Online Gambling Running Out of Steam

dreamchaser writes "After a meteoric rise, online gambling companies appear to be taking a beating now with the loss of 33% in PartyGaming stock. Apparently the novelty is wearing off and no new players can be found. Why have you stopped playing?"

Comments

Lack of Suckers

[ackthpt]

With all the poker-bots and it being morally indefensible to allow suckers to keep their money, it stands to reason there is only a finite number of suckers, and even if there's a new one every minute, it takes suckers longer than a handfull of minutes to scrape togther enough money to get taken to the cleaners often enough to prop up such an industry.

My money's on the really big gambling:

• What I bought on eBay is what I actually get
• Living on top of a fault line
• Hope against evidence that the price of gas will actually go down with the increase in available crude (actual crude price increase in past year 66%, gasoline price increase over same period 132%, source BBC)
• One day my comic book collection may approach in sticker price value
• My donation to Katrina relief won't go into some fat-cat's pocket.

Besides, with the price of gas being so high who has money left to gamble?

Re:Lack of Suckers

[diamondmagic]

Funny thing is, Exxon Mobil just published their biggest profit EVER. High prices is, mostly, just speculation.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[GPLDAN]

How many people need to tell you what is happening before you catch on? Unlike the poor, uneducated masses that line the slot machines at many casinos, once a rat is seen online - people leave in droves. Information moves at the speed of light, and online casinos can turn from full to empty in minutes, not days. Nobody goes on benders or tilt online.

Wired splits the fucking scam right down the middle in their expose.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[ScentCone]

Hope against evidence that the price of gas will actually go down with the increase in available crude (actual crude price increase in past year 66%, gasoline price increase over same period 132%, source BBC)

Well, you will lose that gamble, because the problem isn't the price or availability of crude (though of course it's a factor). The problem is the lack of our own refining capacity. 4 of the 8 big refineries that were taken offline by Katrina are already back in action (hence the reversal in the gas prices already), but the other 4 are still being checked out. And, of course, all of the gulf coast people that work in those refineries have to live somewhere, and a lot of their houses just got flushed. And their local grocery store is going to have to be gutted and rebuilt. All of that stuff is way down stream from the crude supply/price.

Combine all of that with the fact that we haven't built a new refinery in 20 years, and can't seem to find a locale in the US that will tolerate a new one... well, you get the idea.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[Anonymous Coward]

I like your post, but just FYI, the price of gas has little to do with crude availability (which there is plenty of).

The real problem is that there are purposely not enough refineries to meet the demand.

It is interesting that demand for gas doesn't ebb that much even at these prices. Almost looks like an essential service like phone and electricity.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[covertbadger]

With all the poker-bots and it being morally indefensible to allow suckers to keep their money, it stands to reason there is only a finite number of suckers, and even if there's a new one every minute, it takes suckers longer than a handfull of minutes to scrape togther enough money to get taken to the cleaners often enough to prop up such an industry.

I still don't understand why online poker is so damn popular - any game where the odds can be calculated with any degree of accuracy is ideal fodder for bots, which can patiently calculate hands until the heat death of the universe. Unfortunately US gambling laws prevent Americans from using sports betting sites like http://www.betfair.com/, which matches up bets between users, and though there are plenty of bots there they can't fleece people like poker bots because it's impossible to work out accurate odds for, say, Liverpool coming back from 3-0 down at half time to win the Champion's League.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[ackthpt]

though there are plenty of bots there they can't fleece people like poker bots because it's impossible to work out accurate odds for, say, Liverpool coming back from 3-0 down at half time to win the Champion's League.

Even the bookmakers couldn't figure those odds right, and when they gave 100-1 at half, many took them up on it, including one punter who bet 50 pounds. That result did to the bookmakers what Katrina did to Biloxi.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[TexVex]

As someone who has been playing online poker since 2002, I can tell you firsthand that Wired's article paints a stark picture that makes things seem worse than they actually are. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that online poker completely lacks bots and cheats. Cheating is a problem with practically all sports and games. People do collude at "brick and mortar" poker tables as well.

Just like card rooms and casinos strive to make their games safe, so do online card rooms strive to detect and eliminate the bots. Their efforts include analysis (some automated, some done by real people) of people's play to find evidence of cheating. They punish the cheaters and do what they can to make reparations to the victims.

There are also problems with credit card fraud in online poker. Someone makes a huge deposit at an online card room, then passes chips to a partner in a high stakes heads up game. Partner cashes out. Original depositor defrauds credit institution by claiming identity theft, and the bank is stuck in a sticky spot. That problem has caused so much trouble that many big banks refuse to allow many kinds of transfers of funds to gaming sites.

I quit dealing with Party Poker over two years ago, because I thought their policies were too invasive of privacy and too restrictive on some simple issues. I have since played PokerStars and UltimateBet, and most recently Full Tilt. I haven't noticed any shrinkage in recent months. PokerStars is the biggest of those three; they have weekly $215 buy-in tournaments that continuously seat 3,500 players or more (yes, the total prize pool always exceeds their $150,000 guaranteed minimum). Their annual World Championship of Online Poker, just getting started for this year, is already breaking all of the records it itself set last year.

Also, in the non-online poker world, the World Series of Poker Main Event was nearly three times as large this year as it was last year; they had to break the first day of play up over three days, having 1/3 of the field play their first day each day. Only after that was the field small enough that they could fit everyone in the convention center used for the tournament at the same time.

All indications point towards poker still growing, and online poker is at least stable. Maybe if Party Gaming stock is losing value, it's for some other reason. If they are actually losign players, then maybe it's because their players are moving elsewhere.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[covertbadger]

Even the bookmakers couldn't figure those odds right, and when they gave 100-1 at half, many took them up on it, including one punter who bet 50 pounds. That result did to the bookmakers what Katrina did to Biloxi.

Slightly tasteless analogy, but I agree with your point. Interestingly, the in-play exchange odds at half-time were closer to 1000-1 than 100-1 - whoever laid those odds had a miserable night...and a lot of that money will have lost by bots programmed to gamble on near-certainties. Sports betting is inherently more unpredictable than poker, which is why it's harder for the bots to wreck it.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[NovTest]

Dmj

Re:Lack of Suckers

[hurfy]

Aye, I didn't see much of anything about players of profit. It mentioned one's growth slowed to 4% per MONTH. The other companies were only mentioned as per stock prices dropping quite a bit. I don't know what 4 bil pounds (it was pounds,no?) comes to, but it sounds like alot and a correction doesnt seem unreasonable.

Nowhere did i see they were losing money or even customers, only that new people weren't joining in droves as before. Not like some astronomical growth rate is gonna go on forever. Pretty sure the number of internet users doesn't grow at 50%/year so at the rates they had (over 50%/year apparently) aren't you gonna run out of internet users at some point even if we all played and kept playing?

slashdot, the home of irrelevent recaps and run-on sentences :)

Re:Lack of Suckers

[LurkerXXX]

What your saying is poker-bots and it being morally indefensible to allow suckers to keep their money.

Would you like to play some Texas Hold-em?

Re:Lack of Suckers

[javamann]

Here in California Shell tried to close a PROFITABLE refinery last year. Turns out it could make more money buy reducing the available gas/diesel supply (and charging more) than it could from the refinery. Luckly the state forced them to sell the refinery. The oil companies have found out when the power companies have found out, if you keep capacity close to demand you can charge what you want.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[Fareq]

This wouldn't be a problem if it weren't impossible for independent companies to build their own refineries.

I would like to build a refinery here in CA. I'm not much of a chemist, but I know a good business when I see one -- and a market such as this is ripe for new competition. If I could actually do such a thing, I could actually lower the average gas price a Californian pays while also making craploads of money.

For a while, anyway.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[anthony_dipierro]

People do collude at "brick and mortar" poker tables as well.

Yeah, but word gets out pretty quickly who those people are, and they can't just change their name and gather that reputation back (actually, once they know you know, they won't pull it on you, and it can actually be an advantage). At B&M casinos you see the same people all the time. If you see a new face, 9 times out of 10 they're a fish. Sure, there's always that 1 time out of 10, so you've gotta be careful (I don't play no-limit), but it really is a lot like that scene from Rounders where they play at the casino.

The biggest problem online probably isn't the outright cheats, though, and bots are consistent but they can be beaten (and as long as you're not playing against *all* bots, you don't even have to beat the bots anyway). My biggest beef with online poker is that it seems like all the good players are getting assistance from computers. The computers track your every move, they even have computers that lurk in games recording the actions of every player, without the computer actually playing. Online poker has thus become a different game - a good memory is no longer much of an advantage, and even if you're playing someone you've never played with before, they might very well have a history of nearly every hand you've played.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[Pulzar]

still don't understand why online poker is so damn popular - any game where the odds can be calculated with any degree of accuracy is ideal fodder for bots, which can patiently calculate hands until the heat death of the universe.

That's such a minor thing in poker that it really doesn't make a difference. A good player can estimate the odds and probabilities in a few seconds close enough to matter for most hands, and within a minute or so in others. It's actually putting a percentage next to possible hands for the opponent that the bot can't do well at all, and will therefor always lose to a good human player. In no-limit games against good players that's much more true than in limit games against a mediocre crowd, mind you, since big blunders will cost the bot less, and "statistically correct" plays will win more often than not in a large group of average players.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[Anonymous Coward]

ok, gas isnt that expensive people.
say you have a 30 gallon tank.
last year, let's say gas was 2.00 a gallon to make this easier math.
2x30=$60.00 for a full tank last year
3x30=$90.00 for a full tank this year.

$30.00 ? big whoop. if you can't afford to pay $30.00 extra for a tank of gas, then you shouldn't own a car, you should be taking a bus, riding a bike, or walking. or just keep collecting welfare since $30.00 extra is so crippling for you.

and keep in mind, I'm using extreme measurements here, 1 year ago gas was more than 2 dollars, and most people don't have 30 gallon tanks unless they drive some sort of SUV, in which case there is no reason to complain about gas prices, since you knew you'd get raped on gas regardless due to only getting 10 MPG.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[arbitraryaardvark]

That's a good idea.
And you proposed it to make a point, but let's take it a few steps further.
Make it small, so you would be supplying a gas station at a time, not San Diego.
Big just attracts terrorists and the EPA and the trial lawyers.
Make it portable, on a ship or seaworthy barge, out past the 12 mile territorial limit.
Find a flag of convenience - Tonga is hungry lately.
Make it disposable - something with a quick payoff, like a year, not 30 years.
Make a working model, then subcontract mass-production.
Offer to joint venture with Dean Kamen - he's good at reducing size and cost and thinking freshly.
Get sponsorship for your "research reactor" "pilot program" from a college - it opens up some paperwork exceptions.
Use other people's money - this is pretty high risk.
Start an open source project to support the technology, apply for lots of grants, be careful with who you deal with.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[grumpygrodyguy]

Funny thing is, Exxon Mobil just published their biggest profit EVER.

I'm much more amazed that people are surprized by this considering who's running this country.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[covertbadger]

You're right, but then if I was running a poker bot I wouldn't let it anywhere near the high stakes games with good players. I'd have it roaming the small-fry tables with casual players, and clean up on the margins. Even if it only makes a few percent profit by playing conservatively, if I run it 24hrs a day it'll soon add up, at the direct expense of the 'average' players.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[dangitman]

Besides, with the price of gas being so high who has money left to gamble?

Some vegan guy named Moonbeam, who walks everywhere. Shit, I'd better buy shares in cruelty-free shoes, because this guy's going to be like Rockerfeller in 2010.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people need to tell you what is happening before you catch on? Unlike the poor, uneducated masses that line the slot machines at many casinos, once a rat is seen online - people leave in droves. Information moves at the speed of light, and online casinos can turn from full to empty in minutes, not days. Nobody goes on benders or tilt online.

And don't forget that many states have made visiting on-line casino's illegal.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[Ours]

Besides, with the price of gas being so high who has money left to gamble? Well those of us who take electric powered (from hydraulic generated electricity) public transportation systems. That would be train + tramway + my own legs for me.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[Anonymous Coward]

This "statistically correct play" you people on yammering about doesn't really exist outside the fantasies of game theorists modelling two-player game.

Bots only play as well as the humans designing them are at describing good play explicitly. And all humans suck at doing that.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[Cody Hatch]

The lesson here? Not that producers gain pricing power when capacity is close to demand (an idea which doesn't even make sense if you think about it for a second, and for which there isn't the slightest evidence). The real lesson is that local elections matter.

The reason Shell has any pricing power at all is that state and local government has given it to them. They have done this by ensuring that refineries are a very very valuable and very very limited resource. It's been 70 years since the last refinery was built in California and 30 years since the last refinery was built in the US. Demand has increased a hell of a lot in 70 years, but the refining capacity has not. It's got so bad that the US imports about 10% of the gasoline it uses!

Now, who benefits from this? You? Bzzzz. Not unless you get a warm and tingly feeling from paying higher than normal prices due to a collusive olligopoly. Shell? Bingo! Owners of refineries (of which there are a remarkably small number) are quite happy with laws which (for the best of reasons, protecting the environment, thinking of the children, etc.) make their refineries rarer and more valuable. For a somewhat /.ish analogy, it's a lot like Microsoft's opinion of software pirates. Microsoft is a very strong supporter of intellectual property laws, because they benefit hugely from them. Shell (surprise!) has been a big backer of environmental regulations in recent years. Especially those sorts of regulations which make their infrastructure more valuable, limit competitors, and otherwise keep the industry a nice quiet cosy olligopoly.

