nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

the online poker craze

mezzz

anyone remember or take part in the online poker craze,

i played from 2009-2013, low stakes, broke even,

was just thinking about playing a tourney for old times sake,

i actually love the game but don;t have the patience to sit thru a tourney

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

PARlance

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is pretty funny in a way.

Everyone else, don't try to explain this stuff to him if you value your sanity. There's no need for him to understand and I like his posts.

Agreed but in fairness, there were a few cases of superusers, way back at the start, on some of the smaller sights. Where the company created an account and was able to see everyone's cards. It's too big of a business for any reputable company to do that, they have a licence to print money via the rake.

Plenty other scandals out there of users multi accounts in the early days and a recent enough one with Russian bots. There's money to be won so you should always be weary to an extent.

Full Tilt another massive example of a scam.

But getting dogged on the river is just part of poker.

ChikiChiki

I no longer trust online poker. Too many scandals and too much software out there. We probably dont know the half of it to be fair. Players have been banned as they've been caught cheating and other people have sold their accounts to these cheaters so the cheaters are still active and winning.

Pokerstars have essentially a monopoly on online and can do what they like. There is no competition on their scale and this has also ruined it for me.

Live poker is a different animal, for those who say its not a skill game, google Fedor Holz. He is crushing the game. He has 18.5 million in live winnings the last few years. Below are his results.

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=261880#

donegaLroad

ChikiChiki wrote: »

I no longer trust online poker. Too many scandals and too much software out there. We probably dont know the half of it to be fair. Players have been banned as they've been caught cheating and other people have sold their accounts to these cheaters so the cheaters are still active and winning.

Pokerstars have essentially a monopoly on online and can do what they like. There is no competition on their scale and this has also ruined it for me.

Live poker is a different animal, for those who say its not a skill game, google Fedor Holz. He is crushing the game. He has 18.5 million in live winnings the last few years. Below are his results.

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=261880#

Poker Stars is essentially what I was referring to in the post where I mentioned playing against an algorithm. I don't play online poker but I have seen people I know lose thousands (approx $70,000). I know nothing about live poker where players play each other, but I still wouldn't trust an online game where you cannot see the physical deck.

Mr. CooL ICE

PARlance wrote: »

Agreed but in fairness, there were a few cases of superusers, way back at the start, on some of the smaller sights. Where the company created an account and was able to see everyone's cards. It's too big of a business for any reputable company to do that, they have a licence to print money via the rake.

IIRC, it was only one instance (Absolute) and it was an employee. Allowing any sort of a superuser account to exist in the software was a ridiculous design flaw and that company never recovered

PARlance wrote: »

Plenty other scandals out there of users multi accounts in the early days and a recent enough one with Russian bots. There's money to be won so you should always be weary to an extent.

Full Tilt another massive example of a scam.

The Full Tilt software itself had integrity, despite the reputation. But the owners/shareholders were the ones that made a balls of it. They siphoned off $800m of both operational funds and player funds to fund their own lavish lifestyles which meant that when players tried to withdraw, the numbers on their accounts were meaningless.

But as for bots/collusion rings; yes, they exist, but there is a constant battle to keep them off the sites. Tournament play is easier to monitor than cash games by nature so cash games are the ones where you'll most likely be hit by a bot.

Mr. CooL ICE

donegaLroad wrote: »

Poker Stars is essentially what I was referring to in the post where I mentioned playing against an algorithm. I don't play online poker but I have seen people I know lose thousands (approx $70,000). I know nothing about live poker where players play each other, but I still wouldn't trust an online game where you cannot see the physical deck.

If you see people lose thousands, chances are they are both bad at poker and have a problem and don't when to stop. You shouldn't blame the software they use.

PARlance

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

IIRC, it was only one instance (Absolute) and it was an employee. Allowing any sort of a superuser account to exist in the software was a ridiculous design flaw and that company never recovered

The Full Tilt software itself had integrity, despite the reputation. But the owners/shareholders were the ones that made a balls of it. They siphoned off $800m of both operational funds and player funds to fund their own lavish lifestyles which meant that when players tried to withdraw, the numbers on their accounts were meaningless.

But as for bots/collusion rings; yes, they exist, but there is a constant battle to keep them off the sites. Tournament play is easier to monitor than cash games by nature so cash games are the ones where you'll most likely be hit by a bot.

Yes, I was referring to the deposits rather than the software re Full Tilt.

Ultimate Bet / Russ Hamilton was another Superuser scam.

hairyslug

Only played with friends, for very small amounts, normally when we didn't have enough money to go out to the pub for the night and it was more about having a laugh than anything else. Also I was absolutely ****e at it.

ChikiChiki

PARlance wrote: »

Yes, I was referring to the deposits rather than the software re Full Tilt.

