Dear Pleno.......Best Regards, Richard

[cambridgealex]

I think if recreational players want to play a game where they "definitely won't win in the long term" then they should realise by now that online poker (at least at any decent stakes) isn't for them. If you want to have a game of online poker for half decent money once a week, then you will almost certainly be a losing player in the game. It's 2014, gone are the days where everyone just plays poker for fun. There are no free lunches anymore. Even live, every game is 10x tougher than it was even 5 years ago. Watch that "Million Dollar Deal" Documentary (thread in the rail) and see the state of the game 20 years ago, it was a joke, nobody had a clue what they were doing or why. You'll find tougher 0.50/1 cash games in gala nottingham than in that WSOP main event.

Now, it's just not a game you can play recreationally and still have a positive expectation. (online poker, half decent stakes, that is). The people that win are the people that work the hardest, put the most hours in and are the best. Why would a recreational player be able to stroll into a game and be a winner?

I couldn't just fire up a few HU sngs and be a winning player. I played thousands of them 5/6 years ago and was a half decent winner. But since haven't played them at all and will have fallen massively behind the curve and would certainly be a loser whether I played the best reg or a weaker reg. I could work hard, put the hours in and maybe become a winner one day, as could a recreational player. But why should I be a winner if I'm not willing to do that?

I don't see why recreational players think that they deserve (for want of a better word, not trying to be nasty) to be able to have this magical situation where they can not think about poker all week, get on with their jobs, spend time with their families and then play a couple of $100 sngs and be +EV. It just doesn't happen anymore.

People keep going on about level playing fields. You're right, it's not a level playing field. You're playing with people that put the hours in, work at their game, put in huge volume, spend money on tracking software, time learning how to use it etc and all of that makes them a better player than someone who doesn't. So what?

If you want a friendly game of poker where you can still have a positive expectation, go down to your local casino and play the nightly comp there, or play the £0.50/1 cash game. Or fire up some $2 spin n gos. Because in 2014 if there's decent money on the line, then there's hoards of professionals willing to put in the work to trying to earn it.

[tikay]

I think if recreational players want to play a game where they "definitely won't win in the long term" then they should realise by now that online poker (at least at any decent stakes) isn't for them. If you want to have a game of online poker for half decent money once a week, then you will almost certainly be a losing player in the game. It's 2014, gone are the days where everyone just plays poker for fun. There are no free lunches anymore. Even live, every game is 10x tougher than it was even 5 years ago. Watch that "Million Dollar Deal" Documentary (thread in the rail) and see the state of the game 20 years ago, it was a joke, nobody had a clue what they were doing or why. You'll find tougher 0.50/1 cash games in gala nottingham than in that WSOP main event.

Now, it's just not a game you can play recreationally and still have a positive expectation. (online poker, half decent stakes, that is). The people that win are the people that work the hardest, put the most hours in and are the best. Why would a recreational player be able to stroll into a game and be a winner?

I couldn't just fire up a few HU sngs and be a winning player. I played thousands of them 5/6 years ago and was a half decent winner. But since haven't played them at all and will have fallen massively behind the curve and would certainly be a loser whether I played the best reg or a weaker reg. I could work hard, put the hours in and maybe become a winner one day, as could a recreational player. But why should I be a winner if I'm not willing to do that?

I don't see why recreational players think that they deserve (for want of a better word, not trying to be nasty) to be able to have this magical situation where they can not think about poker all week, get on with their jobs, spend time with their families and then play a couple of $100 sngs and be +EV. It just doesn't happen anymore.

People keep going on about level playing fields. You're right, it's not a level playing field. You're playing with people that put the hours in, work at their game, put in huge volume, spend money on tracking software, time learning how to use it etc and all of that makes them a better player than someone who doesn't. So what?

If you want a friendly game of poker where you can still have a positive expectation, go down to your local casino and play the nightly comp there, or play the £0.50/1 cash game. Or fire up some $2 spin n gos. Because in 2014 if there's decent money on the line, then there's hoards of professionals willing to put in the work to trying to earn it.

No no Alex.

Most recreational players KNOW they will lose, & are, up to a point, quite happy to invest £25 or £50 per week to have a little poker fun. They are.