And, let's see, if we google around, what do we see? The consumer advocacy group (Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights) currently fighting the oil refiners notes that "...much of the hardships created by California's refinery rules came at the urging of the major oil companies, not the environmental groups blamed by the industry."

Shocking. Next you'll tell me that the Mickey Mouse Protection Act....er, sorry, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act actually was the brainchild of the RIAA, Disney Corporation, and the entertainment industry, and not, as I've been led to believe, an sterling example of our congressmen acting to protect consumers!

Of course, unlike copyright law, a good chunk of the laws protection Shell from competition are passed at the local level - which means you actually have a chance of helping get Shell some competition. Small, I know, but the FTCR guys kept the refinery open. Why not try and get a new one open?

(Note to mods - yeah, I know, this is offtopic. Bite me, this is a lot closer to "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters" then a poorly-researched sob story about the falling stock price of one online poker operator.)

Re:Lack of Suckers

[Anonymous Coward]

I recall oil was something like $10 a barrel back around 1998 and now near $70. Have gas prices increased 700%?

Re:Lack of Suckers

[Shimbo]

All indications point towards poker still growing, and online poker is at least stable.

That's the problem. Many of the valuations were based on absurd growth rates. Sure, online poker is likely to be profitable. However, a lot of people who got it early are likely to get their fingers burnt.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[XxtraLarGe]

and keep in mind, I'm using extreme measurements here, 1 year ago gas was more than 2 dollars, and most people don't have 30 gallon tanks unless they drive some sort of SUV, in which case there is no reason to complain about gas prices, since you knew you'd get raped on gas regardless due to only getting 10 MPG.

O.K., how about some non-extreme measurements? I own a 7-year-old, 4-cylinder car which gets decent gas mileage. I have to drive 52.6 miles round trip every day to work. That takes about 2 gallons a day, so it's an extra $2 per day, * 5 days a week = $10 per week. Now, stretch that out over a year, and you're talking about $500. For some people, like myself, that's almost a mortgage payment, so yes, it is EXPENSIVE. Fortunately, I've decided to fight back, and now I'm carpooling with one of my co-workers. This cuts my costs in half, but I'm still paying about $250 extra.

Anyway, back on topic. I'd say you have to be a sucker to gamble online to start with. How do you pay for gambling online? With your credit card. I'm amazed that anybody would feel comfortable giving their credit card info out to some SHADY online casino (probably run by Organized Crime). At least when I walk into a regular casino, I know that the casino isn't going to get any more money from out of me than I have in my pocket. Furthermore, I know that the cards actually exist in a deck, and because people are unpredictable it makes it nearly impossible for them to stack it against you. If I'm playing blackjack online, what guarantee do I have that the computer isn't just giving me crap and the house good enough cards to beat me?

Re:Lack of Suckers

[Anonymous Coward]

Sportsbooks as well seem to be losing ground to these hybrid sites that mix conventional gaming with financial markets. AllSportsMarket for one appears to be rather intriguing. A stock market for trading sports teams/individuals and winning volume based dividends when your teams/individuals are victorious. Interesting discussion of the evolution from conventional gaming to financial markets Document here(pdf).

Re:Lack of Suckers

[kpwoodr]

I think we're missing the big picture here. I've been playing online for a couple of years now and I've played home games and in casino's for much longer.

Bots should not be the biggest worry. The big worry should be the poker site itself. They make money on the rake (except in tournaments where they charge a little extra entry $5 + $.50...the $.50 they keep). You don't get a good rake if everyone gets dealt fair cards.

In a fair game, the majority of players do not make a hand worth playing and they fold pre-flop. Generally you will have 2, maybe 3 players that have a hand worth sticking around for, and on rare ocassions you may have 5 of 10 in a hand. If the pot doesn't get high enough, the casino does not make money on the rake. Having played enough home games to know that pocket pair is fairly uncommon, it stands to reason that one would be suspicious when on a regular basis 3 people will be dealt pocket pair in one hand. To top that 2 of the three people will make 3 of a kind, and the betting rises. Often the one with the highest pocket pair will lose, but the software knows this in advance, and greedily waits to rake as that person continues to bet the pot up.

This same scenario happens over and over. And though it can happen at live games, the frequency is much less. Also, straights and flushes are much more common online (for reference, I used to play at partypoker, and pokerroom). Another strategy similar to the one mentioned above is for 4 people to make a straight, and have the river card make a flush for one person. This will always ensure the rake gets to the maximum amount.

Poker is a fun game. I stick more and more to tournaments, because I feel I have at least a slightly better shot than I do in the ring games. Bots are there, and can be beaten, but they are not the big concern.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[terjeber]

Bots should not be the biggest worry. The big worry should be the poker site itself. They make money on the rake (except in tournaments where they charge a little extra entry $5 + $.50...the $.50 they keep). You don't get a good rake if everyone gets dealt fair cards.

This has been theorized about for as long as there have been online sites. Do the sites deal hands that will push up the rake? I have been playing for a while, and I have used tracking software for the past 6 months. All the stats I have say that the sites I play deal reasonably normal hands.

The reason it seems that abnormal hands (three people with a pair for example) get dealt is that you play far more hands online than you could ever do in a B&M room. The more hands you play the more "absurd" situations you will see.

Two examples I saw recently:
- SB and BB are limps and checks. The flop comes 448. SB checks, BB bets a bit, SB raises a little, BB goes all in, SB calls. SB turns over 44 for quads, BB turns over 88 for a nice boat. The turn card comes 8...
- Three people in the pot, raised moderately. The flop comes 5 7 T. Some agressive betting finally puts two of the three players all in and they turn over their cards. Hands were 55, 77 and TT.

Both of the rounds above are what people call very "typical" hands for online play. Both rounds I saw in a B&M room in Cali. Perhaps the Cali poker rooms have started doing the same as online rooms :-)

Re:Lack of Suckers

[LaCosaNostradamus]

What? Now we're supposed to notice a correlation to the oil industry's profits, and the election of an oil clan into high public offices?

Jeebus! I can barely keep track of which WB show I need to watch tonight! How will I find the mental space to notice that the Bush Family is heavily involved in oil?

"Energy bill"? When did THAT happen? Why don't people tell me these things on Fox News? {curls into fetal position with portable DVD player}

Re:Lack of Suckers

[Fareq]

Wow!

That is by far the most interesting and well-thought-out response I've ever heard to my mutterings on refinery-building. And a really good idea too!

Re:Lack of Suckers

[anthony_dipierro]

This same scenario happens over and over. And though it can happen at live games, the frequency is much less.

If this were true, surely someone would have published overwhelming evidence of it by now. It's really easy to log every single hand you play, and lots of people do it. In fact, the hand histories are available for quite a while even for hands you didn't play in. So if the frequency of any particular scenario were different, in a statistically significant way, then you could easily publish evidence of this beyond just claiming it's true.

Also, straights and flushes are much more common online

That is probably true, because more people chase straights and flushes online.

I agree with you that bots aren't a worry, though. I'm mostly concerned with good players using computer assistance, though.

You're never going to stop either online, so the online poker places should just allow it (bots and computer assistance, but not collusion of course), and then at least everyone is on the same playing field.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[obsid1an]

The computers track your every move, they even have computers that lurk in games recording the actions of every player, without the computer actually playing. Online poker has thus become a different game - a good memory is no longer much of an advantage, and even if you're playing someone you've never played with before, they might very well have a history of nearly every hand you've played.

I'll agree with this. In fact, I do it too. I import every single hand I play online into a database. This aids me in improving my game a lot. I can replay any of the few hundred thousand hands I've played and see where I am misplaying them.

I have my computer "watch" 20 other tables at the limits I play when I am not at my computer and import those hands into a database. When I do play I use that information by overlaying the players stats who I have hands on. From those couple numbers I can get a good idea of how loose they are, how aggressive they play, and how many times they will call me down when met back with aggression. It gives me a rudimentary read on a player before I play them. It also (and more importantly imho) allows me to spot the tougher competition.

Is this cheating? I don't think so. The poker sites themselves have no problem with it. I am not automating any of my play. I still make every single decision. I am only using publically available information to aid my decision making.

Is it different from B&M play? Most certainly. That however doesn't mean it is any better or worse than live poker. I think it is no more unfair than it is for the common tourist walking into a casino and playing the local sharks.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[Pulzar]

This "statistically correct play" you people on yammering about doesn't really exist outside the fantasies of game theorists modelling two-player game.

I agree, and that's why I put it in quotes.

But, I think that a very tight-aggresive system that only chases when the pot odds are correct (and assumes that if it hits, it will win), and always bets top pair or better, and always folds to raises unless it has the nuts or draws to the nuts, will have a positive EV against a group of average low-limit online players. With a randomization where it changes its behaviour on 5% of all actions, I think it will take a while for a table of beginners to start exploiting such strategy.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[Pulzar]

I'd have it roaming the small-fry tables with casual players, and clean up on the margins. Even if it only makes a few percent profit by playing conservatively, if I run it 24hrs a day it'll soon add up, at the direct expense of the 'average' players.

You'd have to run it at something similar to a human playing pattern instead of 24hr a day, otherwise it will be very easily detected by the site operators. So, it might add up after a while, but it might not add up to too much.

It all depends on how much of a positive EV you can make your bot play at. In on-line low-limit games, the action is so wild that it would be hard for the bot to make any kind of a read on a player. So, if it always folds to a raise unless it has the nuts, it will rarely see the river. If it only draws to the nuts, it will rarely hit anything. Making it do anything in between that is quite an undertaking of "teaching" the bot to play poker instead of simply do math and recognizing top hands, and then you could start losing a lot of money on bad reads of the crazy action.

Re:Lack of Suckers

[anthony_dipierro]

Is this cheating? I don't think so.

I don't think so either. It just changes the game. Unfortunately, it also increases the cost of being a good player, because the tools you're talking about aren't available for free (you can make 'em yourself, of course, but if you've got a day job this is going to take a while).

Is it different from B&M play? Most certainly. That however doesn't mean it is any better or worse than live poker. I think it is no more unfair than it is for the common tourist walking into a casino and playing the local sharks.

I think it's slightly worse because it makes the game more expensive. But I wouldn't call it unfair. Like I said, I think the poker places should just go ahead and allow bots. I guess the fear is that'd increase collusion, but collusion is really a separate issue.

For starters

[bigwavejas]

If they want me to play they're going to have to put the bugs back into the progy. We're talking back-to-back Royal Flushes and hitting the refresh button on the payout...doubling your money

Poker Poker Everywhere...

[Nerd Systems]

Online Poker was a cool fad when it came out, but they are right, it is beginning to lost it's steam. A big factor that also comes into play is the television coverage that poker tournaments have these days. Who wants to sit on a computer and play games, when you can go and play them for real?

Here in Houston, we have so many bars and lounges that host poker tournaments and the like, some of which have some very nice prizes for the winners, almost making the online world seem nowhere near as fun or productive. I am sure that everyone can explain to you what Texas Hold'em is by this time...

Looks like they need to find another fad to promote to the online community... and pray that TV doesn't steal the show once again...

Re:Poker Poker Everywhere...

[DDiabolical]

Online poker has so many advantages over live play that I couldn't even name them all. Fact is, poker has been around for a long time, it became popular on the web for a REASON (many of them). As for TV stealing the show, Poker on TV and Poker on the `Net can thank eachother for everything they have right now.

Re:Poker Poker Everywhere...

[vertinox]

Who wants to sit on a computer and play games, when you can go and play them for real?

Don't forget the free booze, cheep hotel rooms, and hookers!

And if all else fails you can always eat the free bread at the resturant in the hotel lobby afterwards drinking water.

Re:Poker Poker Everywhere...

[angle_slam]

TV didn't steal users from on-line poker. Watching poker is completely unlike playing poker. It'd be a lot more accurate to say that TV brought a lot more players on-line--especially after an on-line player won $2.5 million on TV.

Maybe it's just this company

[gbulmash]

While Party-Gaming is having difficulties with retention and yield, it is quite possible that this is due to growing competition.

For example, while PartyPoker is well known, PokerStars seems to be coming up fast. They advertise heavily on poker shows, moreso than PartyPoker it seems. Additionally, a visit to both sites generated a pop-up at PartyPoker on the opening page (yes, let's annoy potential clients), but not at PokerStars. I haven't tried the PartyPoker software in quite some time, but when it came time to choose I found PokerStars a more pleasant interface in which to waste time on play money games.

BUT, and this is very important, poker has been enjoying a popularity surge lately, especially Texas Hold-em. The number of poker shows on TV (even cable) a decade ago could have been counted on the fingers of one knee. Maybe there'd be something late night on ESPN 2, sandwiched in between Powder Puff BMX and Curling. Now you have poker shows on Travel channel, Bravo, InHD, and more. It's quite possible that, gasp, poker is a fad, and as more and more people realize they really suck at it, the fad is receding. Perhaps the money is going back to sports betting, going back to more traditional casino gaming (blackjack, roulette), or perhaps it's going to pay for $3 a gallon gasoline.

