Thoughts of online poker

[Peter Costa]

   


I have read M3boy’s thread about the luck factor in poker and I must say, there are some great post. As for my view? I would say that the luck factor in poker is becoming more and more evident.

Firstly, we have seen numbers for tournaments grow beyond every expectation. And as such, poker is seeing more and more novices coming into the game. Of course, solid players will benefit from bad plays or calls from these players. However, the odds of poker will also ensure that this situation will help to create more and more bad beats. But even without this factor, the game of poker cannot help but include the luck factor. Example; A-A v K-K. Whatever the outcome, one player will ultimately be unlucky.

When it comes to online poker, the luck factor is dramatically increased. More hands per hour, multi-tasking, more novices to the game. Whatever the reasons, I know that online poker is frustrating the hell out of many players. So much so, that many are simply walking away from online. And in truth, I can’t help but feel for these people. In my case, online poker has almost totally subsidized the last four years of my life. However, had I not been a regular winner, or not won enough, I doubt if I would continue to play online in place of live poker. As it is, I am very thankful to online poker and the fact that I can play from home. But I just can’t help thinking about those less fortunate. And I don’t just refer to “ordinary” players here.

As an example, I spoke with one pro, just prior to the WSOP; about a particular site and how he could NOT beat it. If I tell you what this player did during the WSOP, it may give it away and I‘m not sure if he would want me to mention it. Suffice to say, that he had a great WSOP. The point is, I know many good pro‘s that struggle to beat online. But irrespective of the reasons why some players cannot win online, its seem clear that online poker cannot help but increase player‘s frustrations. The thing is though, all we can do is simply accept it because……THAT”S POKER!

And this brings me nicely to the point of my post, would poker players want to see a change in how poker is packaged, presented, played?

Over the last three years or so, I have been focusing on creating new games etc. By nature, poker has been one of the games I have constantly looked at. In fact, about two years, I filled a patent that contained some variations of poker ( I am on the verge on getting these developed with one of the operators). Anyway, the aim of these variations is to lessen the bad beats and the frustrations that poker dishes out like it had a god-given right to do so. But the fact is, that‘s exactly what poker has got at present. We, by how we package and present poker, allow it to do just that. I therefore ask the following question, would YOU like to see a change in poker, if the changes did not detract from the game in any great way?

As for the changes introduced in the patent, some do change the nature of the game. But in return, they do make poker more fun, more enjoyable and less stressful. And though I know it wouldn’t be everyone‘s cup of tea, I would hope that a fair percentage of the online community would go for it.

Anyhow, just recently, I have had a couple of “Eureka” moments that I feel are the missing link in terms of dramatically decreasing bad beats, without much change to the game. Obviously, I cannot go into any detail at this stage, but I would still love to hear what players have to say about online poker, bad beats etc.. And of course, if they would like to see a change in poker.

Thanks in advance to any replies (if I get any that is)

Peter Costa

[Peter Costa]

Sorry people - just realized - should I do a poll?

[doubleup]

Not quite sure what your idea is but, anything that decreases beats will be unsucessfull as losing players will lose to quickly.  It is the variance in poker, particularly in tournaments, that is its biggest asset - the best player doesn't always win in the short term.   

[Robert HM]

Sorry people - just realized - should I do a poll?

Go for it, that way you can get a feed back from those to shy to post.

Nice post, food for thought. All I can say is I have been knocked out of 2 of my last 5 MTTs holding Aces and bust 3 such holdings during that spell. I make a small profit on line but would hate to find I relied on it for income, the luck factor makes me tear my hair out.

[boldie]

I don't know what you mean by changes in online poker...Poker is what it is, no? Decreasing beats in online poker would take something away from the game as online poker would then mathematically become a completely different game from live poker.

I guess I'd like to know more about any changes you propose before I could say whether it's a good idea or not.

[fearisthekey]

What a great post. You catch me on bad beat day, so I say 'Go for it!'

I think what attracts many people to online poker is
-the ability to make money through the application of skill
-a bit of excitement akin to gambling

and a few other things, before the actual poker itself. I mean...the poker itself can be pretty boring (how Limit grinders do it without contemplating suicide, I don't know). Maybe the beats are hard to take in online poker because the investment is larger: in a MTT, for example, if you bubble online you have not only invested your buy-in but also 2 hours of total drudgery clicking a couple of buttons while staring at some avatars. The live game is a different thing altogether, the social scene can be brilliant.

So what I can maybe see happening is that once it's realised by some big firms that the massive boom in online poker isn't so much to do with the game of cards per se, they may try to bottle the other elements and add them to a format, itself more appealing to a much wider audience. It was no surprise to see some non-poker skill games-for-money (Skilljam, Virgin) following this route. Came up with a non-poker variant myself that I've played with mates, still trying to hone it.

good luck.

[totalise]

I love the luck factor in poker, its what fuels the poker economy...everyone is a winning player in their own mind.

