes the players improve at a ratio that negates the ever decreasing rake responsibility of each player.
How can you determine whether a game is 'soft' or 'tight'? One quick and generally accurate way to do this is to go to any online poker room and look at both the average pot size and the average number of players to see the flop in any given room. Most rooms give you these numbers. If you check this out you will see, on average, that most games above the $.50-$1.00 level will have an average pot size of about 5 big bets, and a '% of players to the flop' number in the 27%-35% range. So long as you agree that the playing ability of a given player is determined largely by a) the % of the time he voluntarily enters a pot, and b) the % of the time he continues on with a hand after the flop, then you by necessity must agree that the above two stastics are a fairly reliable measurement of a game's 'toughness'. If this is true, then you would expect both of these numbers to decrease-- and probably decrease significantly-- as the stakes go up. But they do not. >>
Boo I clearly understand the "cap" because I used a set $2 number to illustrate the example of you having played 1.4 million hands of poker. Maybe you didn't read my previous post in this thread....." And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.".....so frankly, I don't see how it's possible for you to overcome $500,000 in rake.
Can anyone overcome $500,000 in rake? Well I have watched those guys play on the internet for high stakes. I once watched Mike Matusow lose well over 60K in chips in about twenty minutes. With average pots of 5K, 10K and more, admittedly it could take quite awhile, perhaps years, for a small rake to take affect with some players given variances involved and the size of their bankroll.
But here's the basic dilemma for any online poker player...in the long-run the variances tend to even out....but the rake doesn't even out.....it keeps accumulating to the point where it eventually crushes an online bankroll - just a question of when. Yes, the pot rake is capped but the $500,000 rake figure isn't capped as long as you continue playing online poker. It keeps on growing like an incurable malignant tumor to a bankroll.
Bottom line - There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake. Need scientific proof based on observation? - There has never been one, NOT ONE single properly documented case of anyone ever beating the rake in the long-run.
Steve
- >>
No, variances don't tend to 'even out' in the long run. They stabilize, which is entirely different. Thus, a player with an edge of 'x' over another will acheive something every close to his expected win rate over an infinite number of trials.
And yes, people can overcome $500,000 in rake, or $1,000,000 in rake, or whatever number you choose to toss out there, provided that their cumulative edge over their opponents is larger than the amount being raked. And this is precisely why I brought up the diminshing effect of the rake in regards to escalating stakes. Assuming a capped rake, you need a progressively smaller edge over your opponents as the stakes increase in order to break even.
It's one thing to say that 'nobody is winning at online poker, because they levels of skill between the players isn't large enough to outweigh the rake'. But it's outright silly to say 'the game can't be beaten'. You yourself agree that a rake free game can be beaten. Well, if the amount being raked is less than the amount being won, then obviously the game is beatable. Say that a guy is winning in a private, non raked game at the rate of 1 big bet per hour. If that game were suddenly to be raked, and the rake amounted to 40% of a big bet per hour, then he would just win at a rate of 60% of a big bet per hour. The fact that the game is now raked wouldn't completely wipe out his future winnings, just reduce them. >>
Well this isn't a perfect illustration but I liken your analogy to why can't a sprinter run the 100 yard dash in 8 seconds, or why can't a golfer drive a golf ball 600 yards, or why can't a pitcher throw 120 miles per hour. There are physical and mathematical limitations in life and the rake seems to be one of them. I have asked numerous players claiming to be winning money at online poker to simply properly prove it or provide a link to a website in which someone else has proved it with documented, audited information - but none of them have - always some sort of excuse not to.
I don't wish to pry into your personal financial data - it's none of my business, but presuming you play 10/20, 50/100, or even 100/200 type poker games, it is hard to believe that anyone could overcome a whopping $500,000 in rake - yes in theory someone should be able to throw a 120 mile an hour fastball, but it doesn't happen and nobody beats the rake in the long-run.
I'm not 100% sure about this, I know they're working on it for sure, but I don't think they offer gambling yet on games like chess. You can correct me if I'm wrong and that's fine. But you won't see any articles from me stating that chess can't be beat against a rake. I have played a fair amount of chess and within a given "class" of players it would be possible for the best player in that class to win the games at close to a 100% win rate.
In 6th grade I was a member of a chess club in school and I don't remember ever losing a single game, maybe once or twice at the most I lost an unimportant game - if it had been gambling with a rake I of course would have still won money. But it is basically impossible for the best player in the world to beat even the worst player 100% of the time in poker. As you know with some luck a poor player can even beat up on a good player on any particular night of poker.
There's other "problems" at work online as well Boo as you are probably aware. There is rampant collusion on internet poker tables - to believe there isn't simply is being naive. There are also multiple bots at tables which like the colluders, know each other's hole cards and the individual players have no chance against them either. There also have been strong rumors that a number of gambling websites rig the RNG for their advantage, mainly to increase the speed and action of the games in order to increase their raked profits - I can't substantiate this but it certainly makes sense to me.
With the rake, collusion, bots, and RNG possibly being altered.....frankly Boo I completely feel that the debate about an individual player being able to make money playing raked online poker is over. Even at a rake free online site, an individual player still couldn't win there because of collusion amongst other players.
The only real players who want to keep believing they can beat raked poker are the addicts who don't want to believe the straight forward facts - they don't want to let go of their addictive fantasy dream of making big bucks playing online poker, or maybe just supplementing their income. They use online poker as a way to mask over or escape from their personal problems, in a similar manner as drug addicts do. Gambling addiction for a multitude of reasons is a tough addiction.
Steve
- >>
Well, I can agree with about 60% of this. You're right when you say that if I played Gary Kasparov 1000 times in chess, he would beat me 1000 times. And further, as I know all too well, bad players will have some very big nights playing poker. Collusion is not nearly the problem you think it is, since while players may trade info regarding their starting hands to each other via PM's or something very few players actually know what to do with that information. I can't speak to the bot issue, although I do know as a fact that some sites have been caught using them, while other sites (namely Party) have not done a very good job of weeding them out. However, bots are at their most effective in one table tournaments, which are essentially mathematical exercises, as opposed to in ring games.
But you cannot say that 'the rake is the rake'. Apparently you know some people who have done quite well in private home games. If this is indeed the case, then ask them what their win rate is per hour. If they're solid players that number should be somewhere just short of about 1 big bet per hour. Now do the math on how much is raked from, say, a 15-30 game. You will see that in this case the amount of rake each player pays is less than 1 big bet an hour, which means the game can be beaten provided that your opponents play poor enough.
I agree that there are some games that cannot be beaten. A six handed 1-2 limit game, for instance, is basically a waste of time. Ditto for a 2-4 game if your opponents are at all aware. But to say that the rake has anywhere near the same effect on a 10-20 player as on a 1-2 player is to simply ignore the math. You've brought up the original hand a couple times, and mentioned that if the villian had quad 4's then our hero would have gotten stacked. Well, yeah-- that's true. And, in fact, there are plenty of situations in poker where the only beneficiary is going to be the rake. If I have KK, and you have AA, or if I have AA and you have KK, then in either case the result will almost certainly be the same, so in the long run neither of us make money in that spot. But what happens when I have AK, and you have AT, and an ace flops? I'll tell you what happens-- I win 85% of the time. And THIS situation is entirely different than the AA vs. KK situation, because any savvy limit hold 'em player will tell you flat out that you do not cold call raises with AT. Bad players make those kinds of pre-flop calls, and they cost them a lot of money.
The simple fact is that in a hold 'em game against mediocre players you will run into many opportunites to put your money into the pot while enjoying an overlay that's substantially larger than the rake. >>
Well Boo, you basically always bring interesting points to the table and I have come to respect your viewpoints. If the feeling isn't mutual then that's okay...I don't mind. The thing I do especially respect you about is that in previous threads you have made it clear that you understand the addictive nature of gambling, and if I'm remembering right, you have a family member who has a gambling problem. Forgive me if I'm incorrect about that as I usually chat with a fair amount of people each day.
If you ever run across someone who posts documented, audited proof regarding making money in the long-run playing online poker, PM me here or e-mail me at my other e-mail which I think you know. I promise that I will definitely review it thoroughly and give you my take on it.
I've stated before a number of times that I would have no problem making a statement such as, "Online poker is extremely hard to beat, but through outstanding skill there are a small percentage of players who can make money at it in the long-run." But I can't state that Boo until I see documented audited proof that it can be done.
I forget which poker forum it was, I don't post on poker forums and never will, but I have lurked a number of times on a few of the larger ones to gather information. One interesting thing I noticed awhile back, was that many, MANY, of the forum members from say a year ago or even sooner than that who claimed to be, and were bragging about winning money...eventually stopped posting. The longtime forum posters are usually the moderators or friends of the moderators speaking volumes about how profitable it is to play online poker - they have the clever "sales pitch" down pat geared towards the newer members to keep them in action for as long as possible.
I believe this "turnover" of members in poker forums further illustrates my point that the winning online poker players out there simply are experiencing a temporary nice positive variance. They get psyched up and enjoy posting about how great they are at poker. Then of course when they lose their winnings and more, they stop posting.
Even in a totally sucker's game such as craps and roulette, there can be temporary winners. I personally know an absolutely terrible blackjack player who doesn't even understand basic strategy. For example sometimes he would hit on a hard 17, and for like two months he was killing the Atlantic City blackjack tables...I saw the cash...but of course he eventually lost it all back and much more.
Again, I haven't witnessed yet where a poker player constantly fighting the rake didn't windup losing any winnings back. Look at Chris Moneymaker.....it doesn't take any great prediction on my part to say that in my opinion one day he will lose back that WSOP jackpot he won. The same will go for Daniel Negreanu and the tournament money he has won - the gambling "hot streak" never lasts whenever there is a house rake, cut, edge, vig, juice, etc., involved. Negreanu may never go broke because of his book, endorsements, and affiliate website programs whereby a good guess is that he earns a 50% commission rate.
But those poker players who can't write best selling books, who can't get endorsements, or who can't attract players to signup on their website affiliate links, are doomed as long as they continue playing raked poker to a life of being broke, in debt, and in poor health from poker all-nighters and the bad eating and non-exercize habits associated with it. But there's always that hope of that next hand being the one that earns a big score and possibly starts a long hot streak - that's one reason why gambling addiction is such a tough addiction.
<< <i>It's one thing to say that 'nobody is winning at online poker, because they levels of skill between the players isn't large enough to outweigh the rake'. But it's outright silly to say 'the game can't be beaten'. You yourself agree that a rake free game can be beaten. Well, if the amount being raked is less than the amount being won, then obviously the game is beatable. Say that a guy is winning in a private, non raked game at the rate of 1 big bet per hour. If that game were suddenly to be raked, and the rake amounted to 40% of a big bet per hour, then he would just win at a rate of 60% of a big bet per hour. The fact that the game is now raked wouldn't completely wipe out his future winnings, just reduce them. >>
You are both making valid points and doing it in a very respectable way.
That being said, it seems it would be hard to argue with Boo's above quote. Just makes perfect sense. JMO.
Stevek, when you keep asking for documented proof of winning,but I have a feeling you'll never be satisfied with the timeframe. If someone showed you they won for six months, you'd want a year. If they showed you a year worth of profits, you'd want five. Then 10, etc. etc. Forgive me if I'm wrong. But even a mediocre/average player like myself managed to stay ahead of the online game for nearly three years. I certainly didn't win thousands but stayed ahead. I'd like to think if someone was playing $20/$40 who is actually very good could stay ahead too.
I have one more thought on the rake........ It would indeed eat up every players bankroll if it was the same players.
What I mean by that, is if 10 players sat and played, the rake would eventually chew up all the bankrolls. But online, there are thousands of new players each day. Thousands of below average, new players bringing new money to the table. So if new players and new money are constantly being brought to the table, then the rake will never get all of the money. Am I making sense?
So it's not the rake that gets "overcome" or "evens out". What would eventually be overcome or even out is when you continually bring A K to the table while I have A 10.
Again, I'm hardly a pro. But I love the game. Loved playing online, love watching it, love reading about it, love thinking about it, etc. Perhaps I'm being naive and "wanting" to believe this game can be beaten, but what Boo says above makes a lot of sense to me.
Is Poker a sport? I think so, at least the way it is portrayed in the media, these past few years. Not a sport in the way most of us here, would stereotype a sport, but IMO, a kind of sport, none the less.
But this thread has taken on a life of its own, about the issues of playing poker, its "gambling affects", etc. (i.e., on our "younger population"), which I find much more interesting, weither or not Poker is considered "a sport".
I've played poker since the early 60's, and played a more serious game, over the past 5 years! Texas Holdem Tournaments, and "Sit and Go's", a type of "mini-tournament", with 9 to 18 participants (1 to 2 tables).
I would say, I have lost around $20,000 over the past 5 years. Let me qualify that another way, I won, maybe $ 200,000.00 and lost around $ 220,000.00.
Not very good! So even though, I consider myself a pretty savy player, and have "placed well" against some pretty tough players, I can't win, as there are other players, out there, that constantly win a little more than they lose, and once in a while, I run across a player or two, that win a lot more than he loses.
My point? Well the difference between myself and the "next level above" player is so close, that it is difficult to "tell us apart" from "day to day".
But there is a difference, as the "stats" prove out.
I have cut back a lot, and play a lot less now! It is not that much fun anymore, knowing that every dollar I put into the pot, I'm going to lose a dime? That sucks!
What I like about poker is sometimes the "stars are alligned correctly", ....you are playing your best game! ....your are getting dealt fantastic cards! ....your opponents are calling you, but your hands keep winning! ....even when you had the worst hand, you bluffed oand won! ....and some hands, u just got lucky and won!
Special days like that, when u played against 9 other good players, in a "freeze-out" tourney ("last man standing" winner-takes-all), and you "cleaned-out" nine others, and have "all the chips", can make one feel like they are "simply the best player in the world"!!
And u know what? On that given day, maybe I was the "world's best poker player".
But my problem, there is a tomorrow!
As far as kids playing poker? Not good! Young guys and gals should be "developing their lives" with something more substantial than "poker playing for money". For most of them, I can only invision the loss of money and the loss of time. Time better served by "developing and growing" amd "finding ones' way" in their "life's path"! And for the vast majority of these young poker players! Their path is not playin poker! And I truly hope these kids find that out as soon as possible!
Playing with a young talented poker player for a few hours, I have learned that many times, "male hormones" takes over a "young guys' game", and many times, a "playing pattern is formed by this young kid", and once this pattern is noticed by other savy players, ...it's game, set and match!
Kids, save your energy for girls, fun, sport, molding quality habits, and not gambling, especially poker! As maybe one out of a thousand of you are even close to being good enough to go to that "next level".
Stats don't lie! Did u win more than you lost last year? Play with your girlfriend, and not me!
The 1st one was in a $250 tourney and the other two was $10/$20, in which you won about $200.
Uh... The last time you posted a hand, it showed you winning like $7k.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>The 1st one was in a $250 tourney and the other two was $10/$20, in which you won about $200.
Uh... The last time you posted a hand, it showed you winning like $7k.
>>
Stown is thinking the same way I am. If you're gambling in 7K pots, why would winning a few hundred bucks be so interesting to post about? I didn't see any particularly unusual or interesting strategic plays in the hand. Just the same old random luck with a $2 rake which happens to be about 1% of those pots that will eventually grind out all of the player's bankrolls when playing long enough.
Notice the 6% tournament rake - anyone who thinks they can make money in poker tournaments in the long-run with rakes this high, frankly is a delusional gambler.
<< <i>The 1st one was in a $250 tourney and the other two was $10/$20, in which you won about $200.
Uh... The last time you posted a hand, it showed you winning like $7k.
>>
Emm, When you cash out, and re deposit you have to rebuild your bankroll. I don't ever keep a ton of money on any site. Thanks, but I trust you were smart enough to think about it.
<< <i>The 1st one was in a $250 tourney and the other two was $10/$20, in which you won about $200.
Uh... The last time you posted a hand, it showed you winning like $7k.