I definitely wouldn't take this article as an indicator of industry troubles as a whole, but it would be useful as a warning to watch for shifts in consumer gaming patterns across the industry.

Re:Maybe it's just this company

[paploo]

Hey. I like Curling. :)

Re:Maybe it's just this company

[angle_slam]

They both have pop-ups. But they aren't continuous and it's both just a single pop-up when you start the program.

Re:Maybe it's just this company

[semibluff]

I agree. I'm an avid player on multiple sites, and here's the why I think Party's user base is shrinking: * First, and most important, they have the highest percentage rake in the industry - taking it out in $0.50 intervals. Everyone else take out $1.00 intervals. A $30 pot on Party costs you $1.50. Everywhere else it's $1.00. The smart players realize this and move elsewhere. Even brick and mortar casinos in Vegas and AC don't charge that. * Party's interface is very clunky compared to others like Paradise and Fulltilt * Party does almost nothing for their users. Paradise has a million dollar freeroll going on right now. Fulltilt rewards you for knocking a pro out of tournament (and they have lots of freerolls). What's party got? I deposit bonus that makes you play an absurd amount of hands within 1 week to get it...(the others trickle in the deposit bonuses, so they can still be earned if you don't meet the total hands within the specified time...and the other give you months , not a week...) * Party doesn't have customer service that speaks English that a mere mortal can understand. (That's a big spoiler for many folks.) There's dozens more, but these are probably the most important reasons. For those of you who say the industry is shrinking, you should definetly look around. A year ago Paradise averaged around 50000 players a night, now they are around 12,000. Fulltilt was at about zero, now they are around 5000. I don't think the industry is shrinking, I just think there's more competition, and Party's not really competing...

Re:Maybe it's just this company

[dubiousmike]

I play no limit holdem at least 3 times a week, cash games with about 300 in chips on the table at a given point. I go to Foxwoods when I get a chance and am up about 3K over the past three months.

ONLINE POKER IS BULLSHIT

I think playing against people you can't see, especially with most people playing free chips is bullshit. They have no concept of what they are betting. 90% of everyone out there who plays online absolutely destroys any advice you could get from a book. I don't do local free tournaments either. All of it destroys your ability to play for real money. I have a couple of friends qho still play online with real money. They do ok. But when they play with real people, they suck. Ever notice when you play online, almost every hand has someone sucking out? (sucking out is when someone with crappy cards stays in and wins when you had a great hand all along.)

Poker is great, but poker with live humans, cigar smoke and liquor is WAY WAY better. People are still playing, just not in a dark room alone.

Re:Maybe it's just this company

[Anonymous Coward]

yay for cigars!

liquor is ok too.

Re:Maybe it's just this company

[wmspringer]

Poker is great, but poker with live humans, cigar smoke and liquor is WAY WAY better.

Actually, one of the main reasons I play poker online is to AVOID the smoke :-p

Re:Maybe it's just this company

[angle_slam]

I think playing against people you can't see, especially with most people playing free chips is bullshit.

What does that mean? Play money tables are crap, agreed. You don't learn anything there and no one plays like that in real life. But real money tables are more real.

Ever notice when you play online, almost every hand has someone sucking out? (sucking out is when someone with crappy cards stays in and wins when you had a great hand all along.)

First, that may be true in play money tables. But generally false on real money tables. There is much less bluffing on real money tables. I was just playing at the $0.02 tables. Even at stakes that low, people wouldn't chase bad cards in the face of a 2 cent bet.

Second, even if true, that presents a good opportunity to make money. If a donkey always calls with 72 against AA, yes, you'll occassionally lose when the flop is 772. But, much more often, the AA will hold up against the 72.

Re:Maybe it's just this company

[Threni]

> For example, while PartyPoker is well known, PokerStars seems to be coming up
> fast. They advertise heavily on poker shows, moreso than PartyPoker it seems.
> Additionally, a visit to both sites generated a pop-up at PartyPoker on the
> opening page

Insightful? You're predicting the future success of a gambling company because of whether or not it has pop-ups?

Re:Maybe it's just this company

[Anonymous Coward]

People that complain about suckouts...just don't know how to adjust their game to those types of players...

Re:Maybe it's just this company

[Zzesers92]

Actually, one of the main reasons I play poker online is to AVOID the smoke :-p

Then play at the brick and mortar casinos. Most poker rooms have gone non-smoking

Re:Maybe it's just this company

[Anonymous Coward]

You see more suckouts online because you play more hands. It doesn't take as long for the underlying math to kick in.

On one trip to Vegas, I had 4 straight days where I lost every time I had trips or better. This wasn't playing 2/4 hold-em. It was playing at least 10/20 hold-em. Trips, straights, flushes, full-houses. Every single one lost. I tried changing casinos and changing games. The streak still continued. I played hold-em, 7-stud, and Omaha at 3 different casinos. Am I supposed to fold top set on the flop in hold-em? Or lay down a flush in the first 5 cards in stud? No. Will they alwasy hold up? No.

It happens. It's just part of the game. You probably ignore it when in a casino and bitch about it when it happens online as proof that online is rigged.

Your take on online poker is bullshit.

Re:Maybe it's just this company

[jalefkowit]

They run poker shows on InHD? Seems a bit like missing the point to me:

"Tonight on InHD! See some guy's knuckles in glorious high definition!"... yeah, that's what I shelled out the big bucks for an HDTV for.

Re:Maybe it's just this company

[Miaowara_Tomokato]

Then play at the brick and mortar casinos. Most poker rooms have gone non-smoking

However, the casinos themselves have not.

So while you can play poker without having a smokestack next to you, there is nothing keeping copious amounts of smoke wafting over from the slot zombies, who are positioned 5 feet outside of the poker room at all entries.

Not to mention that you have to walk through the entire casino (with at least 25% of the clientele smoking) to get to the poker room. The local casino here has a "smoke free" cardroom but I still need to wash my clothes after a session because of the stench that insinuates itself into them.

Re:Maybe it's just this company

[wmspringer]

Plus, it's at least an hour's drive to the nearest casino....why spend 2 (probably 3) hours on the road (especially with today's gas prices) when you can play in a better environment at home?

Plus, the bathrooms are cleaner here...

Because gambling is ...

[waynegoode]

Perhaps people finally realized that gambling is a tax on greed and poor math skills.

Re:Because gambling is ...

[ediron2]

Perhaps people finally realized that gambling is a tax on greed and poor math skills.

Ha! Never.

Re:Because gambling is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like a true poker fish.

If you knew anything about poker, you'd know that good players aren't gambling when they are playing. Good players have a positive expectation.

Of course, unless you actually know anything about poker, you won't be able to see this, since 'it's random', right?

Re:Because gambling is ...

[Feyr]

your faith in people is misplaced.

they just don't have any money left, and bots are taking the rest

Re:Because gambling is ...

[ranton]

You didnt understand what the GP post meant regarding the skill involved in Poker. Poker is different from most gambling because you are not playing against the dealer, you are playing against the other players. In almost any form of gambling you will eventually lose money because the odds are set by the casino. But the only thing you have to beat in online poker is the rake.

If you can win more money from your opponents than the casinos rakes in on each hand, then you WILL make money at poker. There are plenty of people who make a living off of poker. I know of two friends who are paying their way through college with online poker (one still gets over half of the money from student loans). I dont make that much money, but I havent ever had a stretch of more than a couple days where I havent increased my money online.

You CAN make money from playing poker, it is not gambling in the sense that you can beat the system in poker. You just have to have some skill, and a bank roll big enough to absorb losses from a few bad beats.

Re:Because gambling is ...

[The Good Reverend]

While that's generally true in any game you're playing against the house (Casino Blackjack, craps, roulette, etc.), Poker is played against the other players, not the house. It's also a game with considerably more skill involved than standard gambling games.

Casinos make money at poker by raking a small amount from each hand, but this isn't true in home games, where the majority of poker is played. It's also an incredibly social game, and that's a prime reason most people play. Next time you want to generalize, make sure your facts are straight.

Re:Because gambling is ...

[BridgeBum]

Mod parent up. The GP is confusing pure random chance (such as the lottery) with games that have both strategy elements AND random chance. Employing good strategy can alter the odds in your favor.

Dodging the obvious gambling example of this (Black Jack), let's take a look at other things which have random elements:

1) Stock Market. Knowing how to play the market is not a prerequisite to making money short term, but long term you need to know what you are doing or you will lose money.

2) Backgammon. Dice game, also 'random', but there are clearly skills needed to play well.

3) Bridge. I happen to know quite well exactly how much skill is involved in this game, but it uses cards. Therefore, the most skillful can still be beaten by the least skillful in the short term.

Such is the way of any game that isn't pre-deterministic. That does NOT make it 'gambling' in the lottery-tax-on-bad-math-skills sense. Quite the opposite in the case of poker actually, it can be used as a way to teach good math skills...especially in the areas of probablity.

Re:Because gambling is ...

[Darby]

Ah, but this tax is assessed and collected by greedy people with good math skills :-)

Re:Because gambling is ...

[leon.gandalf]

Funny, thats what my Dad allways said about the State Lottery...

Re:Because gambling is ...

[Skater]

My boss gambles. She's not greedy and she has excellent math skills...in fact, she's a statistician! She knows exactly what the odds are.

So why does she gamble? Because she enjoys it. And she frequently wins enough to pay for her trips to Vegas and such.

How much do you spend on your hobbies every year? Gambling, at least for her, and probably for a lot of people, is just another hobby, and we all know that any hobby can be very expensive. I probably spend more money each year on my hobbies - with NO hope of financial return - then she spends on gambling.

Re:Because gambling is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand poker.

Lottery involves no skill, just chance. Chess involves no chance, just skill. Poker is somewhere in the middle.

There are numerous professional poker players -- people who make a living by being good at poker. They know what hands to bet with, and what hands to fold. They know the odds of their hand winning at any given point, and the odds their bet offers them. They are masters at "reading" their opponents: ferreting out a bluff vs. a winning hand.

People like Daniel Negraneu, Barry Greenstein, Phil Hellmuth? They aren't self-delusional "top of the pile" horseshoe stories. They ARE at the top of the pile, not because of a big lucky win, but because of consistently winning. And the pile is made of millions of dollars.

Re:Because gambling is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You must never win.

Re:Because gambling is ...

[hackstraw]

Perhaps people finally realized that gambling is a tax on greed and poor math skills.

Realization is a cognitive activity that someone with poor math skills may or may not have.

Running out of money and not being able to afford to play anymore is independent of any cognitive activity, and yes it comes more quickly to those with poor math skills.

Re:Because gambling is ...

[miller60]

Lots of casinos never promoted poker for this reason. The skill factor left the house without a profitable angle beyond the rake, and they made more money on black jack and other suckers' games.

But they're adapting. I was at the Borgata in Atlantic City last week, where they have tables for "Texas Hold 'Em BONUS," in which the casino has altered the betting rules to favor the house. There are other players, but you all play against the dealer, and have a $5 ante and $5 minimum bet on each round (flop, turn, river) to continue. It essentially takes Hold Em and structures it like a black jack game, complete with the house advantage. I guess it's the casinos' strategy to capitalize on the popularity of Hold 'Em while taking the skill out of the game.

Re:Because gambling is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent and grandparent and every other child of the great-grandparent don't have sufficient readong comprehension to understand the point, apparently.

The point is not that poker is like the lottery. The point is that all these poker players, trusting in their skill relative to the other players (yes, the other players, not the bank) think they are winners. They are deluding themselves - only a few are truly winners, just like only a few win the lottery.

Ego has the same effect on people who call others "fish" as general stupidity and a lack of understanding of statistics have on the general population buying lottery tickets every week.

Re:Because gambling is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for proving the point. You named 3 players - and you could add that Aussie who won the world's some weeks ago. And you could add maybe 50 more, perhaps one hundred. And the pile comes from who? Some from sponsorship of course, but plenty from idiots.

Under them you could put a couple hundred million who lose money. They're the idiots, suckers, fish, whatever you like to call them - they're merely redistributing money among themselves until it moves up the food chain. Keep on talking about the few who strike it rich in poker, you only illustrate the concave pyramid that the world poker rankings would describe. And the players making money? That's the tiny, tiny point of the pyramid. At the base are all these wise-ass "great poker players" who live in dreamworld.

Once again - gambling is for idiots - statistically it's proven! Poker is just for idiots who have convinced themselves that they're a cut above! But you can see how this happens - have you EVER talked to anyone who admitted to being an overall loser at the casinos? Oh no, they might be losing $1000 a week but they still choose to talk about that one time they walked away from the slots $100 up.

Re:Because gambling is ...

[Technician]

But the only thing you have to beat in online poker is the rake

What's there to understand. A bunch of people playing passing money back and forth. As it gets passed, it shrinks. Over time sombody has to feed in more money. In short the players take turns adding money, not making money. The game is a net loss for the team. Tell me again why I would be the slightest bit interested? At least with auctions you can buy low, sell high, and pay taxes for a net gain. I'll keep my day job and work auctions.

Re:Because gambling is ...

[Firethorn]

I'll counter that your #1 is backwards. Knowing how to 'play' the stockmarket is absolutly essential for making money(consistantly, at least).

#2, if you avoid daytrading, choose and keep your assets for long-term gain, you will come out ahead 99% of the time.

