Future of Poker Strategy Affiliates

[jdwanchalk]

321, no one gives a shit about a 30/60 limit game. SNGs, for the most part, are a solved game. Omaha is the only game with profit potential now, but the variance is way more than almost anyone cares to deal with.

No Limit Holdem is what everyone is talking about it. When you say, "People who only play NLHE suck at poker," it displays ignorance. Many of the best players in the world suck at anything but NLHE, it doesn't mean they suck at poker.

Any legitimate player from a 1/2 guy to Tom Dwan would tell you that the games have gotten significantly tougher since 2006. There are fewer winners, the earnings are smaller, and it is harder to complete. What the hell else would define "tougher games"?

When I play live poker it is ridiculous how easy it is. The online games do not coordinate in the least. Years ago, however, they did. Or so I am told. Anyway, they are tougher, it is a fact, not my opinion.

[pokerextras]

For what it's worth, i've been playing and winning online for 4 years now, and i don't think that games are any tougher. Different yes, but not tougher.

I only play 50/1 at ongame, but i can win a buy in most nights easily.

The difference is that players used to be alot tighter, so you could easily bully them. Now the games have got alot more aggressive, i just wait for decent hands and let my opponents take the lead. If anything, it's actually easier doing this.

[jdwanchalk]

Lol alright. I'm not going to waste my breath talking to affiliates about poker. Some here understand, others don't play nearly enough to see the reality.

Here is some visual demonstration, notice how the line goes sharply up for awhile, then less of an incline, then even less of an incline...

SIX3OFF Poker Player Ranking and Stats at Absolute Poker

[321]

321, no one gives a shit about a 30/60 limit game.

No one except winning players looking to make money.

SNGs, for the most part, are a solved game. Omaha is the only game with profit potential now, but the variance is way more than almost anyone cares to deal with.

Omaha variance is far less than Holdem.

No Limit Holdem is what everyone is talking about it. When you say, "People who only play NLHE suck at poker," it displays ignorance. Many of the best players in the world suck at anything but NLHE, it doesn't mean they suck at poker.

You just said they do. If someone can only play one thing, they are limited, as your other examples show, stubbornly sitting in shitty games with other similar players.

Any legitimate player from a 1/2 guy to Tom Dwan would tell you that the games have gotten significantly tougher since 2006. There are fewer winners, the earnings are smaller, and it is harder to complete. What the hell else would define "tougher games"?

Nonsense. People who won by variance early in their careers have found they aren't as good as they thought they were.

When I play live poker it is ridiculous how easy it is. The online games do not coordinate in the least. Years ago, however, they did. Or so I am told. Anyway, they are tougher, it is a fact, not my opinion.

LOL. It seems you are missing the point unfortunately. The highest variance, lowest short term skill games where similar style players are all rushing to the same point like a dying star, sure those are getting more challenging. But who freaking cares? The point here is, for poker strategy websites, and players who want to win, you have to focus on finding and exploiting edge. Weaktight, unimaginative, one trick pony players just sit in games, and complain how tough it is because they don't focus on strategic aspects of the game, which means finding the money in games that you don't care about.

[321]

For what it's worth, i've been playing and winning online for 4 years now, and i don't think that games are any tougher. Different yes, but not tougher.

Exactly. The unimaginative players can't adapt to even the simplest changes. Exploiting idiotic aggression is probably the most important single thing to look for when playing online these days. Players who exploited passive players in the past (or even on a second table they are playing) need to exploit foolish aggressiveness now. Many players do not have that skill set, so they complain games are tougher.

Aside from tournaments where you are locked in, I haven't played in a "tough" online game for more than a few minutes, ever. Oh I see some tough games and pass them up, but normally it takes much less than five minutes to find a terrific game of one kind or another.

[jdwanchalk]

SIX3OFF Poker Player Ranking and Stats at Absolute Poker

[actyper]

I'd like to know on which sites you can always find easy games on at decent stakes. Plus also how much you play where you can make the statement that games are not any harder. Thats complete bs. Being Canadian I do have access to all sites and do play everywhere, and theres no way games are like the Party days or even early cake days.

[Squizzel]

This is standard fiction. Online poker is and always has been a berry patch, filled with very poor players.

The "tougher" myth, that has been spread perpetually for ten years, now primarily comes from people who are literally "playing bad". More specifically, from limited-buyin No Limit players, who play the highest variance, lowest edge, most simplistic strategy game of them all. Essentially if you choose to play against bad players where you have 52/48 edges all the time instead of choosing to play against bad players where you have 75/25 edges, you really suck as a poker player.

Additionally games have gotten easier in how a basic counter strategy works against a very large pool of players -- most players, good or bad, play too aggressively in marginal situations, so when in doubt where you know nothing about a player, you can assume they are most likely overaggressive.

What is true is games have gotten tougher for certain classes of players because they have not learned to adapt to games where their skills work better.

Basic poker strategy content doesn't age because it focuses on just that, "strategy" not "tactics". Tactics content ages... for example, there were no ring game sit n gos in 1985. So whether you write something or make a video about something, players will always value good strateg over anything else in this business, but tactical content could become obsolete (for example, assuming that thing known as "rush poker" will exist three years from how it exists today is a big assumption).

lol nearly spat up my drink. Therse so many things wrong with that post (and your subsequent posts) that im not even gonna disect it out of sympathy. I dont care if i sound an asshole but plz stfu 321.

Over the past 3 years ive played about 2.5million hands and i can tell you as a matter of a fact the games have got alot tougher, my ability has increased exponentially and my profits have stayed the same, i have an AIM messenger list full of other poker pros who play in the same games daily willing to back me up on it.

Just look at how the games have changed, theres hardly any action at 5/10+ on all sites now. Even regs winning at 25/50+ are playing lower. Games like 1/2 and 2/4 are now playing like 5/10 just a few years ago. Heck, 25/50 6 years ago is about as soft at a 1/2 game now.

It really pisses me off how some people are so out of touch. ok gg your done.

[pokerextras]

Well i've only ever really played at ongame, and the games are still easy. Maybe it's because their software isn't the greatest, so it's not full of pro's. Maybe it's because there's not so much rakeback on the network so it's not full of pro's. Maybe it's because there's no action above 1/2 so it's not full of pro's. Whatever way, ongame is full of casual easy to beat players.

[leporello]

Or maybe it's because we're European and all the Euro networks are soft up to 400NL which is where they begin to get tough. PLO games are still geat but most people just grind away at holdem complaining about how tough the games are getting when the smart guys have long expanded their skillsets into different areas of the game.