What they do NOT want is to be mugged. Thats a very different thing. If they knew that a bunch of guys were fighting to have the right to play them - & could pick of the best seat too - they'd be less than happy.   

They KNOW they will lose long-term, & don't mind. They just don't want to be mugged.

[AlunB]

What tikay said. When I said positively definitely will lose I meant you aren't even allowing recs to pretend to themselves for a bit or sometimes play against players of a similar standard or, amazingly, worse than them. Believe it or not there are worse poker players than me online. But apparently in HUSNGs or heads up cash I will never ever get to play them. That IS being mugged off.

[cambridgealex]

As a rec I don't want to play in a game where I definitely positively won't win in the long term. I might as well just play roulette.

I was retorting to this comment Tikay.

Your $100 probably does have a similar expectation on roulette to playing a SNG as a recreational player to be frank. As would mine I might add!

[AlunB]

I don't see why recreational players think that they deserve (for want of a better word, not trying to be nasty) to be able to have this magical situation where they can not think about poker all week, get on with their jobs, spend time with their families and then play a couple of $100 sngs and be +EV. It just doesn't happen anymore.

People keep going on about level playing fields. You're right, it's not a level playing field. You're playing with people that put the hours in, work at their game, put in huge volume, spend money on tracking software, time learning how to use it etc and all of that makes them a better player than someone who doesn't. So what?

Read that back to yourself. Is that really what you want to tell the tens of millions of potential recs out there? Is it? Really?

Oh and see above to previous point. I take your point, but that wasn't really what I meant.

[AlunB]

FWIW Alex I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Pros are obviously not the enemy here. That's not what I meant at all. Just there is no denying, especially at pokerstars, historically they have had WAY too much influence on the online poker world.

[cambridgealex]

I don't see why recreational players think that they deserve (for want of a better word, not trying to be nasty) to be able to have this magical situation where they can not think about poker all week, get on with their jobs, spend time with their families and then play a couple of $100 sngs and be +EV. It just doesn't happen anymore.

People keep going on about level playing fields. You're right, it's not a level playing field. You're playing with people that put the hours in, work at their game, put in huge volume, spend money on tracking software, time learning how to use it etc and all of that makes them a better player than someone who doesn't. So what?

Read that back to yourself. Is that really what you want to tell the tens of millions of potential recs out there? Is it? Really?

Oh and see above to previous point. I take your point, but that wasn't really what I meant.

Yes. I don't mind people knowing that.

[AlunB]

I don't see why recreational players think that they deserve (for want of a better word, not trying to be nasty) to be able to have this magical situation where they can not think about poker all week, get on with their jobs, spend time with their families and then play a couple of $100 sngs and be +EV. It just doesn't happen anymore.

People keep going on about level playing fields. You're right, it's not a level playing field. You're playing with people that put the hours in, work at their game, put in huge volume, spend money on tracking software, time learning how to use it etc and all of that makes them a better player than someone who doesn't. So what?

Read that back to yourself. Is that really what you want to tell the tens of millions of potential recs out there? Is it? Really?

Oh and see above to previous point. I take your point, but that wasn't really what I meant.

Yes. I don't mind people knowing that.

Fair enough. It's poker as a sport. Where the only ones who win are those who put a lot of time and effort in.

It's an image of the game that every poker room subscribed to for a while. But then they realised it alienated the vast majority of potential players and did an abrupt about face. That's kind of where we are now.

[TightEnd]

I think if recreational players want to play a game where they "definitely won't win in the long term" then they should realise by now that online poker (at least at any decent stakes) isn't for them. If you want to have a game of online poker for half decent money once a week, then you will almost certainly be a losing player in the game. It's 2014, gone are the days where everyone just plays poker for fun. There are no free lunches anymore. Even live, every game is 10x tougher than it was even 5 years ago. Watch that "Million Dollar Deal" Documentary (thread in the rail) and see the state of the game 20 years ago, it was a joke, nobody had a clue what they were doing or why. You'll find tougher 0.50/1 cash games in gala nottingham than in that WSOP main event.