Granted, I still recommend mutual funds for 99% of the people out there. Gotta love automatic diversification.

Re:Because gambling is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if you are more skillful than average you will make a profit. The average and poor player still makes a loss, but if you are consistently in, say, the top 45% of players you will make a winning.

Whether it is ethically correct to take a profit at the expense of those who are poor players is for your conscience, not a matter of statistics.

Re:Because gambling is ...

[LadyLucky]

That's rubbish.

Poker isn't about poor math skills. If you are any good at the game, the odds are in your favour. Similarly at least here in New Zealand, the national lottery frequently has an expected return better than even, when it jackpots.

Do all the morally superior freaks such as yourself then run out and buy thousands of dollars of tickets because your superior maths skills tell you to? No. Truth be said, you're scared of gambling with your money. You hide behind that veneer. But you're wrong.

Re:Because gambling is ...

[nietsch]

maybe you can, if you are a robot. People tend to like this game for the sensation. That will make them place larger and larger bets to get the same adrenalin high. It will also destroy any critical thinking while they are getting hooked.
Human feelings and playing with money don't mix well, if you intend to keep your money. You can delude yourself you don't have feelings, but even sociopaths have some.

Re:Because gambling is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Chess involves chance. Who goes first?

Re:Because gambling is ...

[waynegoode]

your faith in people is misplaced.

they just don't have any money left, and bots are taking the rest

I suspect you are right and I am merely being optimistic. I did say "perhaps".

Re:Because gambling is ...

[farble1670]

You CAN make money from playing poker, it is not gambling in the sense that you can beat the system in poker. You just have to have some skill, and a bank roll big enough to absorb losses from a few bad beats.

the fact remains that the vast majority of people don't have the skill. therefore the vast majority lose in the long run. if you're a rational thinking being, you learn your lesson and stick to friendly games. if you're a gambling addict, then you piss your life away. and that's what happens to most people.

as for online poker, most people that are going to try it have. most of them lost money to strangers. most of those losers have heard of bots, and suspect that they've been cheated. that's not a lot of fun.

Why stopped?

[fembots]

Haven't we discovered that pokerbots making online players sad?

I believe if WoW n00bs are constantly being hammered by veterans, they will quit in no time too.

Besides, how many idiots can be born every second when most of their wealth will be redistributed almost immediately? So maybe what we are seeing here is just a down cycle, like in stock exchange.

Did people actually used to do that?

[tverbeek]

Why have you stopped playing?

Never was stupid enough to play in the first place, actually.

Re:Did people actually used to do that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or smart enough?

Re:Did people actually used to do that?

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

I agree, why would a person play a "game" that is nothing more than competitive random number generation?

Re:Did people actually used to do that?

[einhverfr]

Why have you stopped playing?

Never was stupid enough to play in the first place, actually.

And why did you stop beating your wife?

Re:Did people actually used to do that?

[Anonymous Coward]

[i]I agree, why would a person play a "game" that is nothing more than competitive random number generation?[/i]

it might have something to do with the fact that professionals can expect hourly rates over $200.

Re:Did people actually used to do that?

[azav]

Oh come on. She deserved it.

Actually, for a short stint, I used to write gambling software. We had payout over time charts and mathemagical statistics charts that told us the amount of money that each game would return per hour and level of play.

I never play because I am not an idiot. As least not in that sense anyways.

Re:Did people actually used to do that?

[YOU LIKEWISE FAIL IT]

Poker, oddly, stands almost alone as one of the few gambling games where ability can sway the long term outcome to favour a given player. But you'll need to be patient when the random factor doesn't seem to be going your way.

Re:Did people actually used to do that?

[einhverfr]

I never play because I am not an idiot.

And

Actually, for a short stint, I used to write gambling software.

Oh, so you did play, just for the house (and the house always wins, right?).....

Re:Did people actually used to do that?

[azav]

You are correct sir!

It amazes me that people actually think they are going to win.

If they were, Vegas would have gone out of business by now. It's common sense people need to pay attention to. Lack of knowledge of statistics and mathematics (in this case) is a license to rob from the ignorant and/or stupid. "facts is facts", pardon the grammar

Re:Did people actually used to do that?

[Anonymous Coward]

It amazes me that people actually think they are going to win.

As with many things in life, it is the triumph of optimism over experience

Why have I stopped playing?

[14erCleaner]

Um...because I never started?

Because I'm not innumerate?

Re:Why have I stopped playing?

[ezzzD55J]

Um...because I never started?

I think you mean: mu :)

Re:Why have I stopped playing?

[bananasfalklands]

Never learnt how to play, but I do certification tests for fun so on with todays poker tale.

So today i am in a big it training company - and I overhear some 'educator' is waxing lyrical to shedload of trainees in class about if you dont get a two, or a 6 then you won't win.

Mister probabilty probably could have told any of those students that.

Whether he has talking about poker, betting (aka the city traders), he put the nail in the head. Suckers play poker, brainy types own casinos.

I do gamble like a $1 on the occasional lottery if its a mega sum to win say euro 77 million now thats worth a very small chance.

Poker don't know how to play it, and I have no interest in learning it either. owning a casino - now just maybe i can meet James Bond and share a vodka martini.

Re:Why have I stopped playing?

[14erCleaner]

Yeah, but what do I know, I'm a troll. Sigh.

I'm reminded of the simplified version of the laws of thermodynamics: you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't quit the game. However, in the case of gambling, law #3 doesn't apply, since you can quit the game.

Most gamblers are in denial about the first two laws, which basically say that the casino comes out ahead but everybody else loses (on average). But some gamblers apparently get mod points, and don't want to hear that they're stoopid to blow money on this stuff.

Re:Why have I stopped playing?

[bananasfalklands]

Well - everybody gets called 'troll' when /. has a discussion on hubble, bush and science, and especially 'why god created the earth in 7 days and the moneys had nothing to with it'. Its a right of passage.

Re:Why have I stopped playing?

[dgatwood]

And for those who are unlucky enough to become addicted to gambling, all three laws apply. That's the problem with gambling. Nickel games in your friend's den notwithstanding, it tends to prey upon people who can't help themselves....

Re:Why have I stopped playing?

[bitznbytz]

"Suckers play poker..."

"I do gamble like a $1 on the occasional lottery..."

Sorry pal, suckers play the lottery, brainy types play poker and play it well. As far as owning casinos, do yourself a little research on Bobby Baldwin, 1978 World Series of Poker champion. He's now on the board of directors of MGM Grand.

Re:Why have I stopped playing?

[14erCleaner]

brainy types play poker and play it well

I used to work with a "brainy type" who was also a gambling addict. He basically ruined his life with it. See my earlier comment about denial... it's easy to convince yourself that you can beat the game, but the odds are very, very slim that you'll even break even, no matter how "brainy" you are.

Re:Why have I stopped playing?

[14erCleaner]

I like it! Same answer as to "Have you stopped beating your wife?".

Re:Why have I stopped playing?

[bnenning]

See my earlier comment about denial... it's easy to convince yourself that you can beat the game, but the odds are very, very slim that you'll even break even

Once again, this is not the case with poker. Smart players will make money on average. Of course they can still easily go broke by playing at stakes too high for their skill or bankroll.

Re:Why have I stopped playing?

[bananasfalklands]

"I do gamble like a $1 on the occasional lottery..." And in my defence - euro 77 million is 95 million us dollars, or 51 million pounds sterling. I very well might be a 'sucker' in this case.

Re:Why have I stopped playing?

[14erCleaner]

Smart players will make money on average.

This sounds like rationalization. If you lose money, does this mean you're not smart enough?

Also, you should look at the other replies to this article that mention collusion among players in online poker games. "Smart" in this case is a euphemism for "dishonest".

Stacked Deck

[Doc Ruby]

Because gambling takes a whole huge computer, usually tied to an office desk, or near the spouse. When mobile phones combine our wallets, our Net connection and easy, fun gambling UIs with voice "kibbitzing", billions across the globe will be proving how fun it is to be bad at math.

with

[KMAPSRULE]

Gas prices $3.59 a gallon or Higher who has free cash to gamble with

World of Warcraft

[pirula]

the title says it all.

Perhaps this has to do anything with it?

[sH4RD]

On the Internet, Nobody Knows You're a Bot

Re:Perhaps this has to do anything with it?

[wmspringer]

You know the ironic part?

It'll only scare off the dumb players...and the dumb players are exactly who we need more of :-p

One Reason

[tktk]

Why have you stopped playing?

Maybe because the regular players have gone broke?

Re:One Reason

[xao gypsie]

or they didn't have money to start with. personally, i love to play poker, especially texas hold 'em. but i am also just at the poverty line as a grad student, which means it would be fairly irresponsible for me to spend what little extra money I have on that rather than taking my wife to the movies or something (also a rare occurence).

Re:One Reason

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Poor married grad student? man you do like to gamble.

Re:One Reason

[BridgeBum]

Unless your wife happens to like poker too. Mine does, she plays (much) more than I do. She's also better at it. Couldn't hurt to ask...

Re:One Reason

[zerocool^]

Then, what you should do is set up a poker league. We have one here in my hometown (surburban DC, if you're in the area). We play every other friday, $20 buyin tournament, and stats are tracked across weeks. There's cash games before and after if anyone's interested. But, basically, it's a way to say - Once every 2 weeks, budget yourself $20, play poker, and hang out with friends and drink beer.

That's the way to play. I used to play online, and I didn't even mind losing $50 over the course of a month or two, until I realized that I could lose $50 to my friends and mooch their beer, and actually have a good time and get out of the house.

~Will

Re:One Reason

[Mastadex]

If they let us win more often, then i would gladly keep playing.

Gambling is for suckers.

[Anonymous Coward]

'Nuff said.

I never started playing.

[faedle]

For starters, part of the "gambling experience" for me is physically going to a noisy, crowded casino and taking in the atmosphere. It's like going to an amusement park: the ride just isn't fun unless you're strapped to the seat.

Plus, at home, I don't get scantily-clad babes serving me free drinks, and the infrequent comp from the casino host isn't a bad thing either.

Online gambling appeals to the pros, perhaps. Which is exactly why I don't want to play there. I'd rather be taken by the house at Blackjack in Vegas.. at least there I get to sit in a pretty building.

Re:I never started playing.

[cplusplus]

Plus, at home, I don't get scantily-clad babes serving me free drinks

Don't you mean scantily-clad ancient crones serving free water with a hint of color that might be booze (at least, you hope is some kind of booze because water really shouldn't be that color)?
 
Maybe you went to a different Vegas than I did.

Re:I never started playing.

[AndreiK]

I'm sure a lot of the original players were kids who were too young to play legally.

I would much rather go to a normal casino, and lose my money the old-fashioned way.

Re:I never started playing.

[telstar]

Plus, at home, I don't get scantily-clad babes serving me free drinks

Don't you mean scantily-clad ancient crones serving free water with a hint of color that might be booze (at least, you hope is some kind of booze because water really shouldn't be that color)?

"Trent, the beautiful babies don't work the midnight to six shift on a Wednesday. This is like the skank shift."

Mike
"Swingers"

Re:I never started playing.

[angle_slam]

The rake is a lot higher in a B&M poker room than on-line. The difference can easily pay for the "free" drink. In addition, no tipping of the dealer (which costs another dollar or so per pot won). Plus no gas costs. On-line poker is a LOT cheaper than B&M poker, go buy your own drinks.

Re:I never started playing.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I've never cared for gambling in either form. In a building, it involves tacky lights, usually tacky architecture (though the non-gambling floors of The Venitian is cool) and so on. Online, there's the issue of trust, how does a user know the program isn't cheating them? Actually, there's a point about the computer machines in Vegas, but Nevada tries to prevent that.

Re:I never started playing.

[MindStalker]

While not exactly scanitily-clad the new york hotel (in vegas) provided good drinks when I was there atleast. Hell when I was broke I went to the penny slot machine and got 5 drinks over 3 hours for 3 bucks of gambling loss.

Re:I never started playing.

[faedle]

You missed the point.

I can get a "free" drink from my refrigerator. Actually, since I have a real life, I can have a scantily-clad babe even get it from the fridge for me.

Part of the "fun" of gambling is the show. Can't get that from a video game, no matter how much I beg my girlfriend to wear a cocktail waitress uniform.

Re:I never started playing.

[faedle]

Don't know what Las Vegas you're going to, but the one I go to (in Nevada, not New Mexico) has plenty of beautiful women (and even a couple of handsome guys) serving drinks. And, usually they're plenty strong: after all, isn't it in their best interest to get you as plastered as possible?

Heck, even some of the off-strip places are getting pretty high-class now.

You gotta sit where the money is, though. Stop playing nickel slots at Terrible's Casino and you might know what I'm talking about.

online gambling advertisments

[guildsolutions]

Maybe the price for adsense ads for online gambling will now fall? They have been one oef the highest payers for a while now.

We stopped playing scrabble online because it got old, and people quitting just ruined the fun of it. I can only assume online gambling charges you as a loss if you disconnect/quit.

Besides, isnt gambling in real life much more fun than over the internet?

