Thread: Pokier is not gambling

of course it is,

how come there isn't a computer prog that can mash anyone
no one would play chess online for money...

Originally Posted by blue

how come there isn't a computer prog that can mash anyone

Don't worry, they're working on it.

There are poker trackers that provide the user with an impressive analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of other players, based on a configurable analysis of data that includes every hand they have ever played at certain sites, their winnings/losses, and other potentially useful info.

I know three friends that use trackers as an aid. The youngest (30s), a nerd, had made well over $200k in a couple of years as of when we last met a couple of years ago, playing up to 30 tables at a time, the oldest (50s) makes a regular profit playing usually 10-12 tables, and the other tends to win when using it sober and lose when pickled but still for some reason plays drunk, which imho is as dumb as dumb gets.

None of them regard poker as gambling. As they explain it they can lose today, tomorrow and every day this month, but at the end of the year they know they will be healthily in the black.

I've seen them in play, and must say was dazzled by the amount and use of available data.

HUD's should be banned and are the reason I don't play online anymore and prefer live games. The argument for them is that online every table can be observed and the same data can be collected as a HUD, though it would be humanly impossible doing so without the HUD program.

Originally Posted by pickel

HUD's should be banned and are the reason I don't play online anymore and prefer live games. The argument for them is that online every table can be observed and the same data can be collected as a HUD, though it would be humanly impossible doing so without the HUD program.

It's a huge debate. Some sites allow certain levels, others ban it all together. There are bots too, but most sites have them banned, I'm sure some slip through, and you could program a bot pretty easily to beat a small fishy game.

Right now the line seems to be drawn where you can use any info you want as long as a) the data only came in games you played a hand, and b) you don't use software that helps you make real live decisions.

Both these are routinely broken, with black market hand history dealers who mine and sell hand data for all levels. And there is bot software that can't be detected, so by disallowing bots, only the slickest undetectable bots slip through.

HUD are not good for recreational players, it's an unfair advantage most are probably unaware of. But it's good for liquidity as people can more easily play multiple games.

HUD has definately changed the game. It's made it pretty fast paced and technical. Whether or not you agree with their use usually depends on what side of the winner / lose scale you sit.

Had a bad day?

Poker is no more gambling than many things you do in life. It's an assessment of the cards you hold, the pot you have, you're opponents skills and probable cards he holds.

But online poker is a bit too technical. All the normal cues are still there except the very important physical cues. Body language, facial clues, tells.

So I don't like it. But it's still less gambling than say currency or market trading.


With all the software etc., don't you find the fish are becoming a bit thin in the water?

Originally Posted by FlyFree

With all the software etc., don't you find the fish are becoming thin in the water?

For sure. Fish are drying up or getting more educated. The standard of play has risen immensely over the last 10 years, and 'grinders' (online poker pros) have had to keep up the pace. A lot of the play is grinder on grinder, and most of the ABC players that just played conservative and let fish chips flow their way, are now getting squeezed out of the game.

People over-rate the face to face in poker though. It does count but not for much in live poker. Most people just have terrible games and regression to the mean cancels out their lucky spells with the speed of online play.

Players who say things like "online poker is not my game, I need to stare down my opponent and read their soul" are usually terrible loser both on and off line.

Originally Posted by 9999

People over-rate the face to face in poker though. It does count but not for much in live poker. Most people just have terrible games and regression to the mean cancels out their lucky spells with the speed of online play.

Players who say things like "online poker is not my game, I need to stare down my opponent and read their soul" are usually terrible loser both on and off line.

A bit surprised on the over-rate face to face. Are you talking about face-to-face online as with webcams or an evening in a room.

I don't try too hard to read people, just allow the little clues to add up over time. Trying to read too hard usually ends up seeing what you want to see, not what is. Pretty much my life philosophy.

But I'm no poker player. I've played a bit for recreation mainly through the years, which I enjoyed, and tried it online for a short while, which I neither liked nor were successful at. Didn't bother to take it any further, too technical. But still a bit curious. Can't see why I can't be successful at the online game given a bit of time to work out the latest software, but it sounds like, yes, a fuckin grind.

Originally Posted by FlyFree

A bit surprised on the over-rate face to face. Are you talking about face-to-face online as with webcams or an evening in a room.

Talking about an actual physical poker room. It's funny playing with players that think its all about reading the face, body language etc. This is all redundant if you don't have solid fundamentals. It only really comes into play at higher levels, or with complete fish who are easy to read and you know how to exploit what they are telling you.

Originally Posted by FlyFree

Can't see why I can't be successful at the online game given a bit of time to work out the latest software, but it sounds like, yes, a fuckin grind.

Most people of reasonable intelligence can beat at least the small stakes. It's more about concentration, discipline, and the ability to keep a level head through the swings, and avoid 'tilt'.

It's pretty competetive though, as you move up. To beat the game at a decent level, say something that will give you $100K+ a year playing full time, is pretty dam tough especially for new comers. There are some young guys I know that who've been playing 2 years or less and can beat the game pretty well.

I assume you have to play a bunch of tables at once to get anywhere with the 'system', for lack of a better word, employed by these guys?

Originally Posted by FlyFree

I assume you have to play a bunch of tables at once to get anywhere with the 'system', for lack of a better word, employed by these guys?

It depends on the stakes and the swings you are willing to take. Mass tabling is usually at lower stakes and more robotic. At the ultra high stakes there's not much mass tabling at all.

Playing 1 table and being ultra-observant and not using HUD can often give you a better chance of winning.

What the HUD software does is make it easy to make quick decisions, and thus you can play heaps of tables without spewing.

It's kind of like this, take the big blind and times it by 5. That's how much a good player should make per 100 hands.

So if the blinds are $1/$2, a good player will make $10 per 100 hands. If you can maintain a good win rate as you increase the tables at a certain stake, its better than trying to play higher, as the variance is lower.

Generally you get 100 hands per hour per table. So if you play $1/$2 on 20 tables, you make about $200 per hour. Of course this is subject to swings, but things even out a lot quicker with the high volume.

Now take a $5/$10 blinds game, which is pretty high for online. You only need to play 4 tables to make $200 per hour, but the games are invariably tougher and you need a big bankroll to stay in the game.

Most grinders would agree that playing 10 x tables of $1/$2 level is easier to win than 4 x tables @ $5/$10, and it makes sense. To the point where sometimes the higher games are softer, but this is always beaten into shape and the game dynamics are in a constant state of flux.

btw, 'these guys' aren't really using a set system. They are using tools to help them make decisions, and although everyone uses the same info, players generally have distinct styles of play.