Now, it's just not a game you can play recreationally and still have a positive expectation. (online poker, half decent stakes, that is). The people that win are the people that work the hardest, put the most hours in and are the best. Why would a recreational player be able to stroll into a game and be a winner?

I couldn't just fire up a few HU sngs and be a winning player. I played thousands of them 5/6 years ago and was a half decent winner. But since haven't played them at all and will have fallen massively behind the curve and would certainly be a loser whether I played the best reg or a weaker reg. I could work hard, put the hours in and maybe become a winner one day, as could a recreational player. But why should I be a winner if I'm not willing to do that?

I don't see why recreational players think that they deserve (for want of a better word, not trying to be nasty) to be able to have this magical situation where they can not think about poker all week, get on with their jobs, spend time with their families and then play a couple of $100 sngs and be +EV. It just doesn't happen anymore.

People keep going on about level playing fields. You're right, it's not a level playing field. You're playing with people that put the hours in, work at their game, put in huge volume, spend money on tracking software, time learning how to use it etc and all of that makes them a better player than someone who doesn't. So what?

If you want a friendly game of poker where you can still have a positive expectation, go down to your local casino and play the nightly comp there, or play the £0.50/1 cash game. Or fire up some $2 spin n gos. Because in 2014 if there's decent money on the line, then there's hoards of professionals willing to put in the work to trying to earn it.

I am incredulous at this

eventually the pool of players dries up, and you have no game

surely part of the Pro's role in the poker ecology system is to be at least in part outwardly altruistic to ensure the longevity of your chosen career?

[mondatoo]

I think if recreational players want to play a game where they "definitely won't win in the long term" then they should realise by now that online poker (at least at any decent stakes) isn't for them. If you want to have a game of online poker for half decent money once a week, then you will almost certainly be a losing player in the game. It's 2014, gone are the days where everyone just plays poker for fun. There are no free lunches anymore. Even live, every game is 10x tougher than it was even 5 years ago. Watch that "Million Dollar Deal" Documentary (thread in the rail) and see the state of the game 20 years ago, it was a joke, nobody had a clue what they were doing or why. You'll find tougher 0.50/1 cash games in gala nottingham than in that WSOP main event.

Now, it's just not a game you can play recreationally and still have a positive expectation. (online poker, half decent stakes, that is). The people that win are the people that work the hardest, put the most hours in and are the best. Why would a recreational player be able to stroll into a game and be a winner?

I couldn't just fire up a few HU sngs and be a winning player. I played thousands of them 5/6 years ago and was a half decent winner. But since haven't played them at all and will have fallen massively behind the curve and would certainly be a loser whether I played the best reg or a weaker reg. I could work hard, put the hours in and maybe become a winner one day, as could a recreational player. But why should I be a winner if I'm not willing to do that?

I don't see why recreational players think that they deserve (for want of a better word, not trying to be nasty) to be able to have this magical situation where they can not think about poker all week, get on with their jobs, spend time with their families and then play a couple of $100 sngs and be +EV. It just doesn't happen anymore.

People keep going on about level playing fields. You're right, it's not a level playing field. You're playing with people that put the hours in, work at their game, put in huge volume, spend money on tracking software, time learning how to use it etc and all of that makes them a better player than someone who doesn't. So what?

If you want a friendly game of poker where you can still have a positive expectation, go down to your local casino and play the nightly comp there, or play the £0.50/1 cash game. Or fire up some $2 spin n gos. Because in 2014 if there's decent money on the line, then there's hoards of professionals willing to put in the work to trying to earn it.

No no Alex.

Most recreational players KNOW they will lose, & are, up to a point, quite happy to invest £25 or £50 per week to have a little poker fun. They are.

What they do NOT want is to be mugged. Thats a very different thing. If they knew that a bunch of guys were fighting to have the right to play them - & could pick of the best seat too - they'd be less than happy.   

They KNOW they will lose long-term, & don't mind. They just don't want to be mugged.

Nobody is fighting to play the people that want to spend £50 p/w to have a little poker fun ?

And tons and tons of people who aren't winning players win, obv.

Maybe Alex didn't word it perfectly, but you only need to be a winning player to win money if you plan to play a huge amount of poker, otherwise just run good and win then go do something fun will all them $s you just binked, simples.

