Question #1 - why do you play online poker?

[ScottMGee]

Do they find poker fun?

Why do you play?

fun hobby, competitive challenge.

Is it simply as a way of making a profit/living?

No, they the profit is nice

Would you like to see a less stressful way to play online poker - a more fun way of playing poker?

no, i enjoy it as it is

Do you find poker frustrating?

don't we all - its like golf that way

Do you play because you feel you have an edge?

Yes, I wouldn't play if I was a fish - though if I was a fish I probably wouldn't know I was one!

Would you still play if the edge was less (for example, no bluffing), but you had complete control on how much you commited to each and every hand?

Bluffing is surely the main fun of poker.

Any thoughts anyone?

[Longy]

I've often wonderd why players play online. I have lived from onlione for almost six years now, and I must admit I do not enjoy it at all. So how is it that the vast majority, which are losing players; still play? Do they find poker fun?

Yes it is a fun hobby to the majority, it is also an extremely addictive game with the right of amount of luck to convince people that they are good when it is not necessarily the case.


Why do you play? Is it simply as a way of making a profit/living?

It is my job, I go through phases of hating, loving and indifference towards poker. It certainly is not as much as fun as the first 18 months i played as a hobby.

Would you like to see a less stressful way to play online poker - a more fun way of playing poker?

If you guarentee me an hourly rate with virtually no varience, it would initially be quite attractive but in the long term it would be boring. Plus as previously mentioned we need the variance to keep the fish in the games.

Do you find poker frustrating?

Like nothing else in life and this is coming from someone who has a talent for supporting extremely infuriating sports teams. I never thought anything would have me screaming down the house and throwing random objects round the room like poker does.

Do you play because you feel you have an edge?

Of course I have engaged in various forms of +ev gambling, unlike a lot of poker players i am extremely risk adversive and have virtually no "gamble" in me. I would never play poker if I wasn't a winner in the long term.

Would you still play if the edge was less (for example, no bluffing), but you had complete control on how much you commited to each and every hand?

I am not really sure what you mean, but no bluffing sounds like a bad idea.

Any thoughts anyone?

Cheers!

[Peter Costa]

Thanks guys for the posts. Having thought about it, I think it may be a little unrealistic to ask these types of questions without disclosing what the alternative is. It's a bit like asking if you would like a different eating establishment to the one you usualy frequent; without knowing what's on the menu. Perhaps I will try an find a way around this.

But I guess what I am trying to find out is this.

Poker is a journey. I just looked at finding a different route. The overall aim is the same (to win), but I just think the the vast majority may prefer to take a more player-friendly path. One that is more fun and offers more control; a path that eradicates collusion and  decrease the impact of bad beats. Just as importantly, the skills of patiance, card-selection, position and bluffing; are replaced by the skill of how much a player commits to each and every hand. I know i'm being vague, that's what we have. I just hope players get a chance to least have the option of trying it out. We shall see.

Cheers!

[Ironside]

i play poker for the reason its a sport/game inwhich i can compete at on an equal footing with those people around me, i also think i am good at it(with room to learn)

[byronkincaid]

do i remember you saying that you're in partnership with hellhuth on this? is it so he can say "Ha! told ya if it weren't for luck i'd win all the time"?

but if you make it a pure skill game then why not just play chess or mario cart or something? i ain't gonna play anyone at chess for money cos i'm crap at it. why would fish play no luck poker?

[Peter Costa]

do i remember you saying that you're in partnership with hellhuth on this? is it so he can say "Ha! told ya if it weren't for luck i'd win all the time"?

but if you make it a pure skill game then why not just play chess or mario cart or something? i ain't gonna play anyone at chess for money cos i'm crap at it. why would fish play no luck poker?

Good comment - but I don't think the luck factor is an issue- it will always be part of poker. Therefore, fish will still be fish and winners still win - it would just be a different betting structure.