>>
Stown is thinking the same way I am. If you're gambling in 7K pots, why would winning a few hundred bucks be so interesting to post about? I didn't see any particularly unusual or interesting strategic plays in the hand. Just the same old random luck with a $2 rake which happens to be about 1% of those pots that will eventually grind out all of the player's bankrolls when playing long enough.
Notice the 6% tournament rake - anyone who thinks they can make money in poker tournaments in the long-run with rakes this high, frankly is a delusional gambler. >>
I was just showing you that I do lose hands and don't win every single one. I think life is all random luck if you think about it that way, your lucky you didn't die last night in your sleep, your lucky your computer doesn't explode while you use it, your lucky you don't die on the way home. Most of your arguement if flawed and it sounds like it comes from someone that loses a lot of money online, just my 2cents though.
<< <i>The 1st one was in a $250 tourney and the other two was $10/$20, in which you won about $200.
Uh... The last time you posted a hand, it showed you winning like $7k.
>>
Emm, When you cash out, and re deposit you have to rebuild your bankroll. I don't ever keep a ton of money on any site. Thanks, but I trust you were smart enough to think about it. >>
Sorry, you must have completely missed the point.
Feel free to post a $7K+ loss when, not if, it happens.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>Steve, What would you accept as proper documentation, auditing, and time frame for disproving your theory?
Joe >>
Anyone posting in a public forum claiming to be winning money playing online poker should know that taxes have to be paid on that money. Since these posters have publicly stated that they are winning money, therefore opening themselves up to scrutiny, then it should not be any problem for them to provide the following information. Simply post proof of this winning money in that same public forum. Post it there or on a blog where everyone can see it including IRS agents who may decide to review the accuracy of the information to make sure the poster is not a tax cheat. Post copies of the most recent federal income tax returns. Post copies of estimated tax payment forms and canceled checks made out to the IRS. Post copies of credit card transactions and statements from the gambling websites regarding deposits and withdrawals. Before posting though, take all of this paperwork to a reputable accounting firm and have it audited. The CPA will match-up credit card transactions with bank account statements and other documents necessary for a proper audit. Also post a signed letter from this accounting firm certifying the accuracy of the paperwork. Since the poster presumably has already properly filed this paperwork and paid taxes to the IRS, all this information should be complete and readily available to be handed over to the accounting firm for the audit. The audit would probably cost a few thousand dollars, but since a number of these posters claim to be making seemingly unlimited amounts of money playing online poker, this expense should be peanuts to them. It has never been witnessed anyone claiming to be winning money playing online poker stepping forward with this very simple task of properly proving it. Unless information such as this is posted, then any claims about winning money playing online poker is only a rumor.
No one has stepped forth with proof about winning because winning money in the long-run playing poker against a house cut is impossible. Do some players win money in the short-run? Yes, that is possible and it does happen. Some fortunate players can win a poker tournament or two and start believing that they are some kind of superior poker player who could make a fortune playing online poker. However the fact is that unless these fortunate winners immediately quit playing after winning a tournament or two, then they eventually will gamble back all of the money won and lose more. Unfortunately, most if not all poker players do not quit playing after winning a tournament because of a fantasy dream belief that they can constantly win more.
There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for any player to overcome even the tiniest of house cuts in the long-run. Poker books and articles spin the effects of the house cut with various misinformation and fuzzy math to fool people into believing that online poker can be beat. You must understand that even the tiniest of house cuts add up with each hand played to the point where everyone playing online poker will sooner or later lose their bankroll. A smaller house cut would allow players to be able to keep their bankrolls longer, but eventually all bankrolls will be lost. To some players these house cuts may seem tiny like a teaspoon of water. But those teaspoons of water accumulate to the point where a bankroll is washed away in a raging flood of many thousands of teaspoons of water.
Winning in the long-run playing online poker was already impossible and now it is even more impossible because of poker bots. Poker bots are now rampant at online poker tables. When poker bots collude at the same table and know each other's hole cards, then the individual human players do not stand any chance of winning against them, even if there was not any house cut. Now with these poker bots, the sucker’s game of online poker has become even more of a sucker’s game. Note though that there has never been any documented proof that poker bots can win money. All poker bots offered for sale to the public have turned out to be money losers. The bankrolls of these poker bots get ground out by the house cut in the exact same manner as human players. So basically the debate is over regarding the possibility of an individual being able to win money at online poker.
Comments
<< <i>I don't know-- is he losing?
Gambling is only a 'problem' if you lose while doing it. stevek has decided that everyone loses at poker, so obviously he figures that there's a direct linear relationship between the amount you play and the size of your problem. I happen to know he's wrong, so I would say that the extent of a 'gambling problem', such as it is, is related to how much one loses relative to one's income/assets.
I guess you could say that a guy who consistently wins is still an addict, although at that point the addiction doesn't really worth talking about.
In any event, your friend's condition aside I think the original point I made was an interesting one. >>
He will hit a HUGE tourney every once in a while but overall he's down. Gets in the mindset of, "lose a few here, win a big one there, it will even out" and doesn't look at the whole picture. Win one tourney for $5k but lose 6 at $1k
Not only does he owe me, along with others, money but the IRS as well
<< <i>
<< <i><<< But if someone plays poker for 2 months straight 90% of us won't hesitate to say that he has a gambling problem. >>>
Ummm...yes....because that would be true.
The problem with gambling addiction versus other addictions is nobody thinks they are going to get rich drinking whiskey, nobody thinks they are going to get rich snorting cocaine, and nobody thinks they are going to get rich smoking four packs of Camels a day. A gambling addict gets the adrenaline rush thrill physical stimulation of the "gambling high" whether winning or losing money, plus the constant hope that the next bet could win a super jackpot, be the start of a gambling hot streak or maybe just pay the rent. All that combined makes for one tough addiction.
It has been stated that gambling addiction is one of the toughest addictions to break and that may be correct. This is a fact - gambling addiction has the highest suicide rate, and attempted suicide rate, of any other addiction and that includes drug addiction.
Steve >>
That may be true, although that doesn't answer the $64,000 question-- i.e., is the relationship between gambling addiction and suicide a direct causal relationship or a correlative relationship? >>
That is a good question Boo. For example, Las Vegas has the highest suicide rate of any city in the United States. And of course Las Vegas has the most gambling of any city in the United States. The question has been pondered whether or not Las Vegas "gambling" deserves this reputation because possibly those "predisposed" to suicide come to Las Vegas to do it. My opinion is that it may be a bit of both...suicidal people coming to Las Vegas and also that the gambling is a trigger. But the fact remains about suicide rates and gambling addiction as pointed out in the link in my last post.
To answer your question directly - Gambling addiction and suicide is definitely a correlative relationship for some. In my opinion the majority of gambling addiction suicides are from a causal relationship - IE: In the majority of suicides attributed to gambling...I believe it is the lost money, lost assets, huge debts, and other daunting financial burdens as well as devastating personal problems such as divorce that are the main factors. Of course your question will never have a definitive answer because the dead tell no tales.
-
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i><<< But if someone plays poker for 2 months straight 90% of us won't hesitate to say that he has a gambling problem. >>>
Ummm...yes....because that would be true.
The problem with gambling addiction versus other addictions is nobody thinks they are going to get rich drinking whiskey, nobody thinks they are going to get rich snorting cocaine, and nobody thinks they are going to get rich smoking four packs of Camels a day. A gambling addict gets the adrenaline rush thrill physical stimulation of the "gambling high" whether winning or losing money, plus the constant hope that the next bet could win a super jackpot, be the start of a gambling hot streak or maybe just pay the rent. All that combined makes for one tough addiction.
It has been stated that gambling addiction is one of the toughest addictions to break and that may be correct. This is a fact - gambling addiction has the highest suicide rate, and attempted suicide rate, of any other addiction and that includes drug addiction.
Steve >>
This is pretty much what I suspect as well. It almost seems as though there 'has' to be a causal relationship, although I suspect, like you, that it's a little bit of both.
That may be true, although that doesn't answer the $64,000 question-- i.e., is the relationship between gambling addiction and suicide a direct causal relationship or a correlative relationship? >>
That is a good question Boo. For example, Las Vegas has the highest suicide rate of any city in the United States. And of course Las Vegas has the most gambling of any city in the United States. The question has been pondered whether or not Las Vegas "gambling" deserves this reputation because possibly those "predisposed" to suicide come to Las Vegas to do it. My opinion is that it may be a bit of both...suicidal people coming to Las Vegas and also that the gambling is a trigger. But the fact remains about suicide rates and gambling addiction as pointed out in the link in my last post.
To answer your question directly - Gambling addiction and suicide is definitely a correlative relationship for some. In my opinion the majority of gambling addiction suicides are from a causal relationship - IE: In the majority of suicides attributed to gambling...I believe it is the lost money, lost assets, huge debts, and other daunting financial burdens as well as devastating personal problems such as divorce that are the main factors. Of course your question will never have a definitive answer because the dead tell no tales.
- >>
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't know-- is he losing?
Gambling is only a 'problem' if you lose while doing it. stevek has decided that everyone loses at poker, so obviously he figures that there's a direct linear relationship between the amount you play and the size of your problem. I happen to know he's wrong, so I would say that the extent of a 'gambling problem', such as it is, is related to how much one loses relative to one's income/assets.
I guess you could say that a guy who consistently wins is still an addict, although at that point the addiction doesn't really worth talking about.
In any event, your friend's condition aside I think the original point I made was an interesting one. >>
He will hit a HUGE tourney every once in a while but overall he's down. Gets in the mindset of, "lose a few here, win a big one there, it will even out" and doesn't look at the whole picture. Win one tourney for $5k but lose 6 at $1k
Not only does he owe me, along with others, money but the IRS as well
There is a term for friends like yours-- 'variance consumers'.
BTW, you won't be doing him or yourself any favors if you lend him any more money. Let him hit rock bottom. Otherwise he'll just keep drifting.
<< <i>There is a term for friends like yours-- 'variance consumers'.
BTW, you won't be doing him or yourself any favors if you lend him any more money. Let him hit rock bottom. Otherwise he'll just keep drifting. >>
Oh believe me, he's cut off. Wish I did it a while ago but I felt bad for the guy. And it wasn't just me but all of our friends.
Oh well, live and learn.
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't know-- is he losing?
Gambling is only a 'problem' if you lose while doing it. stevek has decided that everyone loses at poker, so obviously he figures that there's a direct linear relationship between the amount you play and the size of your problem. I happen to know he's wrong, so I would say that the extent of a 'gambling problem', such as it is, is related to how much one loses relative to one's income/assets.
I guess you could say that a guy who consistently wins is still an addict, although at that point the addiction doesn't really worth talking about.
In any event, your friend's condition aside I think the original point I made was an interesting one. >>
He will hit a HUGE tourney every once in a while but overall he's down. Gets in the mindset of, "lose a few here, win a big one there, it will even out" and doesn't look at the whole picture. Win one tourney for $5k but lose 6 at $1k
Not only does he owe me, along with others, money but the IRS as well
Perfect point by Stown!
<<< Gambling is only a 'problem' if you lose while doing it. stevek has decided that everyone loses at poker >>>
Now, now Boo...you should know that you aren't quoting me accurately. I have clearly stated that poker played without a rake is a game of pure skill whereby the best players will win money in the long-run...most poker players who play in private games already realize this. I have also stated that raked poker played online or in a casino cannot be beat in the long-run, and I firmly stand by that statement because nobody yet have proven me incorrect...NOBODY...and nobody ever will because they can't. But let's please stick to the topic of addiction here okay? I don't care to respond to further comments about raked poker in this thread. Thanks!
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't know-- is he losing?
Gambling is only a 'problem' if you lose while doing it. stevek has decided that everyone loses at poker, so obviously he figures that there's a direct linear relationship between the amount you play and the size of your problem. I happen to know he's wrong, so I would say that the extent of a 'gambling problem', such as it is, is related to how much one loses relative to one's income/assets.
I guess you could say that a guy who consistently wins is still an addict, although at that point the addiction doesn't really worth talking about.
In any event, your friend's condition aside I think the original point I made was an interesting one. >>
He will hit a HUGE tourney every once in a while but overall he's down. Gets in the mindset of, "lose a few here, win a big one there, it will even out" and doesn't look at the whole picture. Win one tourney for $5k but lose 6 at $1k
Not only does he owe me, along with others, money but the IRS as well
Perfect point by Stown!
<<< Gambling is only a 'problem' if you lose while doing it. stevek has decided that everyone loses at poker >>>
Now, now Boo...you should know that you aren't quoting me accurately. I have clearly stated that poker played without a rake is a game of pure skill whereby the best players will win money in the long-run...most poker players who play in private games already realize this. I have also stated that raked poker played online or in a casino cannot be beat in the long-run, and I firmly stand by that statement because nobody yet have proven me incorrect...NOBODY...and nobody ever will because they can't. But let's please stick to the topic of addiction here okay? I don't care to respond to further comments about raked poker in this thread. Thanks!
Steve >>
Fair enough.
Table 'Phaedra IV' 6-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 1: rikker1 ($1129.25 in chips)
Seat 3: mujully ($9441.80 in chips)
Seat 4: WolfOnlce ($6949.25 in chips)
Seat 5: DAINFINITE1 ($7567.35 in chips)
Seat 6: Murdering_M ($5550.10 in chips)
rikker1: posts small blind $25.00
mujully: posts big blind $50.00
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to DAINFINITE1 [As Ac]
WolfOnlce: raises $50.00 to $200
DAINFINITE1: raises $225.00 to $700.00
Murdering_M: folds
rikker1: folds
mujully: calls $700.00
WolfOnlce: folds
*** FLOP *** [Ad 4d 4s]
mujully: checks
DAINFINITE1: checks
*** TURN *** [Ad 4d 4s] [Kh]
mujully: checks
DAINFINITE1: checks
*** RIVER *** [Ad 4d 4s Kh] [8c]
mujully: bets $1200.00
DAINFINITE1: raises $4500.00 to $5700.00
mujully: calls $4500.00
*** SHOW DOWN ***
DAINFINITE1: shows [As Ac] (a full house, Aces full of Fours)
mujully: mucks hand
DAINFINITE1 collected $ 13205.00 from pot
DAINFINITE1 is sitting out
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $13205.00 | Rake $3
Board [Ad 4d 4s Kh 8c]
Seat 1: rikker1 (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 3: mujully (big blind) mucked [Kd Qh]
Seat 4: WolfOnlce folded before Flop
Seat 5: DAINFINITE1 showed [As Ac] and won ($13205.00) with a full house, Aces full of Fours
Seat 6: Murdering_M (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
I love raked poker, looks like my family will get some good christmas presents.
Youth gambling is dangerous
(Nov 30, 2006)
When your teenage son or daughter heads over to their friend's house for a night of innocent poker or other card game, that's much better than sending them off to a bar or a house party, right? Maybe not.
Young people aged 18 to 24 have the highest incidence of gambling problems compared to other age groups, according to the Responsible Gambling Council. Our area is not immune to this trend, as the Homewood Community Addiction Services, which helps young people combat gambling problems, has seen its caseload double in the past four years. It is a scary thought, but one that continues to grow, especially with the help of multi-million-dollar televised poker championships and winners of large jackpots being portrayed as heroes.
Gamblers are often portrayed as stereotypical slot-machine addicts or people with deep, dark secrets who are sneaking out of the house and gambling away their families' savings. The reality is much worse and parents may not think of gambling in the way it actually plays out with young people today. Buying lottery tickets or playing poker in your buddy's basement on a regular basis can lead to problems -- big, expensive, emotional problems.
Tailoring counselling and other programs to youth is one way to help them understand the problem and get help. A play showing up on the Ontario high school circuit works to reach youth on their own territory and portray gambling as a problem, not a cool way to make some cash on the side.
Earlier this month, the Mercury detailed the life of University of Guelph student Mark Zettel, a 20-year-old who was making thousands playing poker online five or six hours per night, much more cash than many of his peers made working part-time jobs. After realizing he didn't like how moody he felt when he was losing, he decided to scale back the play. For many others his age, however, changing habits and removing themselves from the gambling world is not something they can do alone.