The only recs that need to care about this are those playing mid-high stakes heads up games, how many of those people are posting itt ?

Threads blown way out of proportion imo.

[AlunB]

I think the thread is full more of people unwilling or unable to see things from the opposing viewpoint (including me no doubt).

So just like every forum thread in history then...

[AlunB]

I think if recreational players want to play a game where they "definitely won't win in the long term" then they should realise by now that online poker (at least at any decent stakes) isn't for them. If you want to have a game of online poker for half decent money once a week, then you will almost certainly be a losing player in the game. It's 2014, gone are the days where everyone just plays poker for fun. There are no free lunches anymore. Even live, every game is 10x tougher than it was even 5 years ago. Watch that "Million Dollar Deal" Documentary (thread in the rail) and see the state of the game 20 years ago, it was a joke, nobody had a clue what they were doing or why. You'll find tougher 0.50/1 cash games in gala nottingham than in that WSOP main event.

Now, it's just not a game you can play recreationally and still have a positive expectation. (online poker, half decent stakes, that is). The people that win are the people that work the hardest, put the most hours in and are the best. Why would a recreational player be able to stroll into a game and be a winner?

I couldn't just fire up a few HU sngs and be a winning player. I played thousands of them 5/6 years ago and was a half decent winner. But since haven't played them at all and will have fallen massively behind the curve and would certainly be a loser whether I played the best reg or a weaker reg. I could work hard, put the hours in and maybe become a winner one day, as could a recreational player. But why should I be a winner if I'm not willing to do that?

I don't see why recreational players think that they deserve (for want of a better word, not trying to be nasty) to be able to have this magical situation where they can not think about poker all week, get on with their jobs, spend time with their families and then play a couple of $100 sngs and be +EV. It just doesn't happen anymore.

People keep going on about level playing fields. You're right, it's not a level playing field. You're playing with people that put the hours in, work at their game, put in huge volume, spend money on tracking software, time learning how to use it etc and all of that makes them a better player than someone who doesn't. So what?

If you want a friendly game of poker where you can still have a positive expectation, go down to your local casino and play the nightly comp there, or play the £0.50/1 cash game. Or fire up some $2 spin n gos. Because in 2014 if there's decent money on the line, then there's hoards of professionals willing to put in the work to trying to earn it.

No no Alex.

Most recreational players KNOW they will lose, & are, up to a point, quite happy to invest £25 or £50 per week to have a little poker fun. They are.

What they do NOT want is to be mugged. Thats a very different thing. If they knew that a bunch of guys were fighting to have the right to play them - & could pick of the best seat too - they'd be less than happy.  

They KNOW they will lose long-term, & don't mind. They just don't want to be mugged.

Nobody is fighting to play the people that want to spend £50 p/w to have a little poker fun ?

And tons and tons of people who aren't winning players win, obv.

Maybe Alex didn't word it perfectly, but you only need to be a winning player to win money if you plan to play a huge amount of poker, otherwise just run good and win then go do something fun will all them $s you just binked, simples.

The only recs that need to care about this are those playing mid-high stakes heads up games, how many of those people are posting itt ?

Threads blown way out of proportion imo.

I think this is a good point, but it's worth bearing in mind that's not really what people are talking about here IMO.

It's more the clinical approach of a certain sub set of pros and the absolutely horrendous and damaging IMAGE that presents to recs.

None of what you said is untrue, but what we are talking about is a situation where you are going to face a pro 100% of the time and 100% of the time are going to lose in the long term (or to be honest short to mid-term). That absolutely SUCKS. Would any losing player willingly enter into that?

Sure it only exists in mid to high stakes HU games for NOW. But it's logical to assume it will become more widespread. I mean how many recs will I find playing $100NL six max these days on stars at an average table? Especially once they've seen my stats

[cambridgealex]

Tighty the less recs playing online sngs, cash etc the better for me. Remember I play primarily live cash games, live tournaments for a living, so have no interest in promoting those games. The opposite if anything.

Live games are still fun, winnable for anyone and more of "level playing field" that's for sure. People can win for months, even years beyond their expectation playing live (look at previous winners of multible DTD majors, GUKPTs etc), and can also be legit +EV in many live cash games and tournaments.