BTW - Phil loves it (obviously). Who knows, he may even start winning online for a chnage LOL

[dousche]

poker seems pretty good as it is, the variance is the main source of frustration but its what keeps -ev players playing. not sure about your betting structure idea... sounds like turning poker into a table game atm. how does it change outcomes? less edge possible?

i think that the only thing that would get people playing a new game would be having more fun than playing poker as it is. poker will naturally gravitate towards a balance in terms of min/max edge possible and variance - for example using NLH, the balance struck in terms of edge possible may occur from the prevailing 'standard' buyin (ie 100bbs online) amongst other things, for variance people will play different stakes to suit the variance that they seek/can tolerate. 'professionals' want to maximise the edge and minimise the variance, whereas losing players probably want the opposite (although some dont know it) - and the form of the game that prevails does so after these contrasting desires trade-off.

why a game would be more popular than poker in its current form, i have no idea, but i see the question like why people prefer blackjack to flipping a coin - just a matter of taste.

[EvilPie]

So what's your plan then Peter?

I'd guess something like - 2 players go all in pre flop.

One has AA other has KK so 80% - 20% approx. In order to continue the betting has to change. KK man has to put more in to the pot to even out the varience or AA man gets to take some out. Therefore when KK man binks it's not quite so frustrating for AA man?

Am I right?

[Claw75]

I was thinking it might be something more along the lines of you make a hidden bet (or fold) based on your evaluation of the strength of your hand on every street.

[GreekStein]

So what's your plan then Peter?

I'd guess something like - 2 players go all in pre flop.

One has AA other has KK so 80% - 20% approx. In order to continue the betting has to change. KK man has to put more in to the pot to even out the varience or AA man gets to take some out. Therefore when KK man binks it's not quite so frustrating for AA man?

Am I right?

You can do equity chops in some live cash games.

[Dubai]

Taking the gamble and only fun aspect out of poker will make me want to kill myself.

[Peter Costa]

So what's your plan then Peter?

I'd guess something like - 2 players go all in pre flop.

One has AA other has KK so 80% - 20% approx. In order to continue the betting has to change. KK man has to put more in to the pot to even out the varience or AA man gets to take some out. Therefore when KK man binks it's not quite so frustrating for AA man?

Am I right?


[/quote

No-but the affect would be similar in mnay mnay case, but KK or AA may still do their  money unless they apply their skill to limit their losses. 

[Peter Costa]

Taking the gamble and only fun aspect out of poker will make me want to kill myself.

Suicide is NOT an option as your hand will be also be dead. Seriously, you may still gamble and still play badly. But since you will see every flop, every turn and every river, it will be your patiance and betting skills that will determine your winnings. In other words, not much difference to the skills currently required

[cambo]

Taking the gamble and only fun aspect out of poker will make me want to kill myself.

Suicide is NOT an option as your hand will be also be dead. Seriously, you may still gamble and still play badly. But since you will see every flop, every turn and every river, it will be your patiance and betting skills that will determine your winnings. In other words, not much difference to the skills currently required

this sounds terrible

[Peter Costa]

Taking the gamble and only fun aspect out of poker will make me want to kill myself.

Suicide is NOT an option as your hand will be also be dead. Seriously, you may still gamble and still play badly. But since you will see every flop, every turn and every river, it will be your patiance and betting skills that will determine your winnings. In other words, not much difference to the skills currently required

this sounds terrible

Yes it does. In fact, we expect that the mid-stakes and high-stakes NL players will probably hate it. In saying that, it can be attarctive to the limit players of all stakes. BTW, this will only apply for cash games.

For tournaments, we have developed a format that perhaps adds to the skill level while at the same time offer quick returns (such as in turbos and hypers). I think above all, we hope to change how tournaments are structured both in terms of play and payout. For example, cashing while at the same not making the money. BTW, this does not affect the prize pool payout for those who do make the money. Sorry if this failes to make sense, but not much does when one is being vague.