A poll released by the Responsible Gambling Council found that 37 per cent of those aged 18 to 34 play poker for money. Card games are not as harmless as they seem, or as good an alternative for teenagers that some parents may believe them to be. Poker, like all forms of gambling, can be habit forming. If young people become hooked before they are even 20, it is hard to think what might transpire in their lives if their play gets out of hand and they fail to get help.
<< <i>A poll released by the Responsible Gambling Council found that 37 per cent of those aged 18 to 34 play poker for money. Card games are not as harmless as they seem, or as good an alternative for teenagers that some parents may believe them to be. Poker, like all forms of gambling, can be habit forming. If young people become hooked before they are even 20, it is hard to think what might transpire in their lives if their play gets out of hand and they fail to get help. >>
So 18-34, 37% play poker for money. Right off you're thinking 'wow', but let's take a look at that.
-they don't specify how often they are playing for money.
-they don't specify how much they are play for.
They quote a stat of '18-34', then immediately after talk about what will happen if they get 'hooked' before they reach 20...what happens to someone who gets hooked when they are older?
This is all much ado about nothing.
<< <i>Never gamble with money you can't lose. My grandfather once told me this... >>
Good advice. And also good advice is don't gamble on games in which there is no chance to make money in the long-run. Raked poker is for suckers, chumps and fish.
You wanna "gamble"?.....fine.....then do it in smart ways such as buying real estate, long term stock investments, or starting your own business - that's taking a chance the right way in which long term there can be an excellent opportunity for success!
Are there still REPUTABLE online sites where I can still play for real money???? What method of deposits and money transfers to you use? Are they safe? Legal ramifications now???
I need a fix.
Even if I agree with you Steve (which I'm not sure I do), I still like to play for a little fun. And if I blow a $100 a week, it's still cheaper than a date at the movies and dinner out with a couple of drinks.
shawn
<< <i>PokerStars Game #7238545184: Hold'em No Limit (25.00/$50.00) - 2006/11/30 - 11:50:52 (ET)
Table 'Phaedra IV' 6-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 1: rikker1 ($1129.25 in chips)
Seat 3: mujully ($9441.80 in chips)
Seat 4: WolfOnlce ($6949.25 in chips)
Seat 5: DAINFINITE1 ($7567.35 in chips)
Seat 6: Murdering_M ($5550.10 in chips)
rikker1: posts small blind $25.00
mujully: posts big blind $50.00
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to DAINFINITE1 [As Ac]
WolfOnlce: raises $50.00 to $200
DAINFINITE1: raises $225.00 to $700.00
Murdering_M: folds
rikker1: folds
mujully: calls $700.00
WolfOnlce: folds
*** FLOP *** [Ad 4d 4s]
mujully: checks
DAINFINITE1: checks
*** TURN *** [Ad 4d 4s] [Kh]
mujully: checks
DAINFINITE1: checks
*** RIVER *** [Ad 4d 4s Kh] [8c]
mujully: bets $1200.00
DAINFINITE1: raises $4500.00 to $5700.00
mujully: calls $4500.00
*** SHOW DOWN ***
DAINFINITE1: shows [As Ac] (a full house, Aces full of Fours)
mujully: mucks hand
DAINFINITE1 collected $ 13205.00 from pot
DAINFINITE1 is sitting out
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $13205.00 | Rake $3
Board [Ad 4d 4s Kh 8c]
Seat 1: rikker1 (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 3: mujully (big blind) mucked [Kd Qh]
Seat 4: WolfOnlce folded before Flop
Seat 5: DAINFINITE1 showed [As Ac] and won ($13205.00) with a full house, Aces full of Fours
Seat 6: Murdering_M (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
I love raked poker, looks like my family will get some good christmas presents. >>
Good for you. But then sometime, possibly tomorrow, possibly the next hand, your opponent is going to have pocket 4's and bury you. You gonna post that hand? No...you'll probably quit playing raked poker...an expensive lesson learned.
-
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
I agree with you about poker in private games but not poker in raked games. Admittedly I think Randymoss84 played that hand nicely with the two checks. But there's still that variance at play whereby the other player could have been slow playing pocket 4's and Randymoss84 gets crushed instead.
And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.
I have not seen any documented proof whereby anyone can overcome rakes like this in the long-run. Yes, some fortunate player can get a huge positive variance of winning say a million dollar online tournament, which is basically like hitting a lottery - then it might take many years for the rake to grind out his bankroll, all things being equal. But the math is clear...eventually given enough time and enough hands the rake, even a small rake, grinds out all bankrolls. There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake.
Steve
<< <i>Are there still REPUTABLE online sites where I can still play for real money? >>
pokerstars, still up and running for US customers.
<< <i>
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
I agree with you about poker in private games but not poker in raked games. Admittedly I think Randymoss84 played that hand nicely with the two checks. But there's still that variance at play whereby the other player could have been slow playing pocket 4's and Randymoss84 gets crushed instead.
And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.
I have not seen any documented proof whereby anyone can overcome rakes like this in the long-run. Yes, some fortunate player can get a huge positive variance of winning say a million dollar online tournament, which is basically like hitting a lottery - then it might take many years for the rake to grind out his bankroll, all things being equal. But the math is clear...eventually given enough time and enough hands the rake, even a small rake, grinds out all bankrolls. There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake.
Steve >>
Steve,
You've said before that you believe a non raked game can be beaten, but that a raked game cannot be. Can you tell me what, in your opinion, is the largest win rate that a player playing in a non raked game can hope to attain? If you could, phrase your answer in terms of big bets per hour. If we take something like a $2-$4 poker game, for instance, you might say that a non raked game can be beaten for one 'small bet' per hour, which in this case would be $2, or one 'big bet' per hour (which in this case would be $4), or some fraction thereof.
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
A loser man a loser. The overbet is so easy to spot. I was ROFL when he called. You'd think when you move up in limits they'd get better.
Steve- I could live my life being scared, yes. Heck I could die tomorow in a car accident, get robbed anything, but then again live life to the fullest and for the moment. If he had 44 then he played it well.
<< <i>
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
I agree with you about poker in private games but not poker in raked games. Admittedly I think Randymoss84 played that hand nicely with the two checks. But there's still that variance at play whereby the other player could have been slow playing pocket 4's and Randymoss84 gets crushed instead.
And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.
I have not seen any documented proof whereby anyone can overcome rakes like this in the long-run. Yes, some fortunate player can get a huge positive variance of winning say a million dollar online tournament, which is basically like hitting a lottery - then it might take many years for the rake to grind out his bankroll, all things being equal. But the math is clear...eventually given enough time and enough hands the rake, even a small rake, grinds out all bankrolls. There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake.
Steve >>
Hey steve, there are options called rake back for online sites. They pay you up to 2/3rds of your rake back to play and sign up under them via sites. If your not to lazy and do research you can beat rake, just gotta have motavation. Also private games, I'd never bring 10k into a private game for fear of cheating, Getting arrested(it is a illegal you know) or not getting my money if a big hand went down IE robbed or them running out without paying.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
I agree with you about poker in private games but not poker in raked games. Admittedly I think Randymoss84 played that hand nicely with the two checks. But there's still that variance at play whereby the other player could have been slow playing pocket 4's and Randymoss84 gets crushed instead.
And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.
I have not seen any documented proof whereby anyone can overcome rakes like this in the long-run. Yes, some fortunate player can get a huge positive variance of winning say a million dollar online tournament, which is basically like hitting a lottery - then it might take many years for the rake to grind out his bankroll, all things being equal. But the math is clear...eventually given enough time and enough hands the rake, even a small rake, grinds out all bankrolls. There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake.
Steve >>
Steve,
You've said before that you believe a non raked game can be beaten, but that a raked game cannot be. Can you tell me what, in your opinion, is the largest win rate that a player playing in a non raked game can hope to attain? If you could, phrase your answer in terms of big bets per hour. If we take something like a $2-$4 poker game, for instance, you might say that a non raked game can be beaten for one 'small bet' per hour, which in this case would be $2, or one 'big bet' per hour (which in this case would be $4), or some fraction thereof. >>
I don't have to "believe" a non-raked game can be beaten...I already know and most poker players who play in private games already know that the best players do win money in the long-run. The fact that the best players win money in private poker really is not debatable - poker played in private games is strictly a game of pure skill.
Poker played against a rake is a game of skill only to the extent that skill will allow a player to lose their money slower - but eventually their bankroll will be lost. In theory it sounds logical that all a player has to do to win against a rake is be a percentage better than the other players versus the rake percentage. But in practice it doesn't work. And the fact is that nobody has ever proven with documented evidence that they are beating a rake long term.
Granted, if a skilled player was only ever playing little old ladies from Pasadena who knew absolutely nothing about poker, then yes a rake could likely be beat. But little old ladies from Pasadena aren't playing online poker. If they gamble online they are playing non-thinking games such as slots and roulette. Those who understand poker only a little bit generally play video poker.
Those who at least know the rudimentary fundamentals of poker for the most part play in skill levels according to pot value. Yes, there can be some excellent players at microlimits and some unskilled players at high no limit games, but that is not the usual case. For the most part, the dollar value of the pots determines the skill levels. In a nutshell, generally you're not going to find Phil Ivey playing in a low limit game. But you know what?...with the brutal rake at low limits, even Phil would still lose money in the long-run.
Answering your question about big bets. Now how on earth are you going to accurately predict that? Especially online where it is basically impossible to get tells from any players. All you're looking at is their chip stack and how long it takes them to make a bet. Not any sort of real opportunity to get accurate tells there is it? So basically for the most part sometimes on your big bets preflop, you're going to have QQ versus JJ, and sometimes you're going to have JJ versus QQ - random luck. Postflop there's more skill involved but still there's a lot of luck involved as well. You could flop say trip A's (not a set) and your opponent also flops trip A's but has a better kicker and winds up winning the pot - again...random luck with a big bet win or lose. But the rake is not random...it is constantly eating away and grinding out a bankroll.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
I agree with you about poker in private games but not poker in raked games. Admittedly I think Randymoss84 played that hand nicely with the two checks. But there's still that variance at play whereby the other player could have been slow playing pocket 4's and Randymoss84 gets crushed instead.
And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.
I have not seen any documented proof whereby anyone can overcome rakes like this in the long-run. Yes, some fortunate player can get a huge positive variance of winning say a million dollar online tournament, which is basically like hitting a lottery - then it might take many years for the rake to grind out his bankroll, all things being equal. But the math is clear...eventually given enough time and enough hands the rake, even a small rake, grinds out all bankrolls. There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake.
Steve >>
Steve,
You've said before that you believe a non raked game can be beaten, but that a raked game cannot be. Can you tell me what, in your opinion, is the largest win rate that a player playing in a non raked game can hope to attain? If you could, phrase your answer in terms of big bets per hour. If we take something like a $2-$4 poker game, for instance, you might say that a non raked game can be beaten for one 'small bet' per hour, which in this case would be $2, or one 'big bet' per hour (which in this case would be $4), or some fraction thereof. >>
I don't have to "believe" a non-raked game can be beaten...I already know and most poker players who play in private games already know that the best players do win money in the long-run. The fact that the best players win money in private poker really is not debatable - poker played in private games is strictly a game of pure skill.
Poker played against a rake is a game of skill only to the extent that skill will allow a player to lose their money slower - but eventually their bankroll will be lost. In theory it sounds logical that all a player has to do to win against a rake is be a percentage better than the other players versus the rake percentage. But in practice it doesn't work. And the fact is that nobody has ever proven with documented evidence that they are beating a rake long term.
Granted, if a skilled player was only ever playing little old ladies from Pasadena who knew absolutely nothing about poker, then yes a rake could likely be beat. But little old ladies from Pasadena aren't playing online poker. If they gamble online they are playing non-thinking games such as slots and roulette. Those who understand poker only a little bit generally play video poker.
Those who at least know the rudimentary fundamentals of poker for the most part play in skill levels according to pot value. Yes, there can be some excellent players at microlimits and some unskilled players at high no limit games, but that is not the usual case. For the most part, the dollar value of the pots determines the skill levels. In a nutshell, generally you're not going to find Phil Ivey playing in a low limit game. But you know what?...with the brutal rake at low limits, even Phil would still lose money in the long-run.
Answering your question about big bets. Now how on earth are you going to accurately predict that? Especially online where it is basically impossible to get tells from any players. All you're looking at is their chip stack and how long it takes them to make a bet. Not any sort of real opportunity to get accurate tells there is it? So basically for the most part sometimes on your big bets preflop, you're going to have QQ versus JJ, and sometimes you're going to have JJ versus QQ - random luck. Postflop there's more skill involved but still there's a lot of luck involved as well. You could flop say trip A's (not a set) and your opponent also flops trip A's but has a better kicker and winds up winning the pot - again...random luck with a big bet win or lose. But the rake is not random...it is constantly eating away and grinding out a bankroll.
Steve >>
I cashed out all but 100 bucks to see if I could beat the micro limits. The rake is pretty wack there. 3 bucks for pots of 50 bucks. I ended up getting it all in QQ vs a5 and lost a race. Oh well, my truck is getting new rims thanks to KQ.
<<< Steve- I could live my life being scared, yes. Heck I could die tomorow in a car accident, get robbed anything, but then again live life to the fullest and for the moment. If he had 44 then he played it well. >>>
Second Post:
<<< Also private games, I'd never bring 10k into a private game for fear of cheating, Getting arrested(it is a illegal you know) or not getting my money if a big hand went down IE robbed or them running out without paying. >>>
Seems like a bit of a contradiction there - LOL. I'm just kidding a bit but what I'm not kidding about and what you don't realize is that all online poker players are the fish...you just haven't been eaten yet. The only sharks are the gambling website owners and they don't take prisoners. Somehow, someway, possibly when you least expect it...you will lose your bankroll gambling online - just a question of when.
You can do all the rakeback deals you want, and do anything else you want - it won't help you in the long-run. Rakeback only allows you to lose your money slower. Hey...I sure hate to spoil anybody's fantasy dream about supplementing their income or making a living playing online poker, and you know...possibly hanging out with Calvin Ayre and dating supermodels. I fully understand the attraction and addiction of gambling. But somebody has to tell you so it might as well be me...and frankly it bothers me when clever gambling website owners prey on their customers. They get rich while their customers get poor.
You seem like an intelligent young man...hopefully you'll figure this all out sooner or later...that no matter how they spin it, you are never going to beat online poker in the long-run. Keep this in mind...there have been millions of online poker players and there has never been one single properly documented winner in the long-run - not one. Of course I've seen guys like you before...you think even if that's the case that you might be the first long term winner - unrealistic fantasy dreams like that can be a sign of gambling addiction.
Steve
<< <i>First Post:
<<< Steve- I could live my life being scared, yes. Heck I could die tomorow in a car accident, get robbed anything, but then again live life to the fullest and for the moment. If he had 44 then he played it well. >>>
Second Post:
<<< Also private games, I'd never bring 10k into a private game for fear of cheating, Getting arrested(it is a illegal you know) or not getting my money if a big hand went down IE robbed or them running out without paying. >>>
Seems like a bit of a contradiction there - LOL. I'm just kidding a bit but what I'm not kidding about and what you don't realize is that all online poker players are the fish...you just haven't been eaten yet. The only sharks are the gambling website owners and they don't take prisoners. Somehow, someway, possibly when you least expect it...you will lose your bankroll gambling online - just a question of when.
You can do all the rakeback deals you want, and do anything else you want - it won't help you in the long-run. Rakeback only allows you to lose your money slower. Hey...I sure hate to spoil anybody's fantasy dream about supplementing their income or making a living playing online poker, and you know...possibly hanging out with Calvin Ayre and dating supermodels. I fully understand the attraction and addiction of gambling. But somebody has to tell you so it might as well be me...and frankly it bothers me when clever gambling website owners prey on their customers. They get rich while their customers get poor.
You seem like an intelligent young man...hopefully you'll figure this all out sooner or later...that no matter how they spin it, you are never going to beat online poker in the long-run. Keep this in mind...there have been millions of online poker players and there has never been one single properly documented winner in the long-run - not one. Of course I've seen guys like you before...you think even if that's the case that you might be the first long term winner - unrealistic fantasy dreams like that can be a sign of gambling addiction.