I Only Gamble Inside Casinos

[GecKo213]

There's just a different feeling going to a Casino vs gambling at home. All of the drinks are free (As in Beer, lots of beer!) and so ar the Cigars if you gamble long enough. Besides, online gambling to me at least has the Shady, can I really win at this because who's governing a small island in the pacific's website to make sure I even have a chance, vybe. Gambling inside casinos is the only place I want to Gamble. Besides, it woudl be too easy to get COmpletely addicted if I could plug in to the Internet and gamble my life away.

Re:I Only Gamble Inside Casinos

[agraupe]

Just an interesting side note: the casinos no doubt offer cigars after a while because the hypoxic effect created by smoking a cigar will increase the effect of alcohol, thus further imparing your judgement.

Re:I Only Gamble Inside Casinos

[UM_Maverick]

The drinks may be free, but the rake is higher, and you have to toke the dealer. Add in gas and the crappy casino food...those "free" drinks wind up getting expensive...

Re:I Only Gamble Inside Casinos

[GecKo213]

I live about 90 minutes from Nevada. There are pit Bosses that now know my friends and me. They pay for our gas and usually give us a room and dinner when we go out there. All in all I head out with 20 dollars in my pocket and play a few hands of this and that (drink), wander around (drnik), play the nickel slots (drink), wander some more (drink)... etc. I have the players card, but I end up just being spotted at a bunch of tables and around the casino. Maybe go once every other month or once a month. I end up leaving most times with more in comps than I spent or even brought with me.

Re:I Only Gamble Inside Casinos

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah but it is impossible to find a good place to smoke a doobie in vega$. where the fuck do you go when you want to get good and smoked out? I actually saw someone smoking a j on the dance floor at baby's in the Hard Rock and begged for a puff.
Anyway, I promise to not post stoned on slashdot until tomorrow.
I love ya Goldie.

Re:I Only Gamble Inside Casinos

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of poker sites are actually incorporated in Canada.

Also, the playerbase of poker is increasing more slowly than expected, it isn't going down.

Re:I Only Gamble Inside Casinos

[mdobossy]

I agree, and have some other reasons.

I gamble because I enjoy it- it is entertainment. My father bestowed some good wisdom on me when it comes to playing blackjack- if you go into it thinking you are going to win, you'll be sorely disappointed. If you look at it as entertainment, and budget it appropriatly, you will have a good time, and might even come out ahead. To me, sitting down at a hot blackjack table, with (gasp!) real people sitting beside me, and a good dealer who is having just as much fun, is entertainment. Sitting in at my computer, playing against what could be a person, or a bot, not holding the cards in my hands, etc.. is just plain boring.

Re:I Only Gamble Inside Casinos

[boristdog]

Gambling inside a nice casino, with lots of other people, chips, cash, cocktail waitresses, free drinks, etc. is like good sex.

Gambling online while sitting alone at home is like masturbating to the JC Penney catalog.

Gambling down?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust.

That's why it's down. I'm not talking about trusting your online casino of choice, or trusting that you will receive your money from your payment processor. I'm talking about trusting your fellow players.

The big money in online poker isn't from reading a book and playing off of statistics charts and pot odds. It's not in learning to read into your counterparts bets. It's in cheating.

Not the hack-the-server-to-see-everyone's-cards cheating, or reverse engineering their randomization algorithms. It's in playing 6 players on a 10-hand table and having everyone know what everyone else has.

The odds on your pocket jacks suddenly go way down once you know one of your other players has a jack. Also, you are able to control the table much more effectively with many people acting as one. Joe-sixpack might call you for $10 with his board pair, but he is much less likely if it's going to cost him $40. Also, when you know you have the winning cards, you can milk the rest of the players by raising once around the table and raising after your targets have called.

The game is entirely different and there are numerous other rulesets and strategies you can employ when you have more knowledge about the cards on the table than other people.

Sure, a "good" poker player can beat a bot or a statistical player any day of the week. However, the best player out there can't beat an entire table sharing information and playing for the same goal. Yes, the online casinos try and detect this collusion and generally the worst they do is ban players from playing together at the same table. I'm sure many Slashdoters can figure out how you get around any type of detection the casinos can through out.

I know I did.

Re:Gambling down?

[badmammajamma]

Yep, that's the reason for me. It's so trivially easy to cheat these online games without breaking any laws or having any chance of getting busted even if it were illegal that it's a fucking joke. Granted, most of the tables you go to won't be loaded with cheat teams but it only takes a small number to keep you in the red. Plus, over time there will be more of this as people get a clue. Some of the more clever people can even do this by themselves without the help of friends.

Anyone putting money into online poker is either a sucker or a cheater.

Re:Gambling down?

[UM_Maverick]

I call BS. There's enough ways to tell if people are cheating that there's no way to do anything significant. You talk about controlling 6 players at the table at once - if each player sees the flop 1/3 of the hands, the two of them should see the *same* flop 1/3 * 1/3 = 1/9 of the time...if the correlation is significantly off from that, flags go up. That's just one example of the dozens of methods that sites use to catch cheats.

Even if you do manage to get by all the safety checks, you're still only at 1 table. With 40,000 people playing at once, there's dozens of tables at each level. If I think something fishy is going on, I send an email to the site's support staff with your screen name and the table name, and I switch tables - it's that simple. There's always another table, another game, another 9 people to play against.

Re:Gambling down?

[Anonymous Coward]

[I'm the grand-parent]

Yep, there are plenty of ways to tell if people are cheating. Although most of the colluding players will never see the flop, you still know what their cards were. If the odds are 1/3 to see a flop and you have 6/10 players, you still have 2:1 odds before the cards even hit the table.

Of course, there are other things you have to watch out for. Make sure that no two players are always at the same table (i.e. pool players from a account pool at least 3x as large as what you play with). Make sure that players don't all join the table at the same time.

Then there are other things you can do. Occasionally, a player will be banned from playing at the same table with another player (happens 99% of the time whenever any of the statistical filters trip, or a player reports suspected collusion) and then you just cash out those players, close the accounts and make some new e-mails/bank accounts/ip's/poker accounts.

Also, I'm not saying that every table is a death trap. in 15/30 or 20/40 playing a few hours a day a couple days a week my little poker group makes a very nice living. We aren't planning a buyout of Microsoft yet, but we all can quit our jobs if we wanted to and having a room full of LCD's, comfortable chairs, nice computers, and redundant internet connections is nice. We all have nice PC's and paid off our cars.

Believe it or not, we pay taxes too (we're not stupid :)

Re:Gambling down?

[lgw]

Programs that calculate odds instantly based on all available infomation and opponents' betting and bluffing histories are common enough, whether a bot or human is clicking is not so important.

If someone could actually get 6 hands in one table with communicating bots, he'd make a killing, and the online casino wouldn't have any useful way of catching someone technically skilled at it. However, it seems trivial for a busy casino to randomize things enough where you can't get multiple hands at the same table - assuming the casino cares at all, that is.

Re:Gambling down?

[MindStalker]

Just curious, would you say that the average small time player would be perfectly safe if they stayed in the PL 0.25 tables or even the 5/10 tables, that poker bots arn't going to bother. Would the 1/10 tournament tables be same?

Re:Gambling down?

[Anonymous Coward]

[I'm the grand-parent AC]

When you're talking about bots, I'm sure that there are many poker bots at the sub-dollar tables, however they are mostly people who paid their $29.99 for the win-money-while-you-sleep poker bot from the latest spam e-mail. They aren't sophisticated enough to cause you any harm, and you should be able to beat them easier than an average player. They most definitely won't be colluding.

What we do differently than the bots is that we're all good at poker. We're not going to and play by a chart, but we all sat down and read the books and learned the game. We regularly practice solo to get better, and we know how to "not be stupid". Of course we have all the pot odds calculated and the percentages for each hand available to us when the cards are dealt and after every bet, but again, we don't play on those religiously. We know when to try and bet up to knock someone out, and when to try and milk every chip on the table. That's what people need to be afraid of, not your everyday poker bot.

As far as the other tables go, it's funny you mention the 5/10 tables. One of the things we regularly do with our accounts is "go lose $100" (inside joke: to keep the filters on our side, we'll "go lose $100" on a 2/4 or a 5/10 table on the accounts from time to time. Whenever someone does something stupid, we'll tell them to "Go lose $100"... strange looks are always abound when we say it in front of girlfriends/relatives who don't know the rest of the story.) However, we also practice new techniques (non-poker) and servers on the low limit tables as well. I don't think we've ever played at anything less than 1/2, but anything below 5/10 is not worth playing in general because the players who play below 5/10 play significantly different than the players that play above.

Tournament tables should be perfectly safe. We've never tried to play tournaments, mostly because there is no way to make sure that we end up at the same table.

Re:Gambling down?

[krunk4ever]

yep, with programs such as WinHoldem, it makes cheating a lot easier!

it even has a link for Detection Avoidance advice.

from this article: , one poker bot feature is Team Mode: Flick on Team mode and you can collude with other humans running WinHoldEm at the table.

Re:Gambling down?

[tshak]

Make sure the site you are playing on actively pursues colluders. Anti-collusion software is getting more sophisticated. There are people working on collusion detection on the client side as well, although this is more difficult because you have a lot less information available. As of yet I haven't seen anything too great. The best thing to do is keep your eye out. Don't forget to do this in a casino as well, as this is where the most sophisticated colluders exist. The casinos rarely pursue these players because of the naive trust people have in B&M casino's, plus they don't know the elaborate communication systems used (it's a lot easier to make the connection with instant messaging, for example). Online casino's are much more active about this because collusion is a concern of their customers, and they want to earn customers trust.

A friend of mine played religiously for a while

[leather_helmet]

but as mentioned in other posts, the emergence of bots curbed his enthusiasm... now he just goes to tahoe/reno to lose his money and i ocassionaly join him so that I can win money playing craps

Because I'm Always Buying

[FearTheFrail]

Because I have played poker with PartyGaming on our usual poker night, once a week for the past six months, and not once has it offered to buy the pretzels and beer.

word to the wise

[smoondog]

The lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.

Gambling is similar, particularly with all those bots running around.

-Sean (OutdoorDB - The Outdoor Wiki

Re:word to the wise

[Anonymous Coward]

"The lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math."

Not at all true where 'jackpot' lotteries are concerned (like Lotto).

Lets say the odds of winning are 20M:1 for a $1 ticket. Initial jackpot is, say, $5M. Bad odds. The payout is miserable compared with the odds of you winning. 0.25:1 is not even close to an even money bet.

But lets wait a few weeks when the odds of winning are still 20M:1 for a $1 ticket. But the jackpot is now $50M. Consequently for a $1 bet at 20M:1 odds you get a 50M:1 payout. Excellent result, 2.5:1 payout over an even money wager.

Sure, the *chance* of winning is still infinitisemal, but the possible result is better than the odds so it is a statistical winner.

So all of you who routinely spout the "tax on people who are bad at math" line should use your brain a little.

Re:word to the wise

[Waffle Iron]

But lets wait a few weeks when the odds of winning are still 20M:1 for a $1 ticket. But the jackpot is now $50M. Consequently for a $1 bet at 20M:1 odds you get a 50M:1 payout. Excellent result, 2.5:1 payout over an even money wager.

Sure, the *chance* of winning is still infinitisemal, but the possible result is better than the odds so it is a statistical winner.

However, the odds of getting killed while driving to the store to pick up your lotto tickets are also typically around 20M:1.

Re:word to the wise

[PrvtBurrito]

true. but all of you who complain should realize that sales go way up on higher jackpots, making the jacjpot far more likely to be split...

SPYWARE

[paradizelost]

I never have done online gambling. I have had to fix HUNDREDS of pc's where the morons on the pc's did and had lots of spyware. Many of these took format/reload to completely fixed. the average bill for the systems that weren't formatted was about $120.

Re:SPYWARE

[xmorg]

There is something to this. I have also fixed many PC's affected by spyware, and many suspious "gambling programs" that the owners do not want to part with.

Somehow I am thinking that its the number of down PC's due to spyware overload.

Re:SPYWARE

[infochuck]

I never have done online gambling. I have had to fix HUNDREDS of pc's where the morons on the pc's did and had lots of spyware.

Well, we all know correlation is causation, so you must be right. But wait, I bet all of those people also used IE; IE must cause spayware! Or online banking sites! How many people used those? No, wait! Windows! I bet all them systems were running Microsoft OSes. MS must cause spyware. Wait....

I wont believe it's true!

[BumpyCarrot]

Valve have incorporated betting into CS matches?!

Re:I wont believe it's true!

[idontgno]

You could certainly run a brisk book if you incorporated a wagering system into a "spectator's gallery" in CS2. You could offer all kinds of interesting odds, featuring individual players, or team goals, or specific events. It'd be like boxing betting, but even more interesting (and less crooked, I hope).

nothing to worry about

[circletimessquare]

the only thing that would keep someone from gambling is intelligence

luckily, there is a permanent shortage of that in the world, so online gambling has a rosy future

Re:nothing to worry about

[horza]

the only thing that would keep someone from gambling is intelligence

luckily, there is a permanent shortage of that in the world, so online gambling has a rosy future

It's worth pointing out that poker, unlike blackjack or roulette where you play against the house, is purely against other players. The poker house takes a percentage called the 'rake'. You only have to be marginally above average to compensate for this. Competing players don't have unlimited pockets unlike a casino, also eliminating this advantage.

As for lacking intelligence, those that invest in real estate are similarly short sighted. Even more of a gamble as they have to make up for stamp duty and capital gains tax. And those that deal in stock and shares of currency dealings are equally foolish.

