Why are you quitting poker?

Great input from Wagon and JT. I based my thesis on very long term play...at least a year of play with over 150 hours at the table playing just once a week.

Naturally if you play hit and run style to limit your "rake" exposure...and, consistently find weak players all of the time to play against, the prospect of being a long term winner is greatly enhanced and will prove my theory wrong.

I based my theory on the vast majority of the kind of players that you will find in poker rooms across the country. Yes indeed...there are definitely out there a gifted few that will win on a regular basis...if you are one of those lucky few that can curtail your play to shorter hours as to limit the rake...and find weak games constantly...you can absolutely beat the system and be a long term winner.

Or just get out of the lowest stakes games, since the rake dramatically decreases as a percentage of the pot size as you move up in live casinos.

Most local casinos nowadays offer no limit games that are usually $1-$2 with a $50-$200 buy in....this is the game I am refering to that will be hard to overcome the rake.

The average schmo can not buy into high stakes games as they are mostly not offered and probably would not as they cannot afford it.

If you have the financial means and ability to enter the bigger games in Vegas, the "rake" really does not matter much anymore as you have stated as it becomes only a very small percentage of the total pot.

If you're arguing that the average schmo can't beat $1 $2 games, I totally agree with you. The average schmo is terrible at poker. And the average player will by definition lose exactly at the same rate as the rake. I just don't think it takes that much in terms of special gifts or study to become much better than these bad players.

I think comparing poker to other casino games is kind of ridiculous, since (excluding BJ and some other rare games) it's impossible to beat casino games, where as in poker it's quite possible to beat the games. Certainly many people can't beat the games, but that's only because they have not developed the required skills to play the game better than their opponents.

Given the normal run of the mill pot in 1/2 NL I think it is impossible to win at that game. So many player are weak tight and the pots simply cannot get big enough for enough times to overcome the rake. Generally to get a big pot requires two or three players with big hands or big draws. These are won by the luckiest player not necessarily the skilled one. ie. If I limp with 33 and 4 callers pre and the flop is

3 5 A two spades. I get it all in with two players and one has 24 and another has flush draw.. we each have about the same equity to win.

Now I normally play 2-5 and 5/5 NL .. these games I think you can win since the pots in general are much bigger. Most pots have at least one raise and a couple callers. with a much bigger avg pot size with the rake being around the same as in the 1/2 NL game you can win without having to get lucky.

That said I think the real way to win in poker is not hitting hands but rather getting other players to fold better but weak hands. When you win a pot you dont deserve you dont need to be running well. These run of the mill one pair type pots are where the real money is in MHO.. not the 200+ bb monsters.. those tend to be won by the luckiest player..

after playing for almost 5 years and NL exclusively (with a little plo thrown in) I am still only a marginally winning player. But I guess that means I am still better off than 95% of everyone else..


h

Given the normal run of the mill pot in 1/2 NL I think it is impossible to win at that game. So many player are weak tight and the pots simply cannot get big enough for enough times to overcome the rake. Generally to get a big pot requires two or three players with big hands or big draws. These are won by the luckiest player not necessarily the skilled one. ie. If I limp with 33 and 4 callers pre and the flop is

3 5 A two spades. I get it all in with two players and one has 24 and another has flush draw.. we each have about the same equity to win.

Why are you limping, and not folding or raising?

Well I guess I can post in this topic now. I'm not playing anymore cause they won't let me.
I was kinda in semi retirement anyway rarely playing, but was nice to have the option.

Those of you that enjoy playing live can continue to have your fun, it's just not for me too slow
& boring.

Amazing how peoples perceptions, preferences, likes and dislikes can differ so greatly between themselves.

I find that ONLINE POKER is too slow and boring. I would much rather play live games ( albeit with a larger rake, bad beat, and tip charge).

You meet strange and quirky characters all the time...I remember one game a few years back... some weird guy was so funny at the table with jokes and wild tales that he had everyone laughing their asses off for the longest time, this guy was extremely entertaining and funny. You certainly do not get that online.

Yet just wondering..When will some poker site put together a package with Skype...You log in with Skype access and you can see the other players and talk to them. This feature would in my opinion ease the boredom of just sitting at your computer for hours on end with no one to talk to.

By the way...I play at 5 Dimes and the Feds did not shut them down...YET.

I'll buy your opinion if you say online is boring, it's a subjective thing to each his own. But too slow?
I can play three hands online in the time it takes some moron at the Indian casino to take several
minutes to do his bad Phil Ivey act at the freakin 1/2 table.

For me personally it's backwards of most of you. I come from a highly competitive video gaming
background. All NLHE for me is(was) is another competitive video game. Sitting around a table
playing live in a casino is puzzling to me as if a bunch of people were trying to play Starcraft on
a table without a computer. I only really find it appealing in a live game among friends.