Steve >>
I rarely play online poker, I was just dang board in my lecture class today so I put some money on pokerstars. When I won, I was in class and the guy behind me was watching and hit me in the back saying wow.
Smart move man - I hope you stay cashed out - take the money and run. Unfortunately, I haven't known a gambler yet who quit while they were ahead at raked poker. I thought David Williams was going to be the first one when after he won some big money in a tournament, stated that he was strongly considering quitting while he was ahead...but he went back.
That "pull" for him and everyone else winning a big buck at poker and then believing they have become a poker playing genius...that pull is usually too strong to resist. Of course Williams now has a poker related website, so maybe the move to continue playing is a good business decision for him whereby even if he loses money in tournaments, by staying public he can attract gamblers to his website and hopefully they'll click on the gambling website links and signup so Williams receives his affiliate commissions off of their losses. I have read where some affiliate commission programs pay up to 50% commission. So overall Williams still profits and maybe profits big.
Steve
<< <i><<< I cashed out all but 100 bucks to see if I could beat the micro limits. The rake is pretty wack there. 3 bucks for pots of 50 bucks. I ended up getting it all in QQ vs a5 and lost a race. Oh well, my truck is getting new rims thanks to KQ. >>>
Smart move man - I hope you stay cashed out - take the money and run. Unfortunately, I haven't known a gambler yet who quit while they were ahead at raked poker. I thought David Williams was going to be the first one when after he won some big money in a tournament, stated that he was strongly considering quitting while he was ahead...but he went back.
That "pull" for him and everyone else winning a big buck at poker and then believing they have become a poker playing genius...that pull is usually too strong to resist. Of course Williams now has a poker related website, so maybe the move to continue playing is a good business decision for him whereby even if he loses money in tournaments, by staying public he can attract gamblers to his website and hopefully they'll click on the gambling website links and signup so Williams receives his affiliate commissions off of their losses. I have read where some affiliate commission programs pay up to 50% commission. So overall Williams still profits and maybe profits big.
Steve >>
I watched David Williams play at FTP and he dropped 18k in 2 hours vs Mike the mouth in OMAHA 8. Mikey is very good at OMaha8 and not sure why people play him at that game, play him at NL and he will hand you money.... Supposedly David said he had a 120k bankroll before coming 2nd in that tourny.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Perk
I could sure play a little poker with those 2 in your sig!!!
Bill
* This poll has nothing to do with any particular thread which may, or may not, still be in existence on the Sports Talk Forum >>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
I agree with you about poker in private games but not poker in raked games. Admittedly I think Randymoss84 played that hand nicely with the two checks. But there's still that variance at play whereby the other player could have been slow playing pocket 4's and Randymoss84 gets crushed instead.
And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.
I have not seen any documented proof whereby anyone can overcome rakes like this in the long-run. Yes, some fortunate player can get a huge positive variance of winning say a million dollar online tournament, which is basically like hitting a lottery - then it might take many years for the rake to grind out his bankroll, all things being equal. But the math is clear...eventually given enough time and enough hands the rake, even a small rake, grinds out all bankrolls. There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake.
Steve >>
Steve,
You've said before that you believe a non raked game can be beaten, but that a raked game cannot be. Can you tell me what, in your opinion, is the largest win rate that a player playing in a non raked game can hope to attain? If you could, phrase your answer in terms of big bets per hour. If we take something like a $2-$4 poker game, for instance, you might say that a non raked game can be beaten for one 'small bet' per hour, which in this case would be $2, or one 'big bet' per hour (which in this case would be $4), or some fraction thereof. >>
I don't have to "believe" a non-raked game can be beaten...I already know and most poker players who play in private games already know that the best players do win money in the long-run. The fact that the best players win money in private poker really is not debatable - poker played in private games is strictly a game of pure skill.
Poker played against a rake is a game of skill only to the extent that skill will allow a player to lose their money slower - but eventually their bankroll will be lost. In theory it sounds logical that all a player has to do to win against a rake is be a percentage better than the other players versus the rake percentage. But in practice it doesn't work. And the fact is that nobody has ever proven with documented evidence that they are beating a rake long term.
Granted, if a skilled player was only ever playing little old ladies from Pasadena who knew absolutely nothing about poker, then yes a rake could likely be beat. But little old ladies from Pasadena aren't playing online poker. If they gamble online they are playing non-thinking games such as slots and roulette. Those who understand poker only a little bit generally play video poker.
Those who at least know the rudimentary fundamentals of poker for the most part play in skill levels according to pot value. Yes, there can be some excellent players at microlimits and some unskilled players at high no limit games, but that is not the usual case. For the most part, the dollar value of the pots determines the skill levels. In a nutshell, generally you're not going to find Phil Ivey playing in a low limit game. But you know what?...with the brutal rake at low limits, even Phil would still lose money in the long-run.
Answering your question about big bets. Now how on earth are you going to accurately predict that? Especially online where it is basically impossible to get tells from any players. All you're looking at is their chip stack and how long it takes them to make a bet. Not any sort of real opportunity to get accurate tells there is it? So basically for the most part sometimes on your big bets preflop, you're going to have QQ versus JJ, and sometimes you're going to have JJ versus QQ - random luck. Postflop there's more skill involved but still there's a lot of luck involved as well. You could flop say trip A's (not a set) and your opponent also flops trip A's but has a better kicker and winds up winning the pot - again...random luck with a big bet win or lose. But the rake is not random...it is constantly eating away and grinding out a bankroll.
Steve >>
Two things:
1) Your argument that the players get better as the stakes increase has one very conspicuous flaw-- i.e., that whether they do, in fact, get better is not nearly as important as HOW much better. If you are playing against terrible players in a microlimit game, and average-to-mediocre players in a 15-30 game, then the fact that the players have gotten 'better' isn't particularly important. Also, I would add that the stakes which most players choose to play at is more of a function of risk tolerance and financial constraint then it is of playing ability--- a fact that you can readily verify, if you so choose, by watching the players in an online 2-4 game and then watching the players in a 20-40 game. You will, in most instances, see the players in both games making similar pre and post flop mistakes.
2) For some reason you choose to ignore the fact that the rake is capped-- usually at $3 when the pot reaches $60. This holds for all games. Thus, the most that a pot will be raked at 1-2 is $3, and the most that a pot at $100-$200 will be raked is $3. If you assume that a strong player in a 10 handed game will win about 7% of the total pots, and that the average pot is 5 big bets, then the 'rake responsibility' of a playing in a 2-4 game is about $4.55 (or one big bet) per hour, while the same number for a $15-$30 player is around $13 (or, to put it another way, about 40% of the rake paid by a 2-4 player when you translate the number into big bets). For players playing higher the number obviously decreases.
The implication here, I hope, is obvious. If you want to say that 'no raked game is beatable' then you're assuming that the most a player could hope to win in a rake-free game at the 15-30 level is 40% of a big bet per hour, the most a 2-4 player could hope to win in the same game is 1 big bet per hour, and the most that a $50-$100 player could hope to win would be around 25% of a big bet per hour. Yet these numbers are dependant on the notion-- a notion, I might add, which does not have any empiracle foundation-- that at each successive increase in stakes the players improve at a ratio that negates the ever decreasing rake responsibility of each player.
How can you determine whether a game is 'soft' or 'tight'? One quick and generally accurate way to do this is to go to any online poker room and look at both the average pot size and the average number of players to see the flop in any given room. Most rooms give you these numbers. If you check this out you will see, on average, that most games above the $.50-$1.00 level will have an average pot size of about 5 big bets, and a '% of players to the flop' number in the 27%-35% range. So long as you agree that the playing ability of a given player is determined largely by a) the % of the time he voluntarily enters a pot, and b) the % of the time he continues on with a hand after the flop, then you by necessity must agree that the above two stastics are a fairly reliable measurement of a game's 'toughness'. If this is true, then you would expect both of these numbers to decrease-- and probably decrease significantly-- as the stakes go up. But they do not.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
I agree with you about poker in private games but not poker in raked games. Admittedly I think Randymoss84 played that hand nicely with the two checks. But there's still that variance at play whereby the other player could have been slow playing pocket 4's and Randymoss84 gets crushed instead.
And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.
I have not seen any documented proof whereby anyone can overcome rakes like this in the long-run. Yes, some fortunate player can get a huge positive variance of winning say a million dollar online tournament, which is basically like hitting a lottery - then it might take many years for the rake to grind out his bankroll, all things being equal. But the math is clear...eventually given enough time and enough hands the rake, even a small rake, grinds out all bankrolls. There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake.
Steve >>
Steve,
You've said before that you believe a non raked game can be beaten, but that a raked game cannot be. Can you tell me what, in your opinion, is the largest win rate that a player playing in a non raked game can hope to attain? If you could, phrase your answer in terms of big bets per hour. If we take something like a $2-$4 poker game, for instance, you might say that a non raked game can be beaten for one 'small bet' per hour, which in this case would be $2, or one 'big bet' per hour (which in this case would be $4), or some fraction thereof. >>
I don't have to "believe" a non-raked game can be beaten...I already know and most poker players who play in private games already know that the best players do win money in the long-run. The fact that the best players win money in private poker really is not debatable - poker played in private games is strictly a game of pure skill.
Poker played against a rake is a game of skill only to the extent that skill will allow a player to lose their money slower - but eventually their bankroll will be lost. In theory it sounds logical that all a player has to do to win against a rake is be a percentage better than the other players versus the rake percentage. But in practice it doesn't work. And the fact is that nobody has ever proven with documented evidence that they are beating a rake long term.
Granted, if a skilled player was only ever playing little old ladies from Pasadena who knew absolutely nothing about poker, then yes a rake could likely be beat. But little old ladies from Pasadena aren't playing online poker. If they gamble online they are playing non-thinking games such as slots and roulette. Those who understand poker only a little bit generally play video poker.
Those who at least know the rudimentary fundamentals of poker for the most part play in skill levels according to pot value. Yes, there can be some excellent players at microlimits and some unskilled players at high no limit games, but that is not the usual case. For the most part, the dollar value of the pots determines the skill levels. In a nutshell, generally you're not going to find Phil Ivey playing in a low limit game. But you know what?...with the brutal rake at low limits, even Phil would still lose money in the long-run.
Answering your question about big bets. Now how on earth are you going to accurately predict that? Especially online where it is basically impossible to get tells from any players. All you're looking at is their chip stack and how long it takes them to make a bet. Not any sort of real opportunity to get accurate tells there is it? So basically for the most part sometimes on your big bets preflop, you're going to have QQ versus JJ, and sometimes you're going to have JJ versus QQ - random luck. Postflop there's more skill involved but still there's a lot of luck involved as well. You could flop say trip A's (not a set) and your opponent also flops trip A's but has a better kicker and winds up winning the pot - again...random luck with a big bet win or lose. But the rake is not random...it is constantly eating away and grinding out a bankroll.
Steve >>
Two things:
1) Your argument that the players get better as the stakes increase has one very conspicuous flaw-- i.e., that whether they do, in fact, get better is not nearly as important as HOW much better. If you are playing against terrible players in a microlimit game, and average-to-mediocre players in a 15-30 game, then the fact that the players have gotten 'better' isn't particularly important. Also, I would add that the stakes which most players choose to play at is more of a function of risk tolerance and financial constraint then it is of playing ability--- a fact that you can readily verify, if you so choose, by watching the players in an online 2-4 game and then watching the players in a 20-40 game. You will, in most instances, see the players in both games making similar pre and post flop mistakes.
2) For some reason you choose to ignore the fact that the rake is capped-- usually at $3 when the pot reaches $60. This holds for all games. Thus, the most that a pot will be raked at 1-2 is $3, and the most that a pot at $100-$200 will be raked is $3. If you assume that a strong player in a 10 handed game will win about 7% of the total pots, and that the average pot is 5 big bets, then the 'rake responsibility' of a playing in a 2-4 game is about $4.55 (or one big bet) per hour, while the same number for a $15-$30 player is around $13 (or, to put it another way, about 40% of the rake paid by a 2-4 player when you translate the number into big bets). For players playing higher the number obviously decreases.
The implication here, I hope, is obvious. If you want to say that 'no raked game is beatable' then you're assuming that the most a player could hope to win in a rake-free game at the 15-30 level is 40% of a big bet per hour, the most a 2-4 player could hope to win in the same game is 1 big bet per hour, and the most that a $50-$100 player could hope to win would be around 25% of a big bet per hour. Yet these numbers are dependant on the notion-- a notion, I might add, which does not have any empiracle foundation-- that at each successive increase in stakes the players improve at a ratio that negates the ever decreasing rake responsibility of each player.
How can you determine whether a game is 'soft' or 'tight'? One quick and generally accurate way to do this is to go to any online poker room and look at both the average pot size and the average number of players to see the flop in any given room. Most rooms give you these numbers. If you check this out you will see, on average, that most games above the $.50-$1.00 level will have an average pot size of about 5 big bets, and a '% of players to the flop' number in the 27%-35% range. So long as you agree that the playing ability of a given player is determined largely by a) the % of the time he voluntarily enters a pot, and b) the % of the time he continues on with a hand after the flop, then you by necessity must agree that the above two stastics are a fairly reliable measurement of a game's 'toughness'. If this is true, then you would expect both of these numbers to decrease-- and probably decrease significantly-- as the stakes go up. But they do not. >>
Boo I clearly understand the "cap" because I used a set $2 number to illustrate the example of you having played 1.4 million hands of poker. Maybe you didn't read my previous post in this thread....." And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.".....so frankly, I don't see how it's possible for you to overcome $500,000 in rake.
Can anyone overcome $500,000 in rake? Well I have watched those guys play on the internet for high stakes. I once watched Mike Matusow lose well over 60K in chips in about twenty minutes. With average pots of 5K, 10K and more, admittedly it could take quite awhile, perhaps years, for a small rake to take affect with some players given variances involved and the size of their bankroll.
But here's the basic dilemma for any online poker player...in the long-run the variances tend to even out....but the rake doesn't even out.....it keeps accumulating to the point where it eventually crushes an online bankroll - just a question of when. Yes, the pot rake is capped but the $500,000 rake figure isn't capped as long as you continue playing online poker. It keeps on growing like an incurable malignant tumor to a bankroll.
Bottom line - There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake. Need scientific proof based on observation? - There has never been one, NOT ONE single properly documented case of anyone ever beating the rake in the long-run.
Steve
-
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
I agree with you about poker in private games but not poker in raked games. Admittedly I think Randymoss84 played that hand nicely with the two checks. But there's still that variance at play whereby the other player could have been slow playing pocket 4's and Randymoss84 gets crushed instead.
And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.
I have not seen any documented proof whereby anyone can overcome rakes like this in the long-run. Yes, some fortunate player can get a huge positive variance of winning say a million dollar online tournament, which is basically like hitting a lottery - then it might take many years for the rake to grind out his bankroll, all things being equal. But the math is clear...eventually given enough time and enough hands the rake, even a small rake, grinds out all bankrolls. There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake.
Steve >>
Steve,
You've said before that you believe a non raked game can be beaten, but that a raked game cannot be. Can you tell me what, in your opinion, is the largest win rate that a player playing in a non raked game can hope to attain? If you could, phrase your answer in terms of big bets per hour. If we take something like a $2-$4 poker game, for instance, you might say that a non raked game can be beaten for one 'small bet' per hour, which in this case would be $2, or one 'big bet' per hour (which in this case would be $4), or some fraction thereof. >>
I don't have to "believe" a non-raked game can be beaten...I already know and most poker players who play in private games already know that the best players do win money in the long-run. The fact that the best players win money in private poker really is not debatable - poker played in private games is strictly a game of pure skill.
Poker played against a rake is a game of skill only to the extent that skill will allow a player to lose their money slower - but eventually their bankroll will be lost. In theory it sounds logical that all a player has to do to win against a rake is be a percentage better than the other players versus the rake percentage. But in practice it doesn't work. And the fact is that nobody has ever proven with documented evidence that they are beating a rake long term.