[mondatoo]

I think if recreational players want to play a game where they "definitely won't win in the long term" then they should realise by now that online poker (at least at any decent stakes) isn't for them. If you want to have a game of online poker for half decent money once a week, then you will almost certainly be a losing player in the game. It's 2014, gone are the days where everyone just plays poker for fun. There are no free lunches anymore. Even live, every game is 10x tougher than it was even 5 years ago. Watch that "Million Dollar Deal" Documentary (thread in the rail) and see the state of the game 20 years ago, it was a joke, nobody had a clue what they were doing or why. You'll find tougher 0.50/1 cash games in gala nottingham than in that WSOP main event.

Now, it's just not a game you can play recreationally and still have a positive expectation. (online poker, half decent stakes, that is). The people that win are the people that work the hardest, put the most hours in and are the best. Why would a recreational player be able to stroll into a game and be a winner?

I couldn't just fire up a few HU sngs and be a winning player. I played thousands of them 5/6 years ago and was a half decent winner. But since haven't played them at all and will have fallen massively behind the curve and would certainly be a loser whether I played the best reg or a weaker reg. I could work hard, put the hours in and maybe become a winner one day, as could a recreational player. But why should I be a winner if I'm not willing to do that?

I don't see why recreational players think that they deserve (for want of a better word, not trying to be nasty) to be able to have this magical situation where they can not think about poker all week, get on with their jobs, spend time with their families and then play a couple of $100 sngs and be +EV. It just doesn't happen anymore.

People keep going on about level playing fields. You're right, it's not a level playing field. You're playing with people that put the hours in, work at their game, put in huge volume, spend money on tracking software, time learning how to use it etc and all of that makes them a better player than someone who doesn't. So what?

If you want a friendly game of poker where you can still have a positive expectation, go down to your local casino and play the nightly comp there, or play the £0.50/1 cash game. Or fire up some $2 spin n gos. Because in 2014 if there's decent money on the line, then there's hoards of professionals willing to put in the work to trying to earn it.

No no Alex.

Most recreational players KNOW they will lose, & are, up to a point, quite happy to invest £25 or £50 per week to have a little poker fun. They are.

What they do NOT want is to be mugged. Thats a very different thing. If they knew that a bunch of guys were fighting to have the right to play them - & could pick of the best seat too - they'd be less than happy.  

They KNOW they will lose long-term, & don't mind. They just don't want to be mugged.

Nobody is fighting to play the people that want to spend £50 p/w to have a little poker fun ?

And tons and tons of people who aren't winning players win, obv.

Maybe Alex didn't word it perfectly, but you only need to be a winning player to win money if you plan to play a huge amount of poker, otherwise just run good and win then go do something fun will all them $s you just binked, simples.

The only recs that need to care about this are those playing mid-high stakes heads up games, how many of those people are posting itt ?

Threads blown way out of proportion imo.

I think this is a good point, but it's worth bearing in mind that's not really what people are talking about here IMO.

It's more the clinical approach of a certain sub set of pros and the absolutely horrendous and damaging IMAGE that presents to recs.

None of what you said is untrue, but what we are talking about is a situation where you are going to face a pro 100% of the time and 100% of the time are going to lose in the long term (or to be honest short to mid-term). That absolutely SUCKS. Would any losing player willingly enter into that?

Sure it only exists in mid to high stakes HU games for NOW. But it's logical to assume it will become more widespread. I mean how many recs will I find playing $100NL six max these days on stars at an average table? Especially once they've seen my stats

Dan can explain points in regards to that better than me, and I think he maybe already has no ?

[redarmi]

I don't think that any recs really expect to have a positive expectation but they would like to have the chance to play against someone that is their equal or worse and this completely takes that away from them.  If you never feel like you are the best player in the game then you are basically just going to stop playing.  Under the old system the recs probably got beat 90% of the time by better players but occasionally they might get a weaker player that they get a poorly thought through bluff against or who bluffs too much and they pick up on it etc etc.  Those little moments are what makes poker playable and fun for the recs and it just seems as though this system takes it away from them completely which seems counter productive to me.