[tantrum]

online poker is rigged, everyone knows it...

[Karabiner]

I bet that you've patented the elimination of "the river", and I'm all for it.

I hate those damn suck-outers, where do I sign up ?

[Peter Costa]

So what I can maybe see happening is that once it's realised by some big firms that the massive boom in online poker isn't so much to do with the game of cards per se, they may try to bottle the other elements and add them to a format, itself more appealing to a much wider audience. It was no surprise to see some non-poker skill games-for-money (Skilljam, Virgin) following this route. Came up with a non-poker variant myself that I've played with mates, still trying to hone it.

good luck.
[/quote]

I love the above comments - you are so correct in your assesment.  The thing is, we don't actually play poker because we love everything about how the game is packaged and formated. - we simply play the game in the format offered to us. My question is therefore, is poker so good that we dare not even consider changing  it? I think not. I think there are many improvements that can be made. And if these happen to change the maths or indeed any other aspect of the game - so what? What would that matter if the changes enhanced the game and was actually embraced by players?

As it happens, along with every operator I have met with, I (obviously) believe the chnages would enhance the game greatly as well as be apppreacited by players. I guess time will tell.

[MANTIS01]

Every on-line poker site should have an insurance agent...like taking insurance in Blackjack. As a player you can choose to pay a subsidy and if your A-A gets cracked by K-K at a crucial moment or you are runner-runnered after outplaying your opponent you get the appropriate compensation. The insurance agent will always make money because of the unlikliness of this scenario becoming a reality...this will certainly lessen the frustration of continuous bad beats.

[Peter Costa]

Every on-line poker site should have an insurance agent...like taking insurance in Blackjack. As a player you can choose to pay a subsidy and if your A-A gets cracked by K-K at a crucial moment or you are runner-runnered after outplaying your opponent you get the appropriate compensation. The insurance agent will always make money because of the unlikliness of this scenario becoming a reality...this will certainly lessen the frustration of continuous bad beats.

Couldn't help but laugh when I read this. Not because this is in fact part of the proposed changes - but exactly what the changes aim to do - LESSEN THE FRUSTRATION OF CONTINOUS BAD BEATS. And though one cannot eradicate the luck element from the game or the bad beat (nor do I wish to do so), I can assure you that that will in fact be the case.   

[totalise]

Every on-line poker site should have an insurance agent...like taking insurance in Blackjack. As a player you can choose to pay a subsidy and if your A-A gets cracked by K-K at a crucial moment or you are runner-runnered after outplaying your opponent you get the appropriate compensation. The insurance agent will always make money because of the unlikliness of this scenario becoming a reality...this will certainly lessen the frustration of continuous bad beats.

Couldn't help but laugh when I read this. Not because this is in fact part of the proposed changes - but exactly what the changes aim to do - LESSEN THE FRUSTRATION OF CONTINOUS BAD BEATS. And though one cannot eradicate the luck element from the game or the bad beat (nor do I wish to do so), I can assure you that that will in fact be the case.   

of course it would do that, but imagine the flip side, instead of looking at it from the point of view of the person getting bad beats, do it from the one giving the bad beats.

If the pot is $100 and some donk goes allin with a 15% chance for $100 and someone calls, the insurance screen would be "would you like to insure your equity for $1.50? this guarantees you get $45 back from the pot".. now, it wont take long before they start to think "well what is this, I bet $100 and I am only g'teed $45?"... giving things like this in stark numbers can only highlight to the bad players why their play is bad.

Clearly some wont care anyways, but plenty will and it can only impact the poker economy!

I am intersted in what your concept is, because I cant see how you can have a thriving economy that helps the good winning players, and harms the losing ones.

[doubleup]

Every on-line poker site should have an insurance agent...like taking insurance in Blackjack. As a player you can choose to pay a subsidy and if your A-A gets cracked by K-K at a crucial moment or you are runner-runnered after outplaying your opponent you get the appropriate compensation. The insurance agent will always make money because of the unlikliness of this scenario becoming a reality...this will certainly lessen the frustration of continuous bad beats.

This is clearly impractical in a tournament, but might have some merits in cash if you were prepared to pay to reduce variance, but you might find that the cost reduces your profits considerably (particularly if Party brought it in as they would take the biggest % that ignorance could stand).

Also one minor technical point, the sites like Stars that still operate in the US rely partly on their view that they don't take bets from players, obviously taking insurance bets would change this.

[AndrewT]

Poker is a game whose very nature is to obscure the difference in skill between good players and bad players. As such, the bad players may not realise they are bad players because of luck. The mediocre players may think they are great players because of luck.

Luck is not something to be feared by a good player - it is to be embraced. It is the fog of war which obscures the bad player's true position. It is the oasis on the horizon which encourages the bad player to venture further into the desert to his death.

The long run is king - our target number of hands played is placed at the vanishing point in the distance.

If you don't like luck/bad beats go play chess, where the better player always wins. See how much fun that is.