Granted, if a skilled player was only ever playing little old ladies from Pasadena who knew absolutely nothing about poker, then yes a rake could likely be beat. But little old ladies from Pasadena aren't playing online poker. If they gamble online they are playing non-thinking games such as slots and roulette. Those who understand poker only a little bit generally play video poker.
Those who at least know the rudimentary fundamentals of poker for the most part play in skill levels according to pot value. Yes, there can be some excellent players at microlimits and some unskilled players at high no limit games, but that is not the usual case. For the most part, the dollar value of the pots determines the skill levels. In a nutshell, generally you're not going to find Phil Ivey playing in a low limit game. But you know what?...with the brutal rake at low limits, even Phil would still lose money in the long-run.
Answering your question about big bets. Now how on earth are you going to accurately predict that? Especially online where it is basically impossible to get tells from any players. All you're looking at is their chip stack and how long it takes them to make a bet. Not any sort of real opportunity to get accurate tells there is it? So basically for the most part sometimes on your big bets preflop, you're going to have QQ versus JJ, and sometimes you're going to have JJ versus QQ - random luck. Postflop there's more skill involved but still there's a lot of luck involved as well. You could flop say trip A's (not a set) and your opponent also flops trip A's but has a better kicker and winds up winning the pot - again...random luck with a big bet win or lose. But the rake is not random...it is constantly eating away and grinding out a bankroll.
Steve >>
Two things:
1) Your argument that the players get better as the stakes increase has one very conspicuous flaw-- i.e., that whether they do, in fact, get better is not nearly as important as HOW much better. If you are playing against terrible players in a microlimit game, and average-to-mediocre players in a 15-30 game, then the fact that the players have gotten 'better' isn't particularly important. Also, I would add that the stakes which most players choose to play at is more of a function of risk tolerance and financial constraint then it is of playing ability--- a fact that you can readily verify, if you so choose, by watching the players in an online 2-4 game and then watching the players in a 20-40 game. You will, in most instances, see the players in both games making similar pre and post flop mistakes.
2) For some reason you choose to ignore the fact that the rake is capped-- usually at $3 when the pot reaches $60. This holds for all games. Thus, the most that a pot will be raked at 1-2 is $3, and the most that a pot at $100-$200 will be raked is $3. If you assume that a strong player in a 10 handed game will win about 7% of the total pots, and that the average pot is 5 big bets, then the 'rake responsibility' of a playing in a 2-4 game is about $4.55 (or one big bet) per hour, while the same number for a $15-$30 player is around $13 (or, to put it another way, about 40% of the rake paid by a 2-4 player when you translate the number into big bets). For players playing higher the number obviously decreases.
The implication here, I hope, is obvious. If you want to say that 'no raked game is beatable' then you're assuming that the most a player could hope to win in a rake-free game at the 15-30 level is 40% of a big bet per hour, the most a 2-4 player could hope to win in the same game is 1 big bet per hour, and the most that a $50-$100 player could hope to win would be around 25% of a big bet per hour. Yet these numbers are dependant on the notion-- a notion, I might add, which does not have any empiracle foundation-- that at each successive increase in stakes the players improve at a ratio that negates the ever decreasing rake responsibility of each player.
How can you determine whether a game is 'soft' or 'tight'? One quick and generally accurate way to do this is to go to any online poker room and look at both the average pot size and the average number of players to see the flop in any given room. Most rooms give you these numbers. If you check this out you will see, on average, that most games above the $.50-$1.00 level will have an average pot size of about 5 big bets, and a '% of players to the flop' number in the 27%-35% range. So long as you agree that the playing ability of a given player is determined largely by a) the % of the time he voluntarily enters a pot, and b) the % of the time he continues on with a hand after the flop, then you by necessity must agree that the above two stastics are a fairly reliable measurement of a game's 'toughness'. If this is true, then you would expect both of these numbers to decrease-- and probably decrease significantly-- as the stakes go up. But they do not. >>
Boo I clearly understand the "cap" because I used a set $2 number to illustrate the example of you having played 1.4 million hands of poker. Maybe you didn't read my previous post in this thread....." And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.".....so frankly, I don't see how it's possible for you to overcome $500,000 in rake.
Can anyone overcome $500,000 in rake? Well I have watched those guys play on the internet for high stakes. I once watched Mike Matusow lose well over 60K in chips in about twenty minutes. With average pots of 5K, 10K and more, admittedly it could take quite awhile, perhaps years, for a small rake to take affect with some players given variances involved and the size of their bankroll.
But here's the basic dilemma for any online poker player...in the long-run the variances tend to even out....but the rake doesn't even out.....it keeps accumulating to the point where it eventually crushes an online bankroll - just a question of when. Yes, the pot rake is capped but the $500,000 rake figure isn't capped as long as you continue playing online poker. It keeps on growing like an incurable malignant tumor to a bankroll.
Bottom line - There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake. Need scientific proof based on observation? - There has never been one, NOT ONE single properly documented case of anyone ever beating the rake in the long-run.
Steve
- >>
No, variances don't tend to 'even out' in the long run. They stabilize, which is entirely different. Thus, a player with an edge of 'x' over another will acheive something every close to his expected win rate over an infinite number of trials.
And yes, people can overcome $500,000 in rake, or $1,000,000 in rake, or whatever number you choose to toss out there, provided that their cumulative edge over their opponents is larger than the amount being raked. And this is precisely why I brought up the diminshing effect of the rake in regards to escalating stakes. Assuming a capped rake, you need a progressively smaller edge over your opponents as the stakes increase in order to break even.
It's one thing to say that 'nobody is winning at online poker, because they levels of skill between the players isn't large enough to outweigh the rake'. But it's outright silly to say 'the game can't be beaten'. You yourself agree that a rake free game can be beaten. Well, if the amount being raked is less than the amount being won, then obviously the game is beatable. Say that a guy is winning in a private, non raked game at the rate of 1 big bet per hour. If that game were suddenly to be raked, and the rake amounted to 40% of a big bet per hour, then he would just win at a rate of 60% of a big bet per hour. The fact that the game is now raked wouldn't completely wipe out his future winnings, just reduce them.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
I agree with you about poker in private games but not poker in raked games. Admittedly I think Randymoss84 played that hand nicely with the two checks. But there's still that variance at play whereby the other player could have been slow playing pocket 4's and Randymoss84 gets crushed instead.
And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.
I have not seen any documented proof whereby anyone can overcome rakes like this in the long-run. Yes, some fortunate player can get a huge positive variance of winning say a million dollar online tournament, which is basically like hitting a lottery - then it might take many years for the rake to grind out his bankroll, all things being equal. But the math is clear...eventually given enough time and enough hands the rake, even a small rake, grinds out all bankrolls. There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake.
Steve >>
Steve,
You've said before that you believe a non raked game can be beaten, but that a raked game cannot be. Can you tell me what, in your opinion, is the largest win rate that a player playing in a non raked game can hope to attain? If you could, phrase your answer in terms of big bets per hour. If we take something like a $2-$4 poker game, for instance, you might say that a non raked game can be beaten for one 'small bet' per hour, which in this case would be $2, or one 'big bet' per hour (which in this case would be $4), or some fraction thereof. >>
I don't have to "believe" a non-raked game can be beaten...I already know and most poker players who play in private games already know that the best players do win money in the long-run. The fact that the best players win money in private poker really is not debatable - poker played in private games is strictly a game of pure skill.
Poker played against a rake is a game of skill only to the extent that skill will allow a player to lose their money slower - but eventually their bankroll will be lost. In theory it sounds logical that all a player has to do to win against a rake is be a percentage better than the other players versus the rake percentage. But in practice it doesn't work. And the fact is that nobody has ever proven with documented evidence that they are beating a rake long term.
Granted, if a skilled player was only ever playing little old ladies from Pasadena who knew absolutely nothing about poker, then yes a rake could likely be beat. But little old ladies from Pasadena aren't playing online poker. If they gamble online they are playing non-thinking games such as slots and roulette. Those who understand poker only a little bit generally play video poker.
Those who at least know the rudimentary fundamentals of poker for the most part play in skill levels according to pot value. Yes, there can be some excellent players at microlimits and some unskilled players at high no limit games, but that is not the usual case. For the most part, the dollar value of the pots determines the skill levels. In a nutshell, generally you're not going to find Phil Ivey playing in a low limit game. But you know what?...with the brutal rake at low limits, even Phil would still lose money in the long-run.
Answering your question about big bets. Now how on earth are you going to accurately predict that? Especially online where it is basically impossible to get tells from any players. All you're looking at is their chip stack and how long it takes them to make a bet. Not any sort of real opportunity to get accurate tells there is it? So basically for the most part sometimes on your big bets preflop, you're going to have QQ versus JJ, and sometimes you're going to have JJ versus QQ - random luck. Postflop there's more skill involved but still there's a lot of luck involved as well. You could flop say trip A's (not a set) and your opponent also flops trip A's but has a better kicker and winds up winning the pot - again...random luck with a big bet win or lose. But the rake is not random...it is constantly eating away and grinding out a bankroll.
Steve >>
Two things:
1) Your argument that the players get better as the stakes increase has one very conspicuous flaw-- i.e., that whether they do, in fact, get better is not nearly as important as HOW much better. If you are playing against terrible players in a microlimit game, and average-to-mediocre players in a 15-30 game, then the fact that the players have gotten 'better' isn't particularly important. Also, I would add that the stakes which most players choose to play at is more of a function of risk tolerance and financial constraint then it is of playing ability--- a fact that you can readily verify, if you so choose, by watching the players in an online 2-4 game and then watching the players in a 20-40 game. You will, in most instances, see the players in both games making similar pre and post flop mistakes.
2) For some reason you choose to ignore the fact that the rake is capped-- usually at $3 when the pot reaches $60. This holds for all games. Thus, the most that a pot will be raked at 1-2 is $3, and the most that a pot at $100-$200 will be raked is $3. If you assume that a strong player in a 10 handed game will win about 7% of the total pots, and that the average pot is 5 big bets, then the 'rake responsibility' of a playing in a 2-4 game is about $4.55 (or one big bet) per hour, while the same number for a $15-$30 player is around $13 (or, to put it another way, about 40% of the rake paid by a 2-4 player when you translate the number into big bets). For players playing higher the number obviously decreases.
The implication here, I hope, is obvious. If you want to say that 'no raked game is beatable' then you're assuming that the most a player could hope to win in a rake-free game at the 15-30 level is 40% of a big bet per hour, the most a 2-4 player could hope to win in the same game is 1 big bet per hour, and the most that a $50-$100 player could hope to win would be around 25% of a big bet per hour. Yet these numbers are dependant on the notion-- a notion, I might add, which does not have any empiracle foundation-- that at each successive increase in stakes the players improve at a ratio that negates the ever decreasing rake responsibility of each player.
How can you determine whether a game is 'soft' or 'tight'? One quick and generally accurate way to do this is to go to any online poker room and look at both the average pot size and the average number of players to see the flop in any given room. Most rooms give you these numbers. If you check this out you will see, on average, that most games above the $.50-$1.00 level will have an average pot size of about 5 big bets, and a '% of players to the flop' number in the 27%-35% range. So long as you agree that the playing ability of a given player is determined largely by a) the % of the time he voluntarily enters a pot, and b) the % of the time he continues on with a hand after the flop, then you by necessity must agree that the above two stastics are a fairly reliable measurement of a game's 'toughness'. If this is true, then you would expect both of these numbers to decrease-- and probably decrease significantly-- as the stakes go up. But they do not. >>
Boo I clearly understand the "cap" because I used a set $2 number to illustrate the example of you having played 1.4 million hands of poker. Maybe you didn't read my previous post in this thread....." And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.".....so frankly, I don't see how it's possible for you to overcome $500,000 in rake.
Can anyone overcome $500,000 in rake? Well I have watched those guys play on the internet for high stakes. I once watched Mike Matusow lose well over 60K in chips in about twenty minutes. With average pots of 5K, 10K and more, admittedly it could take quite awhile, perhaps years, for a small rake to take affect with some players given variances involved and the size of their bankroll.
But here's the basic dilemma for any online poker player...in the long-run the variances tend to even out....but the rake doesn't even out.....it keeps accumulating to the point where it eventually crushes an online bankroll - just a question of when. Yes, the pot rake is capped but the $500,000 rake figure isn't capped as long as you continue playing online poker. It keeps on growing like an incurable malignant tumor to a bankroll.
Bottom line - There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake. Need scientific proof based on observation? - There has never been one, NOT ONE single properly documented case of anyone ever beating the rake in the long-run.
Steve
- >>
No, variances don't tend to 'even out' in the long run. They stabilize, which is entirely different. Thus, a player with an edge of 'x' over another will acheive something every close to his expected win rate over an infinite number of trials.
And yes, people can overcome $500,000 in rake, or $1,000,000 in rake, or whatever number you choose to toss out there, provided that their cumulative edge over their opponents is larger than the amount being raked. And this is precisely why I brought up the diminshing effect of the rake in regards to escalating stakes. Assuming a capped rake, you need a progressively smaller edge over your opponents as the stakes increase in order to break even.
It's one thing to say that 'nobody is winning at online poker, because they levels of skill between the players isn't large enough to outweigh the rake'. But it's outright silly to say 'the game can't be beaten'. You yourself agree that a rake free game can be beaten. Well, if the amount being raked is less than the amount being won, then obviously the game is beatable. Say that a guy is winning in a private, non raked game at the rate of 1 big bet per hour. If that game were suddenly to be raked, and the rake amounted to 40% of a big bet per hour, then he would just win at a rate of 60% of a big bet per hour. The fact that the game is now raked wouldn't completely wipe out his future winnings, just reduce them. >>
Well this isn't a perfect illustration but I liken your analogy to why can't a sprinter run the 100 yard dash in 8 seconds, or why can't a golfer drive a golf ball 600 yards, or why can't a pitcher throw 120 miles per hour. There are physical and mathematical limitations in life and the rake seems to be one of them. I have asked numerous players claiming to be winning money at online poker to simply properly prove it or provide a link to a website in which someone else has proved it with documented, audited information - but none of them have - always some sort of excuse not to.
I don't wish to pry into your personal financial data - it's none of my business, but presuming you play 10/20, 50/100, or even 100/200 type poker games, it is hard to believe that anyone could overcome a whopping $500,000 in rake - yes in theory someone should be able to throw a 120 mile an hour fastball, but it doesn't happen and nobody beats the rake in the long-run.
I'm not 100% sure about this, I know they're working on it for sure, but I don't think they offer gambling yet on games like chess. You can correct me if I'm wrong and that's fine. But you won't see any articles from me stating that chess can't be beat against a rake. I have played a fair amount of chess and within a given "class" of players it would be possible for the best player in that class to win the games at close to a 100% win rate.
In 6th grade I was a member of a chess club in school and I don't remember ever losing a single game, maybe once or twice at the most I lost an unimportant game - if it had been gambling with a rake I of course would have still won money. But it is basically impossible for the best player in the world to beat even the worst player 100% of the time in poker. As you know with some luck a poor player can even beat up on a good player on any particular night of poker.
There's other "problems" at work online as well Boo as you are probably aware. There is rampant collusion on internet poker tables - to believe there isn't simply is being naive. There are also multiple bots at tables which like the colluders, know each other's hole cards and the individual players have no chance against them either. There also have been strong rumors that a number of gambling websites rig the RNG for their advantage, mainly to increase the speed and action of the games in order to increase their raked profits - I can't substantiate this but it certainly makes sense to me.
With the rake, collusion, bots, and RNG possibly being altered.....frankly Boo I completely feel that the debate about an individual player being able to make money playing raked online poker is over. Even at a rake free online site, an individual player still couldn't win there because of collusion amongst other players.
The only real players who want to keep believing they can beat raked poker are the addicts who don't want to believe the straight forward facts - they don't want to let go of their addictive fantasy dream of making big bucks playing online poker, or maybe just supplementing their income. They use online poker as a way to mask over or escape from their personal problems, in a similar manner as drug addicts do. Gambling addiction for a multitude of reasons is a tough addiction.