Ultimate Bet / Russ Hamilton was another Superuser scam.

I remember the Russ Hamilton (aka potripper) one. He made it so so obvious playing nearly every bloody hand possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbQyKgELDEA

danganabu

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

There still is skill involved but the way people talk about it there isn't any level of luck involved.

Luck evens itself out over any significent volume, what you are referring to is variance, Poker is 100% a game of skill and probability.

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Gambling is for mugs.

Poker is not gambling. Even if one was to concede that it was, it's not but I;ll indulge you

, then gambling when you have an edge is most certainly not a mugs game and is very much a +ev thing to do.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

whatever about an actual poker tournament, which is extremely likely to be legit, anything played online is way too open to manipulation, someone much smarter than you has inevitably rigged it in their own favour. So in the case of online poker - it's not even gambling, it's just paying to play a game!

Online poker on one of the major sites is actually safer and more secure than live poker and that is fact!

donegaLroad wrote: »

When you play online poker you are playing an algorithm which is programmed to beat you.

I think you maybe referring to Poker Machines, the company who runs online games make their money from rake in cash games and registration fees for tournaments, it makes absolutely no difference to them whether player a or player b wins, they still get the same %. It's probably one of the most regulated industries out there.

Neon_Lights

Poker is a skill game, anybody who cant appreciate the intricacies of this, I will challenge them to a series of matches/games against them over a time period. Any game they like. Removing the randomness over time will show that it's highly skillful.

BrokenArrows

Ya i played a lot of reasonable size stakes. Saw a lot of money come and go both in online and real life casinos. I remember some big hands i won and remember the ones i lost even more.

I think over a lifetime of playing i probably broke even, maybe a little loss when you take into account the cost of traveling to tournaments and inevitably spend more money on drink/food when in a casino.

My peak of playing was probably 2007 where i spent a period of time playing professionally. By professionally i mean i was using it to put food on the table and pay my rent and was playing Monday-Saturday in a real casino all day.

While it worked out and i was able to provide myself an income it was extremely stressful and basically killed my love of playing. After i stopped that i pretty much stopped playing altogether apart from the occasional game with friends for no/little money.

buck65

Yeah had my go at this too, I studied the books and game theory and felt good about myself, won a good bit as I was disciplined but once I was winning regularly I got looser and lost most of the money back.
Played live poker too with mates, there were 6 or 7 of us and maybe 3 of us knew what we were doing and one most of the games over a 3 year period.
Still didn't stop me getting sickened against a lad betting on junk and drawing lucky so yes there is an element of luck to poker.
Don't play it now, chess is better and costs less!

branie2

I wouldn't bet on it

Dice75

Neon_Lights wrote: »

Poker is a skill game, anybody who cant appreciate the intricacies of this, I will challenge them to a series of matches/games against them over a time period. Any game they like. Removing the randomness over time will show that it's highly skillful.

Surely poker is 99% luck, 1% skill?

timthumbni

What site would any of the experts on here recommend for a novice. Is there any that allow you to play imaginary money first to get you used to the game?

Blacktie.

Dice75 wrote: »

Surely poker is 99% luck, 1% skill?

If this was the case everyone would be on an even playing field. Which they're not.

donegaLroad

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

If you see people lose thousands, chances are they are both bad at poker and have a problem and don't when to stop. You shouldn't blame the software they use.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORI5fC7EzZc

JigglyMcJabs

When I was a trainee accountant earning the amazing sum of €12,000 a year, I played poker online every evening for a few hours, grinding away on multiple low stakes games. I kept track of everything, really didn't enjoy it much but managed to basically double my income. It made life a lot more comfortable.

I kept it up until it got harder to win, not as many clueless drunk Americans throwing cash away.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh, absolutely not.

It happened once or twice years ago when someone on the inside could see hole cards during a big tournament but it's not the norm.
Like, there is no way billion dollar companies are risking their entire business by rigging poker games where players just win of each other. They make more than enough from the rake.

I can't find the link but there was a case where a online gambling site even went so far as to state what random number generator they were using (It was open source). Just so they were transparent and could claim to be fair. Some smart ass determined that since it used the time of the deal to start the generator there were still only a certain number of deals that can happen. And once you start seeing the cards that were dealt you could determine what the shuffle was. I think he needed to see something like 8 cards to determine the entire layout of the deck on a particular shuffle. He could determine partial layouts on 5 cards.

So in games like blackjack he could see those cards and determine which deck he was working on.

Mr. CooL ICE

donegaLroad wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORI5fC7EzZc

A video from 2008? Gave that video a quick skim and it's pretty much a summation of what's been discussed re Absolute/Ultimate above.

What's your opinion of it?

