future of the online cardrooms

[traxamillion]

I hopped on the wagon relatively late but right now the games are still profitable. I'm considering whether or not it is going to be worth investing my time in this form of the game. On one hand things like the bill, general increase in skill level, decreasing popularity (?) are hurting the games. On the other people will continue playing at one level or another as long as it is legal (which it looks hopeful?), some players will ALWAYS be better than others, and the Asian market will likely jump in in the future with 2 billion people and a propensity to gamble. I'd like to think it won't die but a lot of players speak very pessimistically about the future. It probably won't be "party days" to come but is it really going to get much much worse than it is now? If online dies how profitable will brick and mortar be in the future?

[luckyjimm]

SALAZAAAR

[Jimmy Afternoon]

I used to play 25nl and 50nl on pokerstars, starting right before the legislation. I did O.K., but when I started playing live I couldn't believe how bad the play was at 5-5 nl. the .1/.25 players are ten times tougher than these casino players. 1-2 nl is even worse. I'd always played online until recently, but once i played live i don't see any reason to ever play online again, except for tournaments. log on to pokerstars and watch a .25/.50 limit ring game, and watch how many times they all fold around to the big blind and never even take a flop. com pare that to any 3-6-12 live game in the U.S., where the pot is routinely capped before the flop with 6 or more players in. I think the days of partypoker are over.

[traxamillion]

How beatable is casino rake though. raking 4 dollars a pot from a 2-4 or 3-6 limit game seems harsh and these would be the only games i am rolled for right now. I know at something like a 10-20nl game the rake would be less significant.

[Jimmy Afternoon]

Where I play the rake is $5, with another dollar for the jackpot, and that's before the expected tip. But these games are so wild that it can easily be beaten, at no-limit especially. 3-6-12 is the lowest limit I know of with consistant winners. I think the 12 bet on the river is what beats the rake; the standard limit structure would probably make 3-6 not worth it.

[Witzo]

If you can't consistently beat the rake at 1/2 NL live then you're not going to beat .10/.25 NL online w/ rakeback.

[john voight]

can someone explain why legislation affect the game so much? I don't understand.

Thanks.

BTW I too noticed how sick tight games have become, not that I care, I still smash up NL25 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Python49]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't see any reason to ever play online again,

[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming you don't suck so bad that you can't beat online poker:

1) Online is more profitable.
2) More efficient time wise. Can see 800 hands an hour vs 35 hands an hour, making it 23x more efficient
3) No tipping.
4) No commuting/Gas money
5) Rakeback
6) Play from the comfort of your own home

Etc...

[BigBuffet]

[ QUOTE ]

1) Online is more profitable.
2) More efficient time wise.
3) No tipping.
4) No commuting/Gas money
5) Rakeback
6) Play from the comfort of your own home



[/ QUOTE ]

7) Pee in a jar instead of going to the mens' room
8) Watch xxx videos
9) Don't have to wear sunglasses
10) Don't have to get dressed at all
11) Live players won't see your mouse finger twitch when you hit the flop
12) That pesky ADHD won't be a factor online

[nuclear500]

[ QUOTE ]
2)More efficient time wise. Can see 800 hands an hour vs 35 hands an hour, making it 23x more efficient

[/ QUOTE ]

Yah, if you're 8 tabling a full ring.