Steve
-
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
I agree with you about poker in private games but not poker in raked games. Admittedly I think Randymoss84 played that hand nicely with the two checks. But there's still that variance at play whereby the other player could have been slow playing pocket 4's and Randymoss84 gets crushed instead.
And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.
I have not seen any documented proof whereby anyone can overcome rakes like this in the long-run. Yes, some fortunate player can get a huge positive variance of winning say a million dollar online tournament, which is basically like hitting a lottery - then it might take many years for the rake to grind out his bankroll, all things being equal. But the math is clear...eventually given enough time and enough hands the rake, even a small rake, grinds out all bankrolls. There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake.
Steve >>
Steve,
You've said before that you believe a non raked game can be beaten, but that a raked game cannot be. Can you tell me what, in your opinion, is the largest win rate that a player playing in a non raked game can hope to attain? If you could, phrase your answer in terms of big bets per hour. If we take something like a $2-$4 poker game, for instance, you might say that a non raked game can be beaten for one 'small bet' per hour, which in this case would be $2, or one 'big bet' per hour (which in this case would be $4), or some fraction thereof. >>
I don't have to "believe" a non-raked game can be beaten...I already know and most poker players who play in private games already know that the best players do win money in the long-run. The fact that the best players win money in private poker really is not debatable - poker played in private games is strictly a game of pure skill.
Poker played against a rake is a game of skill only to the extent that skill will allow a player to lose their money slower - but eventually their bankroll will be lost. In theory it sounds logical that all a player has to do to win against a rake is be a percentage better than the other players versus the rake percentage. But in practice it doesn't work. And the fact is that nobody has ever proven with documented evidence that they are beating a rake long term.
Granted, if a skilled player was only ever playing little old ladies from Pasadena who knew absolutely nothing about poker, then yes a rake could likely be beat. But little old ladies from Pasadena aren't playing online poker. If they gamble online they are playing non-thinking games such as slots and roulette. Those who understand poker only a little bit generally play video poker.
Those who at least know the rudimentary fundamentals of poker for the most part play in skill levels according to pot value. Yes, there can be some excellent players at microlimits and some unskilled players at high no limit games, but that is not the usual case. For the most part, the dollar value of the pots determines the skill levels. In a nutshell, generally you're not going to find Phil Ivey playing in a low limit game. But you know what?...with the brutal rake at low limits, even Phil would still lose money in the long-run.
Answering your question about big bets. Now how on earth are you going to accurately predict that? Especially online where it is basically impossible to get tells from any players. All you're looking at is their chip stack and how long it takes them to make a bet. Not any sort of real opportunity to get accurate tells there is it? So basically for the most part sometimes on your big bets preflop, you're going to have QQ versus JJ, and sometimes you're going to have JJ versus QQ - random luck. Postflop there's more skill involved but still there's a lot of luck involved as well. You could flop say trip A's (not a set) and your opponent also flops trip A's but has a better kicker and winds up winning the pot - again...random luck with a big bet win or lose. But the rake is not random...it is constantly eating away and grinding out a bankroll.
Steve >>
Two things:
1) Your argument that the players get better as the stakes increase has one very conspicuous flaw-- i.e., that whether they do, in fact, get better is not nearly as important as HOW much better. If you are playing against terrible players in a microlimit game, and average-to-mediocre players in a 15-30 game, then the fact that the players have gotten 'better' isn't particularly important. Also, I would add that the stakes which most players choose to play at is more of a function of risk tolerance and financial constraint then it is of playing ability--- a fact that you can readily verify, if you so choose, by watching the players in an online 2-4 game and then watching the players in a 20-40 game. You will, in most instances, see the players in both games making similar pre and post flop mistakes.
2) For some reason you choose to ignore the fact that the rake is capped-- usually at $3 when the pot reaches $60. This holds for all games. Thus, the most that a pot will be raked at 1-2 is $3, and the most that a pot at $100-$200 will be raked is $3. If you assume that a strong player in a 10 handed game will win about 7% of the total pots, and that the average pot is 5 big bets, then the 'rake responsibility' of a playing in a 2-4 game is about $4.55 (or one big bet) per hour, while the same number for a $15-$30 player is around $13 (or, to put it another way, about 40% of the rake paid by a 2-4 player when you translate the number into big bets). For players playing higher the number obviously decreases.
The implication here, I hope, is obvious. If you want to say that 'no raked game is beatable' then you're assuming that the most a player could hope to win in a rake-free game at the 15-30 level is 40% of a big bet per hour, the most a 2-4 player could hope to win in the same game is 1 big bet per hour, and the most that a $50-$100 player could hope to win would be around 25% of a big bet per hour. Yet these numbers are dependant on the notion-- a notion, I might add, which does not have any empiracle foundation-- that at each successive increase in stakes the players improve at a ratio that negates the ever decreasing rake responsibility of each player.
How can you determine whether a game is 'soft' or 'tight'? One quick and generally accurate way to do this is to go to any online poker room and look at both the average pot size and the average number of players to see the flop in any given room. Most rooms give you these numbers. If you check this out you will see, on average, that most games above the $.50-$1.00 level will have an average pot size of about 5 big bets, and a '% of players to the flop' number in the 27%-35% range. So long as you agree that the playing ability of a given player is determined largely by a) the % of the time he voluntarily enters a pot, and b) the % of the time he continues on with a hand after the flop, then you by necessity must agree that the above two stastics are a fairly reliable measurement of a game's 'toughness'. If this is true, then you would expect both of these numbers to decrease-- and probably decrease significantly-- as the stakes go up. But they do not. >>
Boo I clearly understand the "cap" because I used a set $2 number to illustrate the example of you having played 1.4 million hands of poker. Maybe you didn't read my previous post in this thread....." And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.".....so frankly, I don't see how it's possible for you to overcome $500,000 in rake.
Can anyone overcome $500,000 in rake? Well I have watched those guys play on the internet for high stakes. I once watched Mike Matusow lose well over 60K in chips in about twenty minutes. With average pots of 5K, 10K and more, admittedly it could take quite awhile, perhaps years, for a small rake to take affect with some players given variances involved and the size of their bankroll.
But here's the basic dilemma for any online poker player...in the long-run the variances tend to even out....but the rake doesn't even out.....it keeps accumulating to the point where it eventually crushes an online bankroll - just a question of when. Yes, the pot rake is capped but the $500,000 rake figure isn't capped as long as you continue playing online poker. It keeps on growing like an incurable malignant tumor to a bankroll.
Bottom line - There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake. Need scientific proof based on observation? - There has never been one, NOT ONE single properly documented case of anyone ever beating the rake in the long-run.
Steve
- >>
No, variances don't tend to 'even out' in the long run. They stabilize, which is entirely different. Thus, a player with an edge of 'x' over another will acheive something every close to his expected win rate over an infinite number of trials.
And yes, people can overcome $500,000 in rake, or $1,000,000 in rake, or whatever number you choose to toss out there, provided that their cumulative edge over their opponents is larger than the amount being raked. And this is precisely why I brought up the diminshing effect of the rake in regards to escalating stakes. Assuming a capped rake, you need a progressively smaller edge over your opponents as the stakes increase in order to break even.
It's one thing to say that 'nobody is winning at online poker, because they levels of skill between the players isn't large enough to outweigh the rake'. But it's outright silly to say 'the game can't be beaten'. You yourself agree that a rake free game can be beaten. Well, if the amount being raked is less than the amount being won, then obviously the game is beatable. Say that a guy is winning in a private, non raked game at the rate of 1 big bet per hour. If that game were suddenly to be raked, and the rake amounted to 40% of a big bet per hour, then he would just win at a rate of 60% of a big bet per hour. The fact that the game is now raked wouldn't completely wipe out his future winnings, just reduce them. >>
Well this isn't a perfect illustration but I liken your analogy to why can't a sprinter run the 100 yard dash in 8 seconds, or why can't a golfer drive a golf ball 600 yards, or why can't a pitcher throw 120 miles per hour. There are physical and mathematical limitations in life and the rake seems to be one of them. I have asked numerous players claiming to be winning money at online poker to simply properly prove it or provide a link to a website in which someone else has proved it with documented, audited information - but none of them have - always some sort of excuse not to.
I don't wish to pry into your personal financial data - it's none of my business, but presuming you play 10/20, 50/100, or even 100/200 type poker games, it is hard to believe that anyone could overcome a whopping $500,000 in rake - yes in theory someone should be able to throw a 120 mile an hour fastball, but it doesn't happen and nobody beats the rake in the long-run.
I'm not 100% sure about this, I know they're working on it for sure, but I don't think they offer gambling yet on games like chess. You can correct me if I'm wrong and that's fine. But you won't see any articles from me stating that chess can't be beat against a rake. I have played a fair amount of chess and within a given "class" of players it would be possible for the best player in that class to win the games at close to a 100% win rate.
In 6th grade I was a member of a chess club in school and I don't remember ever losing a single game, maybe once or twice at the most I lost an unimportant game - if it had been gambling with a rake I of course would have still won money. But it is basically impossible for the best player in the world to beat even the worst player 100% of the time in poker. As you know with some luck a poor player can even beat up on a good player on any particular night of poker.
There's other "problems" at work online as well Boo as you are probably aware. There is rampant collusion on internet poker tables - to believe there isn't simply is being naive. There are also multiple bots at tables which like the colluders, know each other's hole cards and the individual players have no chance against them either. There also have been strong rumors that a number of gambling websites rig the RNG for their advantage, mainly to increase the speed and action of the games in order to increase their raked profits - I can't substantiate this but it certainly makes sense to me.
With the rake, collusion, bots, and RNG possibly being altered.....frankly Boo I completely feel that the debate about an individual player being able to make money playing raked online poker is over. Even at a rake free online site, an individual player still couldn't win there because of collusion amongst other players.
The only real players who want to keep believing they can beat raked poker are the addicts who don't want to believe the straight forward facts - they don't want to let go of their addictive fantasy dream of making big bucks playing online poker, or maybe just supplementing their income. They use online poker as a way to mask over or escape from their personal problems, in a similar manner as drug addicts do. Gambling addiction for a multitude of reasons is a tough addiction.
Steve
- >>
Well, I can agree with about 60% of this. You're right when you say that if I played Gary Kasparov 1000 times in chess, he would beat me 1000 times. And further, as I know all too well, bad players will have some very big nights playing poker. Collusion is not nearly the problem you think it is, since while players may trade info regarding their starting hands to each other via PM's or something very few players actually know what to do with that information. I can't speak to the bot issue, although I do know as a fact that some sites have been caught using them, while other sites (namely Party) have not done a very good job of weeding them out. However, bots are at their most effective in one table tournaments, which are essentially mathematical exercises, as opposed to in ring games.
But you cannot say that 'the rake is the rake'. Apparently you know some people who have done quite well in private home games. If this is indeed the case, then ask them what their win rate is per hour. If they're solid players that number should be somewhere just short of about 1 big bet per hour. Now do the math on how much is raked from, say, a 15-30 game. You will see that in this case the amount of rake each player pays is less than 1 big bet an hour, which means the game can be beaten provided that your opponents play poor enough.
I agree that there are some games that cannot be beaten. A six handed 1-2 limit game, for instance, is basically a waste of time. Ditto for a 2-4 game if your opponents are at all aware. But to say that the rake has anywhere near the same effect on a 10-20 player as on a 1-2 player is to simply ignore the math. You've brought up the original hand a couple times, and mentioned that if the villian had quad 4's then our hero would have gotten stacked. Well, yeah-- that's true. And, in fact, there are plenty of situations in poker where the only beneficiary is going to be the rake. If I have KK, and you have AA, or if I have AA and you have KK, then in either case the result will almost certainly be the same, so in the long run neither of us make money in that spot. But what happens when I have AK, and you have AT, and an ace flops? I'll tell you what happens-- I win 85% of the time. And THIS situation is entirely different than the AA vs. KK situation, because any savvy limit hold 'em player will tell you flat out that you do not cold call raises with AT. Bad players make those kinds of pre-flop calls, and they cost them a lot of money.
The simple fact is that in a hold 'em game against mediocre players you will run into many opportunites to put your money into the pot while enjoying an overlay that's substantially larger than the rake.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What kind of idiot blows $6000 in real money with King/Queen offsuit when the flop is A 4 4??
That's why I think the rake can be overcome online Steve, too many dumba$$es out there. That's easy money.
shawn >>
I agree with you about poker in private games but not poker in raked games. Admittedly I think Randymoss84 played that hand nicely with the two checks. But there's still that variance at play whereby the other player could have been slow playing pocket 4's and Randymoss84 gets crushed instead.
And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.
I have not seen any documented proof whereby anyone can overcome rakes like this in the long-run. Yes, some fortunate player can get a huge positive variance of winning say a million dollar online tournament, which is basically like hitting a lottery - then it might take many years for the rake to grind out his bankroll, all things being equal. But the math is clear...eventually given enough time and enough hands the rake, even a small rake, grinds out all bankrolls. There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake.
Steve >>
Steve,
You've said before that you believe a non raked game can be beaten, but that a raked game cannot be. Can you tell me what, in your opinion, is the largest win rate that a player playing in a non raked game can hope to attain? If you could, phrase your answer in terms of big bets per hour. If we take something like a $2-$4 poker game, for instance, you might say that a non raked game can be beaten for one 'small bet' per hour, which in this case would be $2, or one 'big bet' per hour (which in this case would be $4), or some fraction thereof. >>
I don't have to "believe" a non-raked game can be beaten...I already know and most poker players who play in private games already know that the best players do win money in the long-run. The fact that the best players win money in private poker really is not debatable - poker played in private games is strictly a game of pure skill.
Poker played against a rake is a game of skill only to the extent that skill will allow a player to lose their money slower - but eventually their bankroll will be lost. In theory it sounds logical that all a player has to do to win against a rake is be a percentage better than the other players versus the rake percentage. But in practice it doesn't work. And the fact is that nobody has ever proven with documented evidence that they are beating a rake long term.
Granted, if a skilled player was only ever playing little old ladies from Pasadena who knew absolutely nothing about poker, then yes a rake could likely be beat. But little old ladies from Pasadena aren't playing online poker. If they gamble online they are playing non-thinking games such as slots and roulette. Those who understand poker only a little bit generally play video poker.
Those who at least know the rudimentary fundamentals of poker for the most part play in skill levels according to pot value. Yes, there can be some excellent players at microlimits and some unskilled players at high no limit games, but that is not the usual case. For the most part, the dollar value of the pots determines the skill levels. In a nutshell, generally you're not going to find Phil Ivey playing in a low limit game. But you know what?...with the brutal rake at low limits, even Phil would still lose money in the long-run.
Answering your question about big bets. Now how on earth are you going to accurately predict that? Especially online where it is basically impossible to get tells from any players. All you're looking at is their chip stack and how long it takes them to make a bet. Not any sort of real opportunity to get accurate tells there is it? So basically for the most part sometimes on your big bets preflop, you're going to have QQ versus JJ, and sometimes you're going to have JJ versus QQ - random luck. Postflop there's more skill involved but still there's a lot of luck involved as well. You could flop say trip A's (not a set) and your opponent also flops trip A's but has a better kicker and winds up winning the pot - again...random luck with a big bet win or lose. But the rake is not random...it is constantly eating away and grinding out a bankroll.
Steve >>
Two things:
1) Your argument that the players get better as the stakes increase has one very conspicuous flaw-- i.e., that whether they do, in fact, get better is not nearly as important as HOW much better. If you are playing against terrible players in a microlimit game, and average-to-mediocre players in a 15-30 game, then the fact that the players have gotten 'better' isn't particularly important. Also, I would add that the stakes which most players choose to play at is more of a function of risk tolerance and financial constraint then it is of playing ability--- a fact that you can readily verify, if you so choose, by watching the players in an online 2-4 game and then watching the players in a 20-40 game. You will, in most instances, see the players in both games making similar pre and post flop mistakes.