Your cliche may have held up a few of decades ago, when you took up a professions early in your teenage years and then were guaranteed the same job until your retirement, but in today's world learning to manage risk is a vital skill. Those that don't learn will hang on to your dogma but will then bemoan the fact that their (rapidly diminishing) state pension isn't enough to support them. Sorry to be blunt but being in the position myself I have to be honest. Online poker has taught me so much about risk management that my education failed to do. It's an important life skill.

Phillip.

Maybe it's the Robots?

[dshaw858]

Apparently the novelty is wearing off and no new players can be found. Why have you stopped playing?

There was a story, what, a week ago(?) about how people are writing scripts and programs to play these online poker sites for real money, against real people... maybe people are just getting tired of getting owned by a small executable? I don't know, maybe not, but I'm sure that has something to do with it.

Oh, and school's starting up, so wannabe-pro college students don't have enough time anymore to play poker all day. Again, just speculation.

- dshaw

Re:Maybe it's the Robots?

[Anonymous Coward]

...getting owned by a small executable?
Now run along, or I will defeat you with a small shell script.

Trust, Trend and Truth

[curtisk]

Trust: it's not only whether or not you can trust the site/service that hosts the games, but you also have to trust ALOT of anonymous players. At any given table, any number of players can be communicating their hands to each other, tilting the pot and the stakes heavily in their favor. Sure, there's some software out there that tries to catch those scenarios, based on the action and betting patterns, but it can't possibly catch half of it.

Trend: Poker in particular is very trendy, and like all trends, it will pass, some will stay, but most will go.

Truth: At some point you will realize that you are not the next incarnation of Chris Moneymaker and never will be. No easy path for you to riches and fame. If you really love playing, you'll probably stick it out over the long term and may "make it" at some point, but most people today want the quick fix and lose interest if their fortunes don't come quick enough. That and the realization that it takes ALOT of time of your day if you are attempting to be "profitable" playing online. Again, think its an easy fix, then reality and truth set in.

And if you play "play money" games and freeroll tourneys, LOL, thats not real on so many levels.

Re:Trust, Trend and Truth

[jshazen]

...you also have to trust ALOT of anonymous players. At any given table, any number of players can be communicating their hands to each other, tilting the pot and the stakes heavily in their favor.

That's why I mostly play multi-table tournaments. Players are assigned randomly to tens (sometimes hundreds) of tables. There's no way a colluding group can be big enough to have more than one or two players per table.

Re:Trust, Trend and Truth

[wmspringer]

And if you play "play money" games and freeroll tourneys, LOL, thats not real on so many levels.

I joined a play money table once so I could play with a friend of mine. Never again...
Play money poker bears little resemblence to real poker.

Won $130 in a freeroll once, though :-)

Could it be... bots?

[MattW]

It's almost like a dupe. Or a Slashdot pop quiz.

Dunno. I still play on UltimateBet, and still win; but unless they combat the bot issue, they'll dry out. People want confidence they are playing other people, not against computer programs. It's already hard enough with Pokertracker, screen statistics overlays, etc; a full bot?

I wonder when the next wave will hit - when someone starts gaming the throng of bots by taking advantage of their decision making algorithm.

I stopped playing because...

[craXORjack]

My pokerbot started stinking up the house smoking those big stoagies, staying up for days at a time, using my credit cards on porn sites, having hookers come to the house, and drinking up all my liquor. Things just got out of hand.

Re:I stopped playing because...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bender is your poker bot? I guess that makes sense. But where did you get him?

Why have the humans stopped gambling online?

[kortex]

One Word: BOTS

Who stopped playing?

[UM_Maverick]

Sure, Party Poker's revenue is down, but they still get 40,000+ players at a time. There's gotta be another 50 sites out there, too - none of them are as big as party, but they're out there. Ultimatebet, Pokerroom.com, Paradise Poker, Pacific Poker, Interpoker, etc, etc, etc...

People talk a lot about bots, but if they're out there, they suck. I play up to 2/4 limit Hold 'em, and 1-2 NL Hold 'em, as well as Omaha hi/lo, and I'm a consistent winner (I track every session I play). I play 6-8 hours a week, usually while the wife is watching dawson's creek, or some other equally girly dvd. We get to sit together, each doing something we enjoy, and I clear anywhere from $400 - $800 a month.

In short: people still play, decent players win, and (from what I've read), the bots are really, really bad.

Re:Who stopped playing?

[Anonymous Coward]

... and I clear anywhere from $400 - $800 a month.

And some other people lost the same amount of money. You're an exception... most people are losing money on this gambling.

Re:Who stopped playing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever noticed how everybody that plays online poker is somehow smarter than the average player and making tons of money?

Re:Who stopped playing?

[UM_Maverick]

actually, i track every hand i play. Over the course of my 33,000+ hands, 39.4% of the players are winners, and 60.6% are losers...that's fairly consistent, judging by conversations i've had with other people, and more or less explained away by the fact that the sites take a rake...

Re:Who stopped playing?

[Anonymous Coward]

So 28 hours a month for $600?
I think many would rather just do overtime, get a side job for that amount. No risk there. Even spending a few extra hours at work, finishing those projects early and gearing for that promotion and salary increase is safer than a losing streak in my opinion.

Re:Who stopped playing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have noticed that, and have accepted it as truth.

I believe the opposite, poker is getting bigger

[eebra82]

I believe that poker is getting bigger and bigger for every day that comes. There may be a stagnation as compared to what we have seen before, but if you think about it, more TV shows are coming up about poker.

Look at http://www.pokertvguide.com/ who are dedicated to poker on TV. There are a zillion shows there.

Further on, there's a big bunch of tournaments available every day, and compared to last year, this amount has gone up more than 470 percent, which is quite a lot. Another good example, think it's from the same network, is http://www.pokermajors.com/ who host a load of poker tournaments. Last but not least, let's not forget about all the poker sites that have grown and the new ones that have shown up. PartyPoker may just experience new competition. Perhaps they should offer more rakeback and such? Hey, we see people play Counter-Strike for five years and it's still huge!

Play $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

Playing against all these morons who go all in with no remorse is no fun. They just run and refil their account. I just can't stand parting with my money to play for real cash more than a couple times to check it out. Online play jsut doesn't play like real poker, against real humans you can look at.

Online you have to resort to how fast they bet on a hand, and other suddle hints, but that may just be lag. In person you have body language. Holdem just doesn't translate well to the internet.

Re:Play $$$

[TexVex]

That got an Insightful mod?

Ok, here's some insight for you. People who play poker to win absolutely love the type of player you describe. The mere 10% of poker players who really can be profitable long term don't make their profit playing each other. They make it off people who like to gamble. A properly bankrolled player will take a 60% shot to double their money over and over and over again and never be bitter when the sucker hits his 40% chance to come from behind and take the pot. They have a special name for the ones that take the worst of it and reload with a smile: ATM. Like the box in the convenience store that you withdraw money from.

You speak of the lack of face-to-face tells in online poker (and make a cute misspelling of "subtle" while you're at it.) Well, let me "tell" you something. The action -- the betting, and the particular betting patterns of opponents -- give a good poker player far more information than how someone is physically acting in person or how long they delay before acting online. Those tells do offer some information, but it's foolish to think you can rely on them for the entirety of your game. Whether you're playing face to face or online, you'll never get anywhere without an ingrained understanding of the odds, and the often not-so-subtle effects of chip stack sizes, position in the order of action, and the ability to accurately guess what ranges of hands your opponents are playing at any given time.

Re:Only just went public

[Parham]

It was a fad... a big fad. The thing though is that this one didn't target kids/children (which usually get affected most by fads). This fad directly affected adults, and a hobby which most people enjoy. The problem though was that there was already an industry for it, but with the World Poker Tour (and all the other ones), it got a whole new group of people into it. However, I don't think that those who didn't play before got hooked for too long, and they simply left. Those that did play, did so online for a bit, and then probably went back to doing it the traditional way. I didn't play poker before, and I got into it with friends first, and then got hooked online. However, the excitement has died down for me and I'm sure several other people that got hooked into it.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Playing became boring when I finally understood what the all the 1337 k165 w3|23 4c7u411Y 54y1n9 70 m3 ;-\

Stock Market

[theNote]

This is the problem with companies going public that shouldn't.
The stock market is all about growth, not profit.
Have a compay that makes 100 billion trillion dollars a year?
Great, but next year you will have to make 200 billion trillion or else your stock will tank. Its not just about being profitable, stock is all about growth. If not you better pay one hell of a dividend.

Re:Stock Market

[ezzzD55J]

Have a compay that makes 100 billion trillion dollars a year? Great, but next year you will have to make 200 billion trillion or else your stock will tank. Its not just about being profitable, stock is all about growth. If not you better pay one hell of a dividend.

Not sure about the above. I don't know much about the stock market, but in principle, all profits increase the value of the stock. After all, the nominal (is that the word) value of a stock is the liquidated value of a company divided by the number of outstanding stocks.

So why would profits have to increase for a stock to keep rising?

After all, you don't have to be a growth stock. As you said, the value is in the dividend then.

I'd gladly be enlightened though.

Re:Stock Market

[Detritus]

A large part of the valuation of many stocks is the expectation that revenues and profits will increase over time. Take away that growth, and the stock price will be much lower. If the profits aren't being invested in expansion, they should be returned to the stockholders in the form of dividends, not stashed in the bank.

When I look at stock prices, most of them seem to be overpriced, bid up by investors who have unrealistic expectations of future growth and profits. Everyone expects their horse to be the winner.

Re:Stock Market

[theNote]

Yes, its more complicated than I stated, but in essence we are both saying the same thing.
Lets say you bought stock in this fictitious highly profitable company for $100 dollars a share (no dividend). Assume its trading at a price to earnings ratio of 1, the stock valuation you describe. (Ok nitpickers, value and profit aren't the same but bare with me for a second.)
If they make the same amount of money next year and the stock trades at the same p/e the value of my stock has not increased, making it a very poor investment. Doesn't matter that they made 100 billion trillion, my stock is still worth the same amount.

Of course companies trade at very high p/e values and there is no way to distill the way the market works into a paragraph, but the is premise true.

Re:Stock Market

[pipingguy]

Everyone expects their horse to be the winner.

Geez, for a second there I thought you wrote, "Everyone expects their house to be the winner."

Not much difference, really, if you compare to the real estate market. Although, I'd submit that the real estate market is a bit more questionable.

Re:Stock Market

[John.P.Jones]

Lets say you bought a stock for $100 a share and the company is making a substantial profit and THUS pays the shareholders a handsome dividend of $50 a share. This is a very good return, the company need not grow but no one will want to sell their stock (paying $50 a share) for less than $2,000 a share because they are making a rate of return that is better than the worth of $2,000 cash.

So in this scenario one could say that the company need not grow in order to increase in stock. But of course how did you procure such a handsome stock for $100 a share? The company must have not been paying a $50 a share dividend if it was trading at $100 a share, thus you were speculating upon purchasing the stock that the company would grow to the point where it would pay $2.50 a share, at which point you would be happy to own that stock because it would be paying you more, but if someone were to offer you more, say $200 a share the only reason you would not sell is that YOU were speculating that in the future the stock would be paying at least $5 a share dividend.

So you see irregardless of the dividend a stock is paying the only fluctuations in cost that motivate trading that stock are speculations about whether that company will do better or worse in the future.

Hence if you own a proffitable company or one you believe will be proffitable without the need for borrowing money at a reduced interest rate (through an IPO) you don't put that company on the stock market, you keep the shares and grow the company without putting it on the stock market, why would you sell a good thing?

Of course money begits money and you need money to make money so that forces owners to IPO and sell off parts of there company and accept a smaller rate of return on their investment to 'play the game' so yes our entire stock market is based on the expectation of growth.

Re:Stock Market

[jgc7]

Its not just about being profitable, stock is all about growth.

Not quite, the stock market is about expectations - specifically, the expected value of all future dividends. Because the stock fell by 30% has less to do with the profitability, but rather a change in the expectation of future profits. A stock could drop drastically if its forecasted growth were revised from 100% to 50%. Conversely, a stock price would rise if the market expectation of growth increased from 2% to 5%.

There are some people who argue that the price of a stock is determined what the masses think they can sell it for in the future. This is known as the "greater fools theory". It is widely dismissed and its practitioners view the stock market as one grand Ponzi scheme. The Amway view of the stock market is held by many, but rarely by the market makers.

Re:Stock Market

[anthony_dipierro]

After all, you don't have to be a growth stock. As you said, the value is in the dividend then.

If the dividend doesn't grow, then you might as well just buy a bond - they're a lot safer because the "dividends" (actually interest payments) are guaranteed as long as the company doesn't go bankrupt. If the profits don't increase, then the dividends won't increase, and stock won't increase.

This is obviously an oversimplification, but for the most part it's true...

Re:Stock Market

[coralsaw]

1. big dividends are in general bad. they tell investors that management does not have a clue about how to go on growing, so they want to get rid of all this (cheap) money they have accumulated in the company.