Neon_Lights

Dice75 wrote: »

Surely poker is 99% luck, 1% skill?

The luck comes from the random element of the game, not to say there is none, but over time a skillful player mitigates against randomness buy playing in a way which maximises expected value from playing. This is in essence the skill element, which could be construed as having anything from, good reads and correctly assessing/deciphering what your opponents have leading to a correct decision, or to making the mathematically correct decision in a given situation.

brady23

Neon_Lights wrote: »

The luck comes from the random element of the game, not to say there is none, but over time a skillful player mitigates against randomness buy playing in a way which maximises expected value from playing. This is in essence the skill element, which could be construed as having anything from, good reads and correctly assessing/deciphering what your opponents have leading to a correct decision, or to making the mathematically correct decision in a given situation.

Sounds like 99% luck to me

Blacktie.

brady23 wrote: »

Sounds like 99% luck to me

Then you don't understand the difference between luck and probability.

sbsquarepants

PARlance wrote: »

. It's too big of a business for any reputable company to do that, they have a licence to print money via the rake.

Deleted User wrote: »

Like, there is no way billion dollar companies are risking their entire business by rigging poker games where players just win of each other. They make more than enough from the rake.

Billion dollar companies simply wouldn't fiddle because they make enough money as it is?

Are you people really that naïve?

You've never heard of cartels, corporate fraud, organised crime, no? Have there not been dozens of cases of "reputable" global billion dollar companies, caught with their hands in the cookie jar before?
Greed is an actual thing you know, why would online poker be an island free from the allure of free money?

I don't profess to know the exact ins and outs of the multi billion dollar online poker industry. If I did, I'd be running a multi billion dollar online poker company......just like I presume you must do!

Deleted User wrote: »

. There's no need for him to understand and I like his posts.

Awh thanks, that's hardly condescending at all .

brady23

Blacktie. wrote: »

Then you don't understand the difference between luck and probability.

Can you break it down for those of us that don't understand?

[Deleted User]

Dice75 wrote: »

Surely poker is 99% luck, 1% skill?

Nope. It's a common misunderstanding that the cards dealt determine who wins the hand but in reality, cards don't get shown in the majority of poker hands.

A large part of the game comes down to putting your opponents on hand ranges and your position on the table.

For example, if someone is first to act (and they're sober) after the deal and they raise with 7 people after them, you put usually put them on a certain range like maybe AQ-suited and up, or like 88s and up.
In later position where you will always act after them, you can call his raise with a weaker range like Q10-Off and up, lower suited connectors and any pocket pair.
There are mathematically proven hands where you should re-raise them and those percentages change for each position around to the big blind. What other people do in between determines how big your re-raise should be. Generally 3x + 1 big blind per caller.
Then the flop comes and you have a good idea of what the other person should be on, and they have a range on you. If the flop is a low board, it's almost certain to be out of his range whereas if it's high, it's more likely that he hit. etc. etc. etc.

Then there are all the implied odds and stuff that happens throughout the hand. There's just so much to it. My brother who's been a pro for years has graphs upon graphs memorised for this sort of stuff. It doesn't mean he'll necessarily win every night. It means that his edge plays out over time.

The best pros can make around 10 big blinds an hour.. Most around 5. So in a 1/2 game, you can only ever expect to make a max of around 20 euro an hour over a long period of time if you're a good winning player.

Edit: Another big thing is that there's often no perfect move in poker. So the newer breed of players who do GTO take a percentage-based approach to their move.
They often randomise by using their cards.. So if the card on the left is red, they might raise, if it's black, they check etc. Knowing these percentages is huge because if you always do the same thing, you leave exploitable holes in your game. That isn't saying that it's just a big crapshoot.. It's all worked out to be the optimal.

brady23 wrote: »

Can you break it down for those of us that don't understand?

You really don't know the difference?

danganabu

brady23 wrote: »

Can you break it down for those of us that don't understand?

Probability is a branch of mathematics that is capable of calculating the likelihood of an event taking place in percentage terms. Probability has a scientific basis.

Luck is just what it says and is a combination of circumstances that operate independently of each other to bring good or bad to a person.

Neon_Lights

brady23 wrote: »

Can you break it down for those of us that don't understand?

Baked bean head on ya!

B.A._Baracus

A lot of memories coming back reading this thread now.... God, I'm glad I don't play poker anymore.

Everyone is an bloody 'expert'....

whoopsadoodles

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Used to work for Full Tilt in Cherrywood when the Feds decided to have a go at them for illegally offering online poker in the US, those were not fun times (they were before hand though, stupid excessive lunches / canteen / parties etc). Got out before the **** really got everywhere though.

Was at a few of those parties myself!

One of them they flew in a guy from Cuba to hand roll cigars for everyone at the event. Mad stuff!