2) For some reason you choose to ignore the fact that the rake is capped-- usually at $3 when the pot reaches $60. This holds for all games. Thus, the most that a pot will be raked at 1-2 is $3, and the most that a pot at $100-$200 will be raked is $3. If you assume that a strong player in a 10 handed game will win about 7% of the total pots, and that the average pot is 5 big bets, then the 'rake responsibility' of a playing in a 2-4 game is about $4.55 (or one big bet) per hour, while the same number for a $15-$30 player is around $13 (or, to put it another way, about 40% of the rake paid by a 2-4 player when you translate the number into big bets). For players playing higher the number obviously decreases.
The implication here, I hope, is obvious. If you want to say that 'no raked game is beatable' then you're assuming that the most a player could hope to win in a rake-free game at the 15-30 level is 40% of a big bet per hour, the most a 2-4 player could hope to win in the same game is 1 big bet per hour, and the most that a $50-$100 player could hope to win would be around 25% of a big bet per hour. Yet these numbers are dependant on the notion-- a notion, I might add, which does not have any empiracle foundation-- that at each successive increase in stakes the players improve at a ratio that negates the ever decreasing rake responsibility of each player.
How can you determine whether a game is 'soft' or 'tight'? One quick and generally accurate way to do this is to go to any online poker room and look at both the average pot size and the average number of players to see the flop in any given room. Most rooms give you these numbers. If you check this out you will see, on average, that most games above the $.50-$1.00 level will have an average pot size of about 5 big bets, and a '% of players to the flop' number in the 27%-35% range. So long as you agree that the playing ability of a given player is determined largely by a) the % of the time he voluntarily enters a pot, and b) the % of the time he continues on with a hand after the flop, then you by necessity must agree that the above two stastics are a fairly reliable measurement of a game's 'toughness'. If this is true, then you would expect both of these numbers to decrease-- and probably decrease significantly-- as the stakes go up. But they do not. >>
Boo I clearly understand the "cap" because I used a set $2 number to illustrate the example of you having played 1.4 million hands of poker. Maybe you didn't read my previous post in this thread....." And notice that rake of $3. Seems small doesn't it on a $13K pot? But let's use Boo as an example. He has stated that he has played 1.4 million hands of online poker. Just for example sake let's say the rake was $2 per hand, averaged playing six handed, and Boo won one out of six pots. So Boo won 233,333 pots. Well, $2 times 233,333 equals $466,666 - closing in on a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS in rake. It's brutal how that rake adds up.".....so frankly, I don't see how it's possible for you to overcome $500,000 in rake.
Can anyone overcome $500,000 in rake? Well I have watched those guys play on the internet for high stakes. I once watched Mike Matusow lose well over 60K in chips in about twenty minutes. With average pots of 5K, 10K and more, admittedly it could take quite awhile, perhaps years, for a small rake to take affect with some players given variances involved and the size of their bankroll.
But here's the basic dilemma for any online poker player...in the long-run the variances tend to even out....but the rake doesn't even out.....it keeps accumulating to the point where it eventually crushes an online bankroll - just a question of when. Yes, the pot rake is capped but the $500,000 rake figure isn't capped as long as you continue playing online poker. It keeps on growing like an incurable malignant tumor to a bankroll.
Bottom line - There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake. Need scientific proof based on observation? - There has never been one, NOT ONE single properly documented case of anyone ever beating the rake in the long-run.
Steve
- >>
No, variances don't tend to 'even out' in the long run. They stabilize, which is entirely different. Thus, a player with an edge of 'x' over another will acheive something every close to his expected win rate over an infinite number of trials.
And yes, people can overcome $500,000 in rake, or $1,000,000 in rake, or whatever number you choose to toss out there, provided that their cumulative edge over their opponents is larger than the amount being raked. And this is precisely why I brought up the diminshing effect of the rake in regards to escalating stakes. Assuming a capped rake, you need a progressively smaller edge over your opponents as the stakes increase in order to break even.
It's one thing to say that 'nobody is winning at online poker, because they levels of skill between the players isn't large enough to outweigh the rake'. But it's outright silly to say 'the game can't be beaten'. You yourself agree that a rake free game can be beaten. Well, if the amount being raked is less than the amount being won, then obviously the game is beatable. Say that a guy is winning in a private, non raked game at the rate of 1 big bet per hour. If that game were suddenly to be raked, and the rake amounted to 40% of a big bet per hour, then he would just win at a rate of 60% of a big bet per hour. The fact that the game is now raked wouldn't completely wipe out his future winnings, just reduce them. >>
Well this isn't a perfect illustration but I liken your analogy to why can't a sprinter run the 100 yard dash in 8 seconds, or why can't a golfer drive a golf ball 600 yards, or why can't a pitcher throw 120 miles per hour. There are physical and mathematical limitations in life and the rake seems to be one of them. I have asked numerous players claiming to be winning money at online poker to simply properly prove it or provide a link to a website in which someone else has proved it with documented, audited information - but none of them have - always some sort of excuse not to.
I don't wish to pry into your personal financial data - it's none of my business, but presuming you play 10/20, 50/100, or even 100/200 type poker games, it is hard to believe that anyone could overcome a whopping $500,000 in rake - yes in theory someone should be able to throw a 120 mile an hour fastball, but it doesn't happen and nobody beats the rake in the long-run.
I'm not 100% sure about this, I know they're working on it for sure, but I don't think they offer gambling yet on games like chess. You can correct me if I'm wrong and that's fine. But you won't see any articles from me stating that chess can't be beat against a rake. I have played a fair amount of chess and within a given "class" of players it would be possible for the best player in that class to win the games at close to a 100% win rate.
In 6th grade I was a member of a chess club in school and I don't remember ever losing a single game, maybe once or twice at the most I lost an unimportant game - if it had been gambling with a rake I of course would have still won money. But it is basically impossible for the best player in the world to beat even the worst player 100% of the time in poker. As you know with some luck a poor player can even beat up on a good player on any particular night of poker.
There's other "problems" at work online as well Boo as you are probably aware. There is rampant collusion on internet poker tables - to believe there isn't simply is being naive. There are also multiple bots at tables which like the colluders, know each other's hole cards and the individual players have no chance against them either. There also have been strong rumors that a number of gambling websites rig the RNG for their advantage, mainly to increase the speed and action of the games in order to increase their raked profits - I can't substantiate this but it certainly makes sense to me.
With the rake, collusion, bots, and RNG possibly being altered.....frankly Boo I completely feel that the debate about an individual player being able to make money playing raked online poker is over. Even at a rake free online site, an individual player still couldn't win there because of collusion amongst other players.
The only real players who want to keep believing they can beat raked poker are the addicts who don't want to believe the straight forward facts - they don't want to let go of their addictive fantasy dream of making big bucks playing online poker, or maybe just supplementing their income. They use online poker as a way to mask over or escape from their personal problems, in a similar manner as drug addicts do. Gambling addiction for a multitude of reasons is a tough addiction.
Steve
- >>
Well, I can agree with about 60% of this. You're right when you say that if I played Gary Kasparov 1000 times in chess, he would beat me 1000 times. And further, as I know all too well, bad players will have some very big nights playing poker. Collusion is not nearly the problem you think it is, since while players may trade info regarding their starting hands to each other via PM's or something very few players actually know what to do with that information. I can't speak to the bot issue, although I do know as a fact that some sites have been caught using them, while other sites (namely Party) have not done a very good job of weeding them out. However, bots are at their most effective in one table tournaments, which are essentially mathematical exercises, as opposed to in ring games.
But you cannot say that 'the rake is the rake'. Apparently you know some people who have done quite well in private home games. If this is indeed the case, then ask them what their win rate is per hour. If they're solid players that number should be somewhere just short of about 1 big bet per hour. Now do the math on how much is raked from, say, a 15-30 game. You will see that in this case the amount of rake each player pays is less than 1 big bet an hour, which means the game can be beaten provided that your opponents play poor enough.
I agree that there are some games that cannot be beaten. A six handed 1-2 limit game, for instance, is basically a waste of time. Ditto for a 2-4 game if your opponents are at all aware. But to say that the rake has anywhere near the same effect on a 10-20 player as on a 1-2 player is to simply ignore the math. You've brought up the original hand a couple times, and mentioned that if the villian had quad 4's then our hero would have gotten stacked. Well, yeah-- that's true. And, in fact, there are plenty of situations in poker where the only beneficiary is going to be the rake. If I have KK, and you have AA, or if I have AA and you have KK, then in either case the result will almost certainly be the same, so in the long run neither of us make money in that spot. But what happens when I have AK, and you have AT, and an ace flops? I'll tell you what happens-- I win 85% of the time. And THIS situation is entirely different than the AA vs. KK situation, because any savvy limit hold 'em player will tell you flat out that you do not cold call raises with AT. Bad players make those kinds of pre-flop calls, and they cost them a lot of money.
The simple fact is that in a hold 'em game against mediocre players you will run into many opportunites to put your money into the pot while enjoying an overlay that's substantially larger than the rake. >>
Well Boo, you basically always bring interesting points to the table and I have come to respect your viewpoints. If the feeling isn't mutual then that's okay...I don't mind. The thing I do especially respect you about is that in previous threads you have made it clear that you understand the addictive nature of gambling, and if I'm remembering right, you have a family member who has a gambling problem. Forgive me if I'm incorrect about that as I usually chat with a fair amount of people each day.
If you ever run across someone who posts documented, audited proof regarding making money in the long-run playing online poker, PM me here or e-mail me at my other e-mail which I think you know. I promise that I will definitely review it thoroughly and give you my take on it.
I've stated before a number of times that I would have no problem making a statement such as, "Online poker is extremely hard to beat, but through outstanding skill there are a small percentage of players who can make money at it in the long-run." But I can't state that Boo until I see documented audited proof that it can be done.
I forget which poker forum it was, I don't post on poker forums and never will, but I have lurked a number of times on a few of the larger ones to gather information. One interesting thing I noticed awhile back, was that many, MANY, of the forum members from say a year ago or even sooner than that who claimed to be, and were bragging about winning money...eventually stopped posting. The longtime forum posters are usually the moderators or friends of the moderators speaking volumes about how profitable it is to play online poker - they have the clever "sales pitch" down pat geared towards the newer members to keep them in action for as long as possible.
I believe this "turnover" of members in poker forums further illustrates my point that the winning online poker players out there simply are experiencing a temporary nice positive variance. They get psyched up and enjoy posting about how great they are at poker. Then of course when they lose their winnings and more, they stop posting.
Even in a totally sucker's game such as craps and roulette, there can be temporary winners. I personally know an absolutely terrible blackjack player who doesn't even understand basic strategy. For example sometimes he would hit on a hard 17, and for like two months he was killing the Atlantic City blackjack tables...I saw the cash...but of course he eventually lost it all back and much more.
Again, I haven't witnessed yet where a poker player constantly fighting the rake didn't windup losing any winnings back. Look at Chris Moneymaker.....it doesn't take any great prediction on my part to say that in my opinion one day he will lose back that WSOP jackpot he won. The same will go for Daniel Negreanu and the tournament money he has won - the gambling "hot streak" never lasts whenever there is a house rake, cut, edge, vig, juice, etc., involved. Negreanu may never go broke because of his book, endorsements, and affiliate website programs whereby a good guess is that he earns a 50% commission rate.
But those poker players who can't write best selling books, who can't get endorsements, or who can't attract players to signup on their website affiliate links, are doomed as long as they continue playing raked poker to a life of being broke, in debt, and in poor health from poker all-nighters and the bad eating and non-exercize habits associated with it. But there's always that hope of that next hand being the one that earns a big score and possibly starts a long hot streak - that's one reason why gambling addiction is such a tough addiction.
Steve
-
<< <i>It's one thing to say that 'nobody is winning at online poker, because they levels of skill between the players isn't large enough to outweigh the rake'. But it's outright silly to say 'the game can't be beaten'. You yourself agree that a rake free game can be beaten. Well, if the amount being raked is less than the amount being won, then obviously the game is beatable. Say that a guy is winning in a private, non raked game at the rate of 1 big bet per hour. If that game were suddenly to be raked, and the rake amounted to 40% of a big bet per hour, then he would just win at a rate of 60% of a big bet per hour. The fact that the game is now raked wouldn't completely wipe out his future winnings, just reduce them. >>
You are both making valid points and doing it in a very respectable way.
That being said, it seems it would be hard to argue with Boo's above quote. Just makes perfect sense. JMO.
Stevek, when you keep asking for documented proof of winning,but I have a feeling you'll never be satisfied with the timeframe. If someone showed you they won for six months, you'd want a year. If they showed you a year worth of profits, you'd want five. Then 10, etc. etc. Forgive me if I'm wrong. But even a mediocre/average player like myself managed to stay ahead of the online game for nearly three years. I certainly didn't win thousands but stayed ahead. I'd like to think if someone was playing $20/$40 who is actually very good could stay ahead too.
I have one more thought on the rake........ It would indeed eat up every players bankroll if it was the same players.
What I mean by that, is if 10 players sat and played, the rake would eventually chew up all the bankrolls. But online, there are thousands of new players each day. Thousands of below average, new players bringing new money to the table. So if new players and new money are constantly being brought to the table, then the rake will never get all of the money. Am I making sense?
So it's not the rake that gets "overcome" or "evens out". What would eventually be overcome or even out is when you continually bring A K to the table while I have A 10.
Again, I'm hardly a pro. But I love the game. Loved playing online, love watching it, love reading about it, love thinking about it, etc. Perhaps I'm being naive and "wanting" to believe this game can be beaten, but what Boo says above makes a lot of sense to me.
Carry on boys, I'm enjoying.
shawn
But this thread has taken on a life of its own, about the issues of playing poker, its "gambling affects", etc. (i.e., on our "younger population"), which I find much more interesting, weither or not Poker is considered "a sport".
I've played poker since the early 60's, and played a more serious game, over the past 5 years! Texas Holdem Tournaments, and "Sit and Go's", a type of "mini-tournament", with 9 to 18 participants (1 to 2 tables).
I would say, I have lost around $20,000 over the past 5 years. Let me qualify that another way, I won, maybe $ 200,000.00 and lost around $ 220,000.00.
Not very good! So even though, I consider myself a pretty savy player, and have "placed well" against some pretty tough players, I can't win, as there are other players, out there, that constantly win a little more than they lose, and once in a while, I run across a player or two, that win a lot more than he loses.
My point? Well the difference between myself and the "next level above" player is so close, that it is difficult to "tell us apart" from "day to day".
But there is a difference, as the "stats" prove out.
I have cut back a lot, and play a lot less now! It is not that much fun anymore, knowing that every dollar I put into the pot, I'm going to lose a dime? That sucks!
What I like about poker is sometimes the "stars are alligned correctly", ....you are playing your best game! ....your are getting dealt fantastic cards! ....your opponents are calling you, but your hands keep winning! ....even when you had the worst hand, you bluffed oand won! ....and some hands, u just got lucky and won!
Special days like that, when u played against 9 other good players, in a "freeze-out" tourney ("last man standing" winner-takes-all), and you "cleaned-out" nine others, and have "all the chips", can make one feel like they are "simply the best player in the world"!!
And u know what? On that given day, maybe I was the "world's best poker player".
But my problem, there is a tomorrow!
As far as kids playing poker? Not good! Young guys and gals should be "developing their lives" with something more substantial than "poker playing for money". For most of them, I can only invision the loss of money and the loss of time. Time better served by "developing and growing" amd "finding ones' way" in their "life's path"! And for the vast majority of these young poker players! Their path is not playin poker! And I truly hope these kids find that out as soon as possible!
Playing with a young talented poker player for a few hours, I have learned that many times, "male hormones" takes over a "young guys' game", and many times, a "playing pattern is formed by this young kid", and once this pattern is noticed by other savy players, ...it's game, set and match!
Kids, save your energy for girls, fun, sport, molding quality habits, and not gambling, especially poker! As maybe one out of a thousand of you are even close to being good enough to go to that "next level".