2. if i owned a profitable company with prospects of growning without external money, i would still go for an IPO. a) because i'd personally like to diversify my risk and not have all my eggs (shares) in one basket. b) because 'time' is of essence and growth is not tightly upper-bounded, so getting my hands on IPO money will help me grow it faster and stomp my competitors. c) because stock liquidity (stock being traded) increases its value (the risk is lower than if not traded). note that one can just IPO a small part of a company shares not necessarily all of it.

3. growth is indeed in the center of the stock market. an IPO has a business plan associated with it, telling potential investors what the company will do with the money they get. the company does not have to continue growing the eg. Poker business, it can eg. grow into adjacent lines of business, or even diversify.

I quit because I found something new...

[NIN1385]

I have lost all urges to play stupid games like Blackjack or Euchre. Now I found CHICKEN SHIT BINGO!!!! It's the most intelligent thing in the world, the chicken shits, I make money. What could be better? Certainly not midget pole vaulting!

Re:I quit because I found something new...

[Darby]

I have lost all urges to play stupid games like Blackjack or Euchre.

Heh. I first heard about euchre when I moved to the midwest.

I thought it was a drinking game.

"Why have you stopped playing?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I never even started. Maybe it was the loud, irritating ads delivered using Macromedia's Flash technology. Maybe it was the irritating TV spots that did basically the same thing. Maybe it was the thought of losing tons of money to a computer program, when I couldn't even do my trademark "I can't bluff worth a damn" bluff.

It's a bad bet from the start

[H_Fisher]

Why have you stopped playing?

I never started - online gambling, that is. I live in North Carolina, where draconian laws prohibit gambling (even private poker games and sports pools - as our newspapers helpfully remind us every time a major sports tournament is upcoming). So I gamble when I travel, because I love to play blackjack and craps. I've won a little bit of money here and there over the years - $50-100 at a time, nothing major, and it's fun because I know how to play sensibly.

However, we do have one casino, of sorts, in NC - on the Cherokee reservation in the western part of the state. But I have never gone there and I never will, for the same reason I will never gamble online.

Because instead of standard table games - with real cards, actual dice, etc. - there are only computers and video-poker style games at Cherokee. And as much as I love technology, I don't trust it for gambling. At. All. There are just too many possibilities to manipulate the outcome.

Granted, anyone can learn to cheat at dealing cards; there are ways to make loaded dice and fixed slot machines (I don't play slots either). But the big, legal brick-and-mortar casinos around the country, with standard table games, have a bigger measure of responsibilty. You can still lose your ass playing there.

But those casinos depend on their reputations to survive; in my experience, if you think there's a problem or an inconsistancy with a game, you can have it addressed immediately and thoroughly.

Try that with a gaming website based on a Pacific island.

Re:It's a bad bet from the start

[wmspringer]

But those casinos depend on their reputations to survive; in my experience, if you think there's a problem or an inconsistancy with a game, you can have it addressed immediately and thoroughly.

That's been my experience with the online casinos as well. (Well, depending on which one - some have great customer support, some terrible...but it's easy to find out which ones have a reputation for being trustworthy)

Because pr0n gambling

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why.

Losing money in a casino is fine

[dreemernj]

But losing it at home is just to depressing to to cope with :-(

Re:Losing money in a casino is fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember:

Two != To != Too

Not enough serious pro players

[tepp]

Because most people play poker for the social aspects. Yes, there are "pro" poker players who play to win, but most guys are just playing it to have fun with their friends, while talking shop over a cold beer, with a bowl of chips and dip at hand, and the wives out of sight for a few hours. The winner walks away with maybe 40$ at the end of the night, but has to host the next poker party... and thus the cycle continues.

Most people don't want to play poker for high stakes - they don't have the money to stay in the very high games, and they don't really want to loose it all in one game. They just want to play for the fun of it, and doing it with little drawn cartoon avatars isn't nearly as entertaining as doing it with your best buds.

Once the novelty wore off, those who actually want to play online poker are very few....

Re:Not enough serious pro players

[angle_slam]

Once the novelty wore off, those who actually want to play online poker are very few....

Very few? Tell that to the 81,977 people on PartyPoker and the 60,096 people on PokerStars. (I checked the sites just now).

I don't gamble

[soft_guy]

I don't like gambling.

I believe in personal freedom. However, I am constantly amazed that our country (USA) has legalized gambling when there are so many other "sins" still illegal that are much less harmful IMHO. (Marijuana, prostitution.)

Re:I don't gamble

[mrobinso]

Pot and hookers are illegal?

Jeez....

mike

Re:I don't gamble

[angle_slam]

Gambling is illegal in 49 of the 50 states (with exceptions for Indian casinos, Atlantic City, and poker rooms in California.)

Re:I don't gamble

[geniusj]

Don't forget "boats" in some states (Mississippi, Indiana, maybe others)

Re:I don't gamble

[Anonymous Coward]

How is playing a game for money a sin? Is playing chess for money a sin? What about sports? Like baseball or football?

Poker is NOT gambling.

I hate stupid, religiously self blinded people.

Re:I don't gamble

[soft_guy]

There are so many exceptions you didn't mention that anyone can pretty much gable anywhere:

Riverboat gambling in Missouri, Illinois, most other states. Lottery (which seems to be right in my face constantly), video poker, etc.

Re:I don't gamble

[AvitarX]

And slot parlors in a few more (Delaware, soon to be Pennsylvania (legal, but not built)).

And horse tracks all over the place.

Re:I don't gamble

[angle_slam]

Riverboat gambling in Missouri, Illinois, most other states.

Most states don't have riverboat gambling. Lottery is not gambling as being discussed in this thread (e.g., it is not poker or typical casino gambling.) Horse racing is allowed in many states, but you can't just start a craps game at a race track. It's a single form of gambling available at a particular place.

Original poster said something like I can't believe gambling is legal in the US. As a general statement, that is false. Aside from Nevada, gambling is illegal, with a few exceptions. That's a far cry from "gambling is legal in the U.S."

Re:I don't gamble

[geniusj]

And bingo, dog tracks and the lottery ;). Add West Virginia to your slots list. I guess I was only counting places with table games. I forgot about all of the slots states :-). There are a lot of strange exceptions everywhere. Reservations, obviously (we have a bunch of them here in Arizona, minutes away from Phoenix and Tucson). But there's also places like Black Hawk and Central City in Colorado. I don't think they're reservations. They are just old mining towns which already had gambling. They were grandfathered in as places that were legal to gamble in in Colorado. Both of these places though, Colorado and Arizona, only seem to allow card games as far as table games go. No craps. Colorado might have roulette, but Arizona doesn't.

Re:I don't gamble

[Darby]

I believe in personal freedom. However, I am constantly amazed that our country (USA) has legalized gambling

I don't believe (although I could be wrong) that the USA has much in the way of gambling laws.
Las Vegas and Reno allow gambling but I don't think most of Nevada does.

Indian casinos are technically (in some ways) not in the USA.

Riverboat casinos are common even where gambling is otherwise illegal.

when there are so many other "sins" still illegal that are much less harmful IMHO. (Marijuana, prostitution.)

Federal marijuana laws are completely wrong, but prostitution is legal in some areas. A few counties in Nevada are the only ones I know of, but there might be others.

It's just one of the funny things about this nation. Personally I'm happy there are these huge differences because if I hate something enough I can still move to a different state. It's a hassle, but far less so than moving to a different country.

Re:I don't gamble

[Babbster]

While live casino-style gambling is illegal throughout most of the US (with the exceptions already mentioned in other responses), it's important to note that there are many communities that have determined poker NOT to be gambling. It's classified more commonly as a game of skill rather than chance.

This seems particularly reasonable when you watch professional poker on television where a relatively small number of players win tournaments over and over again.

Re:I don't gamble

[angle_slam]

I don't believe (although I could be wrong) that the USA has much in the way of gambling laws.

Aside from the fact that, in general, gambling is illegal in 49 of the 50 states, you're right. (Yes, there are exceptions, but the odd bingo game and horse track is a far cry from no gambling laws in the US.

Re:I don't gamble

[Darby]

Fair enough, I was just pointing out that it isn't really a US thing legally speaking.

Re:I don't gamble

[soft_guy]

I consider Lottery to be one of the most obnoxious forms of gambling. Same with dog and horse racing. Same with Indian casinos. Same with floating casinos which you seem to think are not in most states.

I have not ever lived anywhere in the US where I did not feel like there were lots of ads for gamblin - and I have lived in a lot of different places.

The one exception is Oklahoma, but I haven't lived there since the 1980s, so things may have changed there.

Re:I don't gamble

[soft_guy]

but prostitution is legal in some areas. A few counties in Nevada are the only ones I know of, but there might be others.

Prostitution is legal in rural counties in Nevada. So, everywhere in Nevada except Las Vegas and Reno/Sparks/Carson City. In practice it is available in a few places in rural Nevada. That's the only place in the US its legal. There are no other states or territories that have legalized prostitution.

Re:I don't gamble

[angle_slam]

My point was this--the general assertion was made, "gambling is legal in the US." My point, gambling in general is not legal, although there are certain, specific exceptions.

IOW, if gambling was legal in the US, I could place bets for the Super Bowl wherever I wanted. Nope, can't do that. Can only do that in Nevada and Atlantic City. (Most Indian casinos don't do sports betting, don't know about riverboat casinos). Can a restaurant owner just put a craps table in the waiting area? No.

Can you do some forms of gambling in certain restricted areas? Of course, but the fact that you can place one particular type of bet at a dog track or buy a lotto ticket at the grocery store doesn't make gambling "legal" in the US.

As for floating casinos, AFAIK, they are only on the Mississippi River, even then only in 6 states. A far cry from being in "most states" as you assert.

It would be ironic ...

[Tx]

It would be ironic if all the gamblers stopped playing poker so they could bet their poker money on partygaming.com stocks instead :).

Re:It would be ironic ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they all did that at the same time they'd all make money, too.

Poker is more fun...

[RoadWarriorX]

Poker is more fun when you look at the faces of real people playing with real money. The most important part of the game is learning the big tells that your opponents are broadcasting, because they are very profitable. You just can't get that online.

Re:Poker is more fun...

[bnenning]

The most important part of the game is learning the big tells that your opponents are broadcasting

No, it isn't. Tells are occasionally useful but playing a solid game is far more important.

Re:Poker is more fun...

[RoadWarriorX]

Tells are occasionally useful but playing a solid game is far more important.

Well, reading tells and doing the proper response is part of a solid game. Sure, you can have somewhat of a mechanical game by playing "the odds", but the ability to accurately read tells gives a person a distinct advantage. It's the difference between a good player and a dominate player. It's especially true when I play complete strangers. They tend to put up defenses (I call them "barriers"), where they attempt to active hide their flaws or try to act. The key to profitability is knowing when they are for real or when they are bluffing.

Mmmmm... let me think this through....

[Anita Coney]

You want me to turn over my credit card information to an off-shore company that, at best, admits that the odds are in their favor and at worst, will simply take my money... Mmmmmm .... I'm going to have to say "no" to that.

Re:Mmmmm... let me think this through....

[angle_slam]

The article is about Party, a publicly traded company. They never admit the odds are in their favor. In fact, you don't play against the on-line site, they just take a portion of the pot.

I've been playing 2 years

[ctwxman]

I deposited $250 at Pokerstars in August 2003. I play nearly every day. My wife does as well. We don't have a fortune or even a small fortune... but we still have our $250 and a profit. During these two years Pokerstars has made thousands off our playing, but not from us. Our secret is only playing in small sit 'n go tournaments. It is very easy for the casinos to keep track of collusion in these. Because you need money in the bank, it is not easy to quickly change names, so players who play too many of these together stick out like a sore thumb. All the games I've played online have made me a much better player at brick and mortar casinos. I've played tens of thousands of hands at Pokerstars - a lifetime of hands - in two years. When I'm playing live, it's as if I can see through the other player's cards.

Re:I've been playing 2 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, yet another person posting how they don't lose any money playin poker.

Where are the LOSERS?

No Lack of Suckers

[lilmouse]

It's not that there's a lack of suckers, it's that the suckers are already all taken.

It's not a question of losing ppl, it's a question of finding new ppl. Kind of like AOL - they can keep going forever, until the supply of n00bs runs out.

Eventually, they'll figure out how to wire ppl up, and then everyone who gets easily addicted to that sort of thing will die off, and evolution will move on.

--LWM

Re:No Lack of Suckers

[Rirath.com]

If you're going to mention AOL and n00bs, you may want to avoid the use of "ppl".

people. It's three more characters, saving a mere 9 keystrokes out of the nearly 400 you already used to type that post.

Re:No Lack of Suckers

[therodent]

"ppl" is a one finger word --- with "people", you're switching fingers 5 times as a typist.

and this is why it's used.

why people use underscores in their variable naming (this_is_a_varible) is something that gets me riled up though. that damn _ character is way too much to repeat every 5-10 keystrokes.

Re:No Lack of Suckers

[karzan]

But isn't it actually faster to type words that involve multiple fingers than the same finger? If you are touch typing at a reasonable speed (at least say 80-100wpm), then hitting a key 3 times with the same finger is much slower than hitting 3 keys with 3 different fingers, because when one finger is hitting the key, the next finger can be on its way down, so you get 'hit-hit-hit' rather than 'hit-raise-hit-raise-hit'. So a word that uses multiple fingers should be much easier if you're a decent typist.

