Salon.com article about poker: "Requiem for a poker game"

[gurgeh]

No, it's not about online poker going away. Here's the headline:

Poker has been spoiled by TV tournaments and players schooled online. In the battle for the big payoff, wit and camaraderie have been trumped by computer logic and greed.

I don't want to post the entire article because, as far as I know, that would be illegal. Here's the link though:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/07/28/poker/

Before somebody comes up with one sentence out of two hundred that sounds ridiculous when taken out of context and starts flaming, let me say that I don't agree with everything in the article. However, given the generally dismal level of factual accuracy in features like this one (to say nothing of the definedly pathetic insights they attempt to offer) I think it's surprisingly well done.

Thoughts?

[Senator7]

It's actually a decent article. I actually agree that the game has become too "mechanical" as I'm not at all a fan of PokerTracker or HUDs.

[Grumbo]

[ QUOTE ]
It's actually a decent article. I actually agree that the game has become too "mechanical" as I'm not at all a fan of PokerTracker or HUDs.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's unfortunate.

I thought the article was meh. Kind of like "poker was better in the good ole days before those robotic internet players started competing".

[Zobags]

I lol'ed at the thot that no one can be a winner in the long run b/c everyone is employing optimal game theory. The author obviously hasn't seen how many of the players play.

[Senator7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's actually a decent article. I actually agree that the game has become too "mechanical" as I'm not at all a fan of PokerTracker or HUDs.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's unfortunate.

I thought the article was meh. Kind of like "poker was better in the good ole days before those robotic internet players started competing".

[/ QUOTE ]

I love online poker and I play all the time. I just think that all these "tools" that are available are making decisions for people and I don't think that's right. Some of the HUDs and data mining services are allowing morons who know little about the game to be successful and that's a problem.

Online poker just doesn't resemble live, real poker much anymore and that's unfortunate.

[phydaux]

"As people do in the digital community Second Life, players develop virtual personas, fictitious avatars and cartoonish social skills, and are seldom accountable for their behavior."

That's the flaw in the story. On-line poker players are totally accountable for their actions. You act, your chips go in the pot, and if you act "badly" then those chips go away for ever.

In the case of zero-sum economics, personal responsibility wears brass knuckles.

[gurgeh]

[ QUOTE ]
I lol'ed at the thot that no one can be a winner in the long run b/c everyone is employing optimal game theory. The author obviously hasn't seen how many of the players play.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Given that tournament poker is a zero-sum game (all the money comes from the entrants), and the casinos take 6 to 10 percent (or more) for hosting the events, the likelihood of being a long-term consistent winner is quite low."

Is this the sentence you're referring to?

[Zobags]

yes

[fraac]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of the HUDs and data mining services are allowing morons who know little about the game to be successful and that's a problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
The game is whatever the game is, which is rarely the same as how it's described in the book. That's just how life works.

[PropMike]

Bemoaning coin flips in Tournament poker because 'that's not how it was done in the old days' is pretty silly. Unless tournament structures have altered greatly (and maybe that is the case with the increased numbers of players, I'm not sure) the nature of the blind structures in tournaments necessitate a lot of big all in moves. Perhaps it took a long time for people to catch on to this fact, but it's not the fault of maladjusted internet players that tourneys are all-in fests these days... players have become more aggressive because that's the style more likely to win the money, and in a competitive pursuit for money it's unrealistic to expect people to avoid making all-in plays because it isn't in the spirit of the game or whatever.

In short, don't blame the internet kids for killing the mystique of the game, blame the format of tournament poker for not being rich/complex enough to sustain that mystique. A lot of the old guys who 'flew by the seat of their pants' and took a more passive approach that would accomodate postflop play and tough decisions based on reading abilities etc, would today get steamrolled by the competant tourney pros who apply endless pressure and won't let them in for cheap flops etc. That's not the fault of the aggro players, though, it's systematic of the fact that short stack poker, which is for the most part what tournament poker is, just isn't that complex a game.

If the author had taken a closer look at cash games a lot of his article would have become redundant.

All in my humble opinion, of course.