Stats don't lie! Did u win more than you lost last year? Play with your girlfriend, and not me!
rd
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
#7119761916: Tournament #36386055, $250+$15 Hold'em No Limit - Level I (10/20) - 2006/12/06 - 19:56:08 (ET)
Table '36386055 1' 6-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 1: gooby0626 (1240 in chips)
Seat 2: DAINFINITE1 (1170 in chips)
Seat 4: ilikeskyline (1250 in chips)
Seat 5: brickstone (2790 in chips)
Seat 6: #1Bostongurl (2550 in chips)
brickstone: posts small blind 10
#1Bostongurl: posts big blind 20
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to DAINFINITE1 [5s 5c]
gooby0626: raises 40 to 60
DAINFINITE1: calls 60
ilikeskyline: folds
brickstone: folds
#1Bostongurl: folds
*** FLOP *** [Qc 5d 3s]
gooby0626: checks
DAINFINITE1: bets 120
gooby0626: calls 120
*** TURN *** [Qc 5d 3s] [Tc]
gooby0626: checks
DAINFINITE1: bets 220
gooby0626: calls 220
*** RIVER *** [Qc 5d 3s Tc] [Jh]
gooby0626: bets 840 and is all-in
DAINFINITE1: calls 770 and is all-in
*** SHOW DOWN ***
gooby0626: shows [Qs Qd] (three of a kind, Queens)
DAINFINITE1: shows [5s 5c] (three of a kind, Fives)
gooby0626 collected 2370 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2370 | Rake 0
Board [Qc 5d 3s Tc Jh]
Seat 1: gooby0626 showed [Qs Qd] and won (2370) with three of a kind, Queens
Seat 2: DAINFINITE1 showed [5s 5c] and lost with three of a kind, Fives
Seat 4: ilikeskyline (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: brickstone (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 6: #1Bostongurl (big blind) folded before Flop
thank god i ran good after that
PokerStars Game #7279757554: Hold'em Limit ($10/$20) - 2006/12/06 - 06:41:28 (ET)
Table 'Venusia II' 6-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 2: cameron59 ($334 in chips)
Seat 3: PDX-JMc ($816 in chips)
Seat 4: millerlolife ($1177.50 in chips)
Seat 5: DAINFINITE1 ($172.50 in chips)
Seat 6: Hello_Katt ($894 in chips)
cameron59: posts small blind $5
PDX-JMc: posts big blind $10
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to DAINFINITE1 [Ac 4c]
millerlolife: folds
DAINFINITE1: calls $10
Hello_Katt: folds
cameron59: raises $10 to $20
PDX-JMc: raises $10 to $30
DAINFINITE1: calls $20
cameron59: calls $10
*** FLOP *** [9c 3c 6h]
cameron59: checks
PDX-JMc: bets $10
DAINFINITE1: calls $10
cameron59: calls $10
*** TURN *** [9c 3c 6h] [7c]
cameron59: checks
PDX-JMc: checks
DAINFINITE1: bets $20
cameron59: calls $20
PDX-JMc: calls $20
*** RIVER *** [9c 3c 6h 7c] [Tc]
cameron59: checks
PDX-JMc: bets $20
DAINFINITE1: raises $20 to $40
cameron59: folds
PDX-JMc: folds
DAINFINITE1 collected $218 from pot
DAINFINITE1: doesn't show hand
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $220 | Rake $2
Board [9c 3c 6h 7c Tc]
Seat 2: cameron59 (small blind) folded on the River
Seat 3: PDX-JMc (big blind) folded on the River
Seat 4: millerlolife folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: DAINFINITE1 collected ($218)
Seat 6: Hello_Katt (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
PokerStars Game #7279781874: Hold'em Limit ($10/$20) - 2006/12/06 - 06:46:58 (ET)
Table 'Venusia II' 6-max Seat #2 is the button
Seat 1: Muscarine ($243 in chips)
Seat 2: cameron59 ($128 in chips)
Seat 3: PDX-JMc ($651 in chips)
Seat 4: millerlolife ($1509.50 in chips)
Seat 5: DAINFINITE1 ($353.50 in chips)
PDX-JMc: posts small blind $5
millerlolife: posts big blind $10
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to DAINFINITE1 [Th Qh]
DAINFINITE1: calls $10
Muscarine: folds
cameron59: calls $10
PDX-JMc: calls $5
millerlolife: checks
*** FLOP *** [7s 5h Tc]
PDX-JMc: checks
millerlolife: checks
DAINFINITE1: bets $10
cameron59: calls $10
PDX-JMc: folds
millerlolife: folds
*** TURN *** [7s 5h Tc] [5d]
DAINFINITE1: checks
cameron59: bets $20
DAINFINITE1: calls $20
*** RIVER *** [7s 5h Tc 5d] [Ah]
Hello_Katt has returned
DAINFINITE1: bets $20
cameron59: raises $20 to $40
DAINFINITE1: calls $20
*** SHOW DOWN ***
cameron59: shows [Kc 8h] (a pair of Fives)
DAINFINITE1: shows [Th Qh] (two pair, Tens and Fives)
DAINFINITE1 collected $178 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $180 | Rake $2
Board [7s 5h Tc 5d Ah]
Seat 1: Muscarine folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: cameron59 (button) showed [Kc 8h] and lost with a pair of Fives
Seat 3: PDX-JMc (small blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 4: millerlolife (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 5: DAINFINITE1 showed [Th Qh] and won ($178) with two pair, Tens and Fives
<< <i>steve check this hand that i lost.
#7119761916: Tournament #36386055, $250+$15 Hold'em No Limit - Level I (10/20) - 2006/12/06 - 19:56:08 (ET)
Table '36386055 1' 6-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 1: gooby0626 (1240 in chips)
Seat 2: DAINFINITE1 (1170 in chips)
Seat 4: ilikeskyline (1250 in chips)
Seat 5: brickstone (2790 in chips)
Seat 6: #1Bostongurl (2550 in chips)
brickstone: posts small blind 10
#1Bostongurl: posts big blind 20
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to DAINFINITE1 [5s 5c]
gooby0626: raises 40 to 60
DAINFINITE1: calls 60
ilikeskyline: folds
brickstone: folds
#1Bostongurl: folds
*** FLOP *** [Qc 5d 3s]
gooby0626: checks
DAINFINITE1: bets 120
gooby0626: calls 120
*** TURN *** [Qc 5d 3s] [Tc]
gooby0626: checks
DAINFINITE1: bets 220
gooby0626: calls 220
*** RIVER *** [Qc 5d 3s Tc] [Jh]
gooby0626: bets 840 and is all-in
DAINFINITE1: calls 770 and is all-in
*** SHOW DOWN ***
gooby0626: shows [Qs Qd] (three of a kind, Queens)
DAINFINITE1: shows [5s 5c] (three of a kind, Fives)
gooby0626 collected 2370 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2370 | Rake 0
Board [Qc 5d 3s Tc Jh]
Seat 1: gooby0626 showed [Qs Qd] and won (2370) with three of a kind, Queens
Seat 2: DAINFINITE1 showed [5s 5c] and lost with three of a kind, Fives
Seat 4: ilikeskyline (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: brickstone (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 6: #1Bostongurl (big blind) folded before Flop
thank god i ran good after that
PokerStars Game #7279757554: Hold'em Limit ($10/$20) - 2006/12/06 - 06:41:28 (ET)
Table 'Venusia II' 6-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 2: cameron59 ($334 in chips)
Seat 3: PDX-JMc ($816 in chips)
Seat 4: millerlolife ($1177.50 in chips)
Seat 5: DAINFINITE1 ($172.50 in chips)
Seat 6: Hello_Katt ($894 in chips)
cameron59: posts small blind $5
PDX-JMc: posts big blind $10
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to DAINFINITE1 [Ac 4c]
millerlolife: folds
DAINFINITE1: calls $10
Hello_Katt: folds
cameron59: raises $10 to $20
PDX-JMc: raises $10 to $30
DAINFINITE1: calls $20
cameron59: calls $10
*** FLOP *** [9c 3c 6h]
cameron59: checks
PDX-JMc: bets $10
DAINFINITE1: calls $10
cameron59: calls $10
*** TURN *** [9c 3c 6h] [7c]
cameron59: checks
PDX-JMc: checks
DAINFINITE1: bets $20
cameron59: calls $20
PDX-JMc: calls $20
*** RIVER *** [9c 3c 6h 7c] [Tc]
cameron59: checks
PDX-JMc: bets $20
DAINFINITE1: raises $20 to $40
cameron59: folds
PDX-JMc: folds
DAINFINITE1 collected $218 from pot
DAINFINITE1: doesn't show hand
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $220 | Rake $2
Board [9c 3c 6h 7c Tc]
Seat 2: cameron59 (small blind) folded on the River
Seat 3: PDX-JMc (big blind) folded on the River
Seat 4: millerlolife folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: DAINFINITE1 collected ($218)
Seat 6: Hello_Katt (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
PokerStars Game #7279781874: Hold'em Limit ($10/$20) - 2006/12/06 - 06:46:58 (ET)
Table 'Venusia II' 6-max Seat #2 is the button
Seat 1: Muscarine ($243 in chips)
Seat 2: cameron59 ($128 in chips)
Seat 3: PDX-JMc ($651 in chips)
Seat 4: millerlolife ($1509.50 in chips)
Seat 5: DAINFINITE1 ($353.50 in chips)
PDX-JMc: posts small blind $5
millerlolife: posts big blind $10
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to DAINFINITE1 [Th Qh]
DAINFINITE1: calls $10
Muscarine: folds
cameron59: calls $10
PDX-JMc: calls $5
millerlolife: checks
*** FLOP *** [7s 5h Tc]
PDX-JMc: checks
millerlolife: checks
DAINFINITE1: bets $10
cameron59: calls $10
PDX-JMc: folds
millerlolife: folds
*** TURN *** [7s 5h Tc] [5d]
DAINFINITE1: checks
cameron59: bets $20
DAINFINITE1: calls $20
*** RIVER *** [7s 5h Tc 5d] [Ah]
Hello_Katt has returned
DAINFINITE1: bets $20
cameron59: raises $20 to $40
DAINFINITE1: calls $20
*** SHOW DOWN ***
cameron59: shows [Kc 8h] (a pair of Fives)
DAINFINITE1: shows [Th Qh] (two pair, Tens and Fives)
DAINFINITE1 collected $178 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $180 | Rake $2
Board [7s 5h Tc 5d Ah]
Seat 1: Muscarine folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: cameron59 (button) showed [Kc 8h] and lost with a pair of Fives
Seat 3: PDX-JMc (small blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 4: millerlolife (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 5: DAINFINITE1 showed [Th Qh] and won ($178) with two pair, Tens and Fives >>
<<< steve check this hand that i lost. >>>
Yea? So what was so "thrilling" about any of that?
Uh... The last time you posted a hand, it showed you winning like $7k.
<< <i>The 1st one was in a $250 tourney and the other two was $10/$20, in which you won about $200.
Uh... The last time you posted a hand, it showed you winning like $7k.
Stown is thinking the same way I am. If you're gambling in 7K pots, why would winning a few hundred bucks be so interesting to post about? I didn't see any particularly unusual or interesting strategic plays in the hand. Just the same old random luck with a $2 rake which happens to be about 1% of those pots that will eventually grind out all of the player's bankrolls when playing long enough.
Notice the 6% tournament rake - anyone who thinks they can make money in poker tournaments in the long-run with rakes this high, frankly is a delusional gambler.
What would you accept as proper documentation, auditing, and time frame for disproving your theory?
Joe
<< <i>The 1st one was in a $250 tourney and the other two was $10/$20, in which you won about $200.
Uh... The last time you posted a hand, it showed you winning like $7k.
Emm, When you cash out, and re deposit you have to rebuild your bankroll. I don't ever keep a ton of money on any site. Thanks, but I trust you were smart enough to think about it.
<< <i>
<< <i>The 1st one was in a $250 tourney and the other two was $10/$20, in which you won about $200.
Uh... The last time you posted a hand, it showed you winning like $7k.
Stown is thinking the same way I am. If you're gambling in 7K pots, why would winning a few hundred bucks be so interesting to post about? I didn't see any particularly unusual or interesting strategic plays in the hand. Just the same old random luck with a $2 rake which happens to be about 1% of those pots that will eventually grind out all of the player's bankrolls when playing long enough.
Notice the 6% tournament rake - anyone who thinks they can make money in poker tournaments in the long-run with rakes this high, frankly is a delusional gambler. >>
I was just showing you that I do lose hands and don't win every single one. I think life is all random luck if you think about it that way, your lucky you didn't die last night in your sleep, your lucky your computer doesn't explode while you use it, your lucky you don't die on the way home. Most of your arguement if flawed and it sounds like it comes from someone that loses a lot of money online, just my 2cents though.
<< <i>
<< <i>The 1st one was in a $250 tourney and the other two was $10/$20, in which you won about $200.
Uh... The last time you posted a hand, it showed you winning like $7k.
Emm, When you cash out, and re deposit you have to rebuild your bankroll. I don't ever keep a ton of money on any site. Thanks, but I trust you were smart enough to think about it. >>
Sorry, you must have completely missed the point.
Feel free to post a $7K+ loss when, not if, it happens.
<< <i>Steve,
What would you accept as proper documentation, auditing, and time frame for disproving your theory?
Joe >>
Anyone posting in a public forum claiming to be winning money playing online poker should know that taxes have to be paid on that money. Since these posters have publicly stated that they are winning money, therefore opening themselves up to scrutiny, then it should not be any problem for them to provide the following information. Simply post proof of this winning money in that same public forum. Post it there or on a blog where everyone can see it including IRS agents who may decide to review the accuracy of the information to make sure the poster is not a tax cheat. Post copies of the most recent federal income tax returns. Post copies of estimated tax payment forms and canceled checks made out to the IRS. Post copies of credit card transactions and statements from the gambling websites regarding deposits and withdrawals. Before posting though, take all of this paperwork to a reputable accounting firm and have it audited. The CPA will match-up credit card transactions with bank account statements and other documents necessary for a proper audit. Also post a signed letter from this accounting firm certifying the accuracy of the paperwork. Since the poster presumably has already properly filed this paperwork and paid taxes to the IRS, all this information should be complete and readily available to be handed over to the accounting firm for the audit. The audit would probably cost a few thousand dollars, but since a number of these posters claim to be making seemingly unlimited amounts of money playing online poker, this expense should be peanuts to them. It has never been witnessed anyone claiming to be winning money playing online poker stepping forward with this very simple task of properly proving it. Unless information such as this is posted, then any claims about winning money playing online poker is only a rumor.
No one has stepped forth with proof about winning because winning money in the long-run playing poker against a house cut is impossible. Do some players win money in the short-run? Yes, that is possible and it does happen. Some fortunate players can win a poker tournament or two and start believing that they are some kind of superior poker player who could make a fortune playing online poker. However the fact is that unless these fortunate winners immediately quit playing after winning a tournament or two, then they eventually will gamble back all of the money won and lose more. Unfortunately, most if not all poker players do not quit playing after winning a tournament because of a fantasy dream belief that they can constantly win more.
There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for any player to overcome even the tiniest of house cuts in the long-run. Poker books and articles spin the effects of the house cut with various misinformation and fuzzy math to fool people into believing that online poker can be beat. You must understand that even the tiniest of house cuts add up with each hand played to the point where everyone playing online poker will sooner or later lose their bankroll. A smaller house cut would allow players to be able to keep their bankrolls longer, but eventually all bankrolls will be lost. To some players these house cuts may seem tiny like a teaspoon of water. But those teaspoons of water accumulate to the point where a bankroll is washed away in a raging flood of many thousands of teaspoons of water.
Winning in the long-run playing online poker was already impossible and now it is even more impossible because of poker bots. Poker bots are now rampant at online poker tables. When poker bots collude at the same table and know each other's hole cards, then the individual human players do not stand any chance of winning against them, even if there was not any house cut. Now with these poker bots, the sucker’s game of online poker has become even more of a sucker’s game. Note though that there has never been any documented proof that poker bots can win money. All poker bots offered for sale to the public have turned out to be money losers. The bankrolls of these poker bots get ground out by the house cut in the exact same manner as human players. So basically the debate is over regarding the possibility of an individual being able to win money at online poker.
My Auctions
<< <i>100 >>
100% is the chances of losing in the long-run playing online poker.
<< <i>I have a program that lets me see the cards of other players....
Then I would say "Yes, online poker can be beat."