(we can maybe guess that maybe this means that AOL users have not learned how to type properly)

As for underscores, they're really quite easy to type once you get used to it because you learn where the - key is and hit it just as quickly as any other. You could argue that it would be better to name variables like 'ThisIsAVariable' (Microsoft style), but then you are hitting the same number of keys--still hitting the shift key and another key at the same time--so it doesn't save any time unless you are not accustomed to the finger positioning of the - key (which you will be if you use it often enough).

Re:No Lack of Suckers

[Anonymous Coward]

> But isn't it actually faster to type words that involve multiple fingers than the same finger?

Yes.

Re:No Lack of Suckers

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunno about yours, but my keyboard needs the shift key to type the underscore character.

Re:No Lack of Suckers

[lilmouse]

Besides, if you type 80-100wpm (or at least, if I type 80-100wpm) in emacs, you get to know where Ctrl-_ is *real* quick!

I've always liked 'ppl'; it just kinda rolls off the keys... Besides, it's nice to be able to eat with one hand and type with the other w/o moving one's hand. And yes, I know there are one-handed keyboards out there.

Ok, I'll stop trying to defend a silly abbreviation :) Oh - wait, should I not use AOL smilies as well??

--LWM

Vice of the moment...

[thesandtiger]

A few decades ago it was cocaine. Then cigars. Then SUVs. Now poker.

It's a fad. Fad's decline by definition.

Absurd article

[shawnmchorse]

This whole article is absurd. We're talking about a sharp decline in the stock of ONE online poker company. I work in the online poker industry as a programmer. PartyPoker wasn't even very big as of three years ago, when Paradise Poker was king. PartyPoker got to where they are today through sheer marketing skill. Their software simply wasn't very good, but it didn't matter since they had an incredible marketing department. And once they had enough players, they could play catch-up in the software department. And lets not even start talking about their outsourced customer support reps from India who didn't know the first thing about poker.

Perhaps PartyPoker has just reached the limit of what their marketing can do. Another online poker site can (and probably will) figure out a way to one-up them. PokerStars in particular has been nipping at their heels for awhile now, with superior software and customer service. Believe me, the poker craze has not peaked yet. Online poker fuels growth in casino cardrooms. And vice versa. Keep in mind that just this past July, the World Series of Poker had 5,661 entries (with a $10,000 buy-in each). A year before there were 2,576 entries. A year before that there were 839 entries. It's an explosion of growth, and more companies than just PartyPoker will be involved in it.

More jargon!

[Cyburbia]

Maybe if they called it a "robust online gaming solution," they could attract the Slashdot crowd.

Is accountability partially at fault?

[NeuroManson]

Does anyone know how accountable the online casinos are?

Do they rig their games?

Do they hire people for a comparitively paltry sum to use as photo models for the "See our lucky winners!" pages, so they can drum up new business?

Since so many pay and free casinos make their income by advertising (much of which comes from pay casinos), it's basically turning into another "pay per click" crash and burn.

And of course, there's the user base, which makes it almost impossible to win legitimately, since you're talking millions of players to compete against every day.

Case in point, I've been a member of two free online casinos for almost 6 years. On one, I haven't seen a single prize of any kind, after playing for 6 years. On the other, I won a T-shirt despite being the lowest scorer on their wall of fame (something like 200th place or so).

Hell, in the real world, I won more money out of scratchers, than I've ever seen from any online casino.

I mean really, do these casinos have any credibility?

Re:Is accountability partially at fault?

[EvanTaylor]

I know of 3 people who after going to MIT make over 200k a year playing poker and have retired before the age of 25.  I know 6 other people who go to MIT who pay for housing/food/trips/tuition/etc with their PartyPoker winnings.

Re:Is accountability partially at fault?

[angle_slam]

The free market makes them accountable--if they want to maintain a user base, they don't cheat their players.

Re:Is accountability partially at fault?

[NeuroManson]

Ah, but who, if there is no oversight (inspectors, law enforcement, or licensing), makes sure they aren't actually cheating their players?

Has anyone examined the software they use, to find out if it gives an abnormally high advantage to the casino (even moreso than most real world casinos)?

Re:Is accountability partially at fault?

[Abel29A]

Well, the site I use to get my poker fix, Ladbrokes.com, claim they are regularery auditet by a independent audit firm. I havent bothered to check if this is true but the process is described in detail so I assume it is :)

Re:Is accountability partially at fault?

[angle_slam]

First, we're talking about poker. Since the players don't actually compete against the house, there's no such thing as an abnormally high advantage. Second, the big sites are all audited by independent firms.

I don't play at all because

[v3lut]

to me, online gambling is like the dealer saying "I'm totally thinking of a number between 1 and 10. Give me five bucks, you're wrong."

Thanks, but I like to see the cards.

Re:I don't play at all because

[BCW2]

That's the reason I never played either. If I'm in Vegas I will try the slots and spend some time at the Blackjack table and normally loose some, why play against an imaginary opponent?

Re:I don't play at all because

[angle_slam]

Slots are controlled by a computer generating random numbers. What's the difference between that and on-line poker?

Re:I don't play at all because

[BCW2]

Gambling at a casino is regulated by the state it is in. There is no regulation of on-linf gambling. Therefore I consider it all rigged and a scam.

For 30 years I have always won at real slots, yes every time I play I come out ahead. I don't know why but it always works. Then of course I give it back at the Blackjack table. I have never beat any form of computer game that resembled gambling. Plain enough?

People would rather get ripped off in person

[WillAffleckUW]

There's real cute girls, instead of fake ones, then.

There's lots of inexpensive alcohol.

You can pretend it's luck instead of electrons.

There's lots of art on the walls and bands from way back when - or stage shows.

And besides, my Konami stock depends on people gambling in person ... that or taking karate lessons ...

Fairness?

[MBCook]

I don't gamble online, but I know there is one thing I'd question: what laws are there to keep online gambling fair? As other posters have pointed out, there are plenty of pokerbots to make things less fun. As far as I know there are no laws (and no enforcement if they exist) to prevent online gambling companies from cheating you outright. That slot machine? The code is rigged against you (far more than a "fair" slot machine, this one actively makes sure you never win big, but win at intervals that encourage you to continue). The poker table? The "dealer" could purposely tilt the odds (again, more than they should be) to make it harder to get even so much as a pair. For all you know, the other guys at the table who get good hands are plants who's hands are occasionally rigged to be good.

It's the wild west. Anything goes. And there for, so will your money if you try. A combination of that and market saturation is probably blame. Free poker (where you don't bet real money) will probably continue to grow. But online casinos? They've probably peaked.

82% Revanue Growth

[Rhett]

Party Poker just posted 82% revanue growth, and over 100% revanue growth in their poker devision (they also do online slots, etc.) in their latest earnings report. They merely meantioned that their growth can't continue to double every few months forever as it has been doing. PartyPoker is the best in the business, and they aren't going to fizzle out any time soon. And there will be no shortage of players unless people are forced to stop.

"Why have you stopped playing?"

[switcha]

Duh. I ran out of money.

Re:Why is this a troll?!!!

[vertinox]

Because I'm not innumerate?

Why is this a troll?

He is saying that "Because I am not unfamiliar with mathematical concepts and methods?" Thats a reasonable saying in the context of being familiar with gambling (btw the game with the highest chance of winning is craps if you ever studied that)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=innumerat e

2 entries found for innumerate.
innumerate Audio pronunciation of "innumerate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-nmr-t, -ny-)
adj.
        Unfamiliar with mathematical concepts and methods.
n.
        A person who is unfamiliar with mathematical concepts and methods.

Two words, bots and spam

[Karellen !-P]

Last month, my photoblog has received about 5000 comment and referral spam from that industry. I don't even read Wil Weaton anymore because he keeps reminding me of those morons.

Stopped playing? When did I start?

[Ssolstice]

I don't have enough money to gamble online. I'm too busy buying computer toys...

Because...

[Greyfox]

I can go to a nearby casino, buy in to a tournament for $30 or $40 and play for long enough to get comped for some food and drink and meet some hot poker babes. Or I can go to a free bar tournament within a few miles from my house almsot any night of the week, play some cards, have a beer and meet some hot poker babes. There are some good looking women playing this game! And unlike the Internet, most of them won't turn out to have a penis!

I could see possibly playing a $5 tournament or two online on a down night, but for the most part I'd really rather go hang out with real human beings. And as an added bonus, when you play an offline tournament you don't have to deal with the prepubescent dweebies that seem to hang out on the online poker rooms.

Re:Because...

[horza]

There are some good looking women playing this game! And unlike the Internet, most of them won't turn out to have a penis!

Shame you didn't go far enough to find out. On the other hand it may be just as well...

And as an added bonus, when you play an offline tournament you don't have to deal with the prepubescent dweebies that seem to hang out on the online poker rooms.

With all due respect, you may be in xanadu playing poker naked with supermodels but many of us are busy working professionals that take snatches of online poker (often at antisocial hours) as one of the pleasures in life. Eg instead of trekking down the video rental store for some hollywood crap. I live in France where all poker is illegal and no games may be held at all. Even in the casinos (including Monaco) Texas Hold-Em is illegal. No matter what Google Maps tell you, the world is larger than the USA.

Phillip.

Re:Because...

[Eudaemonic Pie]

Grefox -- Prepubescent dweebies are the speed bumps on the way to a good tournament win. With any luck, you can taunt them with their incredibly bad play and take all their chips when you have a hand. I'm always dissapointed when someone beats me to busting out a prepubescent dweebie! They are almost like free rebuys. :-) :-) I envy your implied closeness to a casino; the closest one for me is 2.5 hours away. Since my poker playing stints rarely exceed 1.5 hours, the commute alone would eat all my play time. One would assume lots of players are online for the same reason.

Re:Because...

[Greyfox]

Well being in France you should have no problem finding good looking women. As an IT professional most of my usual haunts are sasauge farms! Try meeting a woman in a LUG meeting sometime -- ain't gonna happen! The closest you ever get is the booth babes at the expos, and since the dot-com bust, expos are awfully hard to come by!

Don't get me wrong, the stiff competition on the online poker circuit is great practise. Even the $5 competitions are tougher than I'm used to seeing in the live games I play. Even if I might be up against an army of bots, I do appreciate the challenge. And it is nice to have the option of not having to put on pants to play poker. I just try to avoid playing the tables where the players have the option of seating themselves.

Lack of broader product

[datajorgen]

I believe a big problem is that the gambling sites are just not offering enough. Sure they give you gambling, the main action, but usually there's not much more. There ususally way too many types of games and almost nothing of interest apart from the actual gambling action. I like poker but am not at all interersted in blackjack, bingo, horsebetting or most of the other things the sites are offering. Also I often feel abused and misstreated by the gambling sites. All I get is the poker table. If you look at most hobbies or sports the related sites offer plenty in the form of community features, tools, tips, news and insights. This is not the case with poker. I call for an online gambling site with a clear focus and a broad delivery. Well I've started a community with some nifty features but I have no plans of starting yet another gambling site. I like to talk about it, learn more and have some fun outsite the tables as well. http://www.prosharks.com/

referer spam

[Anonymous Coward]

Any industry that spends as much effort spamming my referer logs (which aren't there for google to find and give them my pagerank as they hope) as these online-poker sites do is doomed from the start.

Maybe the suckers realized....

[slashname3]

Maybe the masses realized that if you sit down at a poker game and you don't see a sucker, you are the sucker.

Of course this is difficult to do with computer poker but then I guess this can be modified to:

If you join a computer poker game and you are not a bot, then you are the human that is about to lose really bad.

I don't trust online gambling

[geniusj]

When I gamble, I at least want the odds to be what I expect (still in favor of the house, of course). It's the same reason I don't play slots. A blackjack table is a blackjack table. They don't have control over what cards they're going to pull. The only thing they really have control over is the rules of that particular game and how many decks they're using. Same goes for craps and all of the other table games. I like true randomness. Gambling that's run by a computer is as random, or not random as they want it to be. This is, of course, why slots can give such huge payouts all at once compared with table games.

That is one of my reasons. My other main reason is the environment. I like the casino environment. Gambling at home is like drinking alone, it's not nearly as fun.

I love gambling

[pyrrho]

but unless they can email me free drinks, fuck 'em.

That's the only way I break even.

Not on the downturn yet

[angle_slam]

While it's obvious that poker is just a fad, it's way too early to say that poker has peaked. In fact the only evidence that poker has peaked is the fact that the stock of Party went down.

But what about the fact that Party often has over 70,000 players online at once? What about the fact that the World Series of Poker had over 5600 entrants, over 2 times the number of entrants the year before. How about the fact that Pokerstars is currently running the World Championship of Online Poker, and getting 3000+ entrants into a tourney with a $215 buyin. Or 2300 entrants in a $215 tourney held on a Wednesday afternoon (Eastern time). Or that each of the events so far has doubled (or nearly so) the number of "guaranteed entrants."

Bring back the 5i221e

[xactuary]

Here's my idea: Texas Hold 'Em where an online dating site seats virtual tables, and where the players wear nothing but Ralph Lauren Polo and hula-hoop while using CB radios to make bids and use pet rocks for money.

Drawing from a very finite resource

[tightpoker]

I think what a lot of people don't realize is the monetary effect of playing in a game where the house takes a portion of the cut (known as "the rake" in poker).

In poker, everytime