I like poker, lets talk poker!

Good question.

Over the past few years we have seen an increase in government intervention, regulation or just plain interference.

I see that trend increasing as governments seek ways to get their cut. Black Friday in the US was just the beginning.

Other countries have made regulations or passed laws restricting where players can play. Spain, France, Australia and Finland all come to mind, though some of those may have been in place before Black Friday...

Let's hope I'm wrong...
--VS

I don't see poker going anywhere anytime soon.

If anything, I think there's going to be an influx of the amount of people playing in the next decade or so with all the advertising for poker and sports players like that tennis pro playing poker now.

Also, I think one of the reasons people like poker so much is not just the competition and theoretical side of it, but the freedom of it and no age requirements to even play.

Even if you're 12 years old, you can hit up gaming sites like coffeebreakarcade and play free poker against the computer or other people.

Talking about freedom in terms of poker, the way I see it is like you can play any hands you want and in any position. There's no one to tell you that you can't call a 3-bet with a baby ace. It may be unprofitable in some circumstances, but you have the freedom to do whatever in poker as long as you follow the site's TOS.

In other games, there are rules that limit your freedom like chess for example, the knight can only move in a certain direction, but in poker you can call, raise, 3-bet, 4-bet, float, double barrel, and more with any hand and that's freedom and IMO that's why poker will be around for a very long time.

Take Care,

Maythany

Poker is becoming much "cooler" now, the first time I talked about Poker people where a little worried; thought it was shady. Now when I tell people I play, they thinks it's cool, interesting & admit they'd love to give it a go.

I can see it growing over the next few years, MTT's in particular. Most people can afford to put the odd $10 in a MTT's for the chance to win big & it's far better odds than the lottory!

You can get so much enjoyment out of that one $10, where else can you spend so little, have hours of fun and potentially win thousands? How can poker not continue to grow?

With MTT's being made more public on TV, hopefully more and more people will continue to give it a whirl

My dad plays $0.50 45Mans and loves them, when he makes the FT, he gets excited, when he makes it past the bubble (top 7) he starts to shake, when he wins, he'll be ecstatic for the entire day.
He knows he's not very good, I try to help but he doesn't care, he loves the game and enjoys it. This is where I see a lot of the future potential - people playing for fun, the thrill of winning, forget Bingo & the lottory, Poker is where it's at.

Great thread, definitely will visit it each day and try to express my opinion as much as possible.

As for the question, I always thought that this will be a game which never ends. It is true that you must work a lot harder to reach the higher stakes but there will always be plenty of people who just want to have some fun without the learning, grinding and so on. For most of the players this is a possibility to win big money with little investment or to make like 300$ per month playing some cash game which is serious pocket money in many countries. Plus the goverments try to make this legal, the americans slowly come back, records are broken every year both in live events as well online. So I am very positive about the future of poker.

hi, i'm worried on two levels.

my actual main concern is what vorpal said, governments trying to "join" the hype by introducing silly laws to make up massive tax income out of us. that could potentially make the game actually unprofitable for many people at some point.

my other main concern isn't exactly with the games getting tougher, it's with bots getting more sophisticated (better at decision making) and that easily accessible bots get better than the actual nl100 player.
i know that there already are some very advanced bots out there but that's not really a mainstream thing yet... however, i can kinda see it eventually getting to the same level as online chess cheating (which is fairly widespread), where someone could just input a hand scenario into some easily accessible poker program and get some pretty solid advice on what action to take.
that kinda read like random ramblings, but i hope you get the idea.

so yeah i believe that the game might "die" in like 10 years or something, but not for the same reasons as most others. in terms of amount of fish, i do believe that there always will be enough to make the games profitable

Very interesting question!

I don't think poker will die. The game is wayyyy to popular, everyone is just playing it. But I think the governments might ruin everything... Being from Belgium I can only legally play on sites that have a Belgian license. The dude who fills in my taxes couldn't really tell me what the taxes are on poker winnings but he told me it could be up to 50% But for now it's not sure and they probably wouldn't notice if I just cashed out without telling.

So will the government kill poker? Probably not… Think about it, the government makes HUGE profits on cigarettes, but do the people stop smoking?

tl;dr The government probably wants to make money out of it but won't stop most people to play.

There's only so much the government can do. Card games of skill and luck, such as poker, have been popular for ages and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
The only thing the government could interfere with is the availability of online poker. We all know what happened in the United States back in 2011; let us hope that at least our respective governments stay reasonable and keep this great game of ours legal in the online world. As long as people enjoy the home games, there should be more than enough interest in the online experience.

Poker is here to stay, but I could actually imagine that another format other than Hold'em takes over in a few decades or so. Remember that Stud poker used to be the most popular game throughout most of the 19th and 20th century.

It should grow in the developing regions and shrink in the developed countries. Then an equilibrium should be reached sometime in the future when the whole world is more globalized and more equal

I think its pretty interesting and lots of great points in the thread.

I was just thinking though, lets say there is 100 regs at 500nl who all make 100k a year. Thats 10 million dollars, who the hell does this go through and how long can this be sustainable. I think there will always be poker but Im not sure how long people can reguarly expect to make 100k every year in mid stakes.

Hopefuly there is some form of global poker in the future with America, France, Italy and Spain all back, but I doubt that will happen.

Day 2, Bankroll Management. What do you think is a good bankroll management for a recreational player and for a professional player and what circumstances could change the approach?

For the recreational player there is no need for brm in my opinion. I know many people who play just for fun, if they deposit 50$ then they play like one table of NL25 or something or spend all on tournaments. They just want to have fun for one or two days and if they win some money like 100$, cash out. Next time when they want to play some poker, deposit again a random amount of money.

For a more serious player who has plans as moving up in limits or make a living from this, it depends. If this person has a normal job too, then he can use a standard brm, like 30 buy ins for the next limit. If he has a normal job but doesn't earn that much to instantly deposit 100$ (for example in my country 100$ is good money where the minimal wage is like 250$) if he goes broke, then I would be more cautious and use a 40 BI brm with a clear plan about when to move down if it's necessary. This all aplies for all stakes up to NL50. From NL50 I would never use a brm less than 50 buy ins, no matter if I am semi pro or full time professional player. Actually I read in Dusty Smidt's book about using a 100 buy in brm if you want to quit your job to make a living from poker. I don't know if this advice isn't too strict, personally I never tried it.

I think a too strickt brm could hurt you while moving up in limits. aggressive brm is fine as long as you also move down when you have to. For me I fugured that taking shots at nl100 with 32 bi was comfortable for me and if I drop below I'll play nl50 and grind it back.
For me it gives more motivation, since it will take much longer to grind a bigger br and you dont get to play at a higher limit for long and would therefore improve your game slower.

PokerSchoolOnline (Pokerstars' official training website aimed at beginners) gives the following BRM advice to beginning cash game players:

Recreational players: 10 buy-ins
Serious players: 20 buy-ins
Professional players: 50 buy-ins

Originally posted by Chymera
For the recreational player there is no need for brm in my opinion. I know many people who play just for fun, if they deposit 50$ then they play like one table of NL25 or something or spend all on tournaments. They just want to have fun for one or two days and if they win some money like 100$, cash out. Next time when they want to play some poker, deposit again a random amount of money.

If they're playing for entertainment rather than profit they could theoretically play any game they like, but I still think they should stick to some sort of BRM to limit the potential costs of their hobby. After all, they should be able to have fun on all the limits if they're just playing because they enjoy poker.
Maybe some of them are playing for the thrill of wagering money, and need decent stakes for the excitement. But even in this case, they should follow some BRM guidelines for the same reasons gamblers use stop-loss limits in casino games.

I'm a recreational player, but even so, I want to make money.

Like any part of my life, there is a budget.

I have an entertainment budget and a budget for my other hobbies as well.

So rather than BRM, perhaps losing players should have a budget.

Pros, on the other hand need to practice the same asset management as other investors. They need to have a capital asset management strategy that suits the risk environment in which they operate.

Cheers,
--VS

nice one guys, keep em coming!

A bit late to the party...

Question 1 (if you don't mind a late entry):
I think tablets and mobile phones will bring a lot more recreational players in - especially for cash games. Unfortunately, I also see more governments trying to segregate and tax poker which I don't see as healthy. Poker will last as long as there is money to be made by sites, and I think that will be a very long time.

One thing I would like the Poker Industry to do voluntarily (and if not, then by Government Regulation) is verify player ages, deposit and withdrawal credentials before allowing any play to occur. I think it is a real black mark on the industry that they have no problem allowing someone to reload and go broke multiple times, but when that player tries to make a small withdrawal - that is when they decide they want to 'protect the integrity of the game'...

Question 2:
Recreationally - I think to encourage a new player to give poker a fair shot, it is good to recommend 10-20 buy-ins. That way they are more likely to play again if they don't have to go through the hassle and delays of reloading (although this is getting much quicker/easier).

Professionally - Hey, they're the professional - let them decide what works for them. ♦

Hi,
I'm also a bit late to the party and I hope u dont mind late entries ♦

#1
I feel like the biggest potential problem for poker is segregation. I don't mind goverments regulating poker if the goal is to create a global regulated player pool asap. Unfortunately for now this isn't the case and I think if the segregation continue like this (single countries getting segregated) It might become a big issue in the near future.

#2 The bigger value your poker money have in your life (you get what i mean ♦ ), the more conservative BRM approach. Obv you dont want to go on 20-30bi BRM if you pay for rent and food with your poker winnings. On the other hand, shouldnt go too extreme as well, way too conservative approach might slow down your poker progress significantly. I believe climbing limits is good for your game even if you struggle for a month or two(or more ♦).

Maybe I understood wrong the word ,,recreational''. I always thought that recreational player = fish (like in the videos the coach categorizes someone as recreational player and immediatly gives him the fish mark).

Originally posted by Chymera
Maybe I understood wrong the word ,,recreational''. I always thought that recreational player = fish (like in the videos the coach categorizes someone as recreational player and immediatly gives him the fish mark).

Since in the videos you can see the player's screen names, it is not polite to call them fish (no one wants to be called a fish) so the coaches try to be kind and just refer to them as recreational players...

Originally posted by Ramble

Originally posted by Chymera
Maybe I understood wrong the word ,,recreational''. I always thought that recreational player = fish (like in the videos the coach categorizes someone as recreational player and immediatly gives him the fish mark).

Since in the videos you can see the player's screen names, it is not polite to call them fish (no one wants to be called a fish) so the coaches try to be kind and just refer to them as recreational players...

Perhaps, but there are people for whom poker is something that they do for fun. Some are better than others. Some treat a hand as a slot machine: They limp, and hope they hit a straight, flush, boat or whatever and "win big".
Some, like myself -- enjoy the struggle to improve, to learn and to win.

I see a lot of parallels with Golf. Anyone can swing a club, but it takes many hours of practice, and a huge amount of frustration to become good.

If I succeed in getting "good enough" I'll use poker to supplement my retirement income. So would I then be a "professional poker player"?
Hardly. I will cease poker when I no longer enjoy it.

In fact, I find it appalling that so many people consider themselves "grinders" and churn out the volume for small edges -- yes it works, yes they make tons of money, but I would never be able to do that, as I could not possibly enjoy it.

Sorry for drifting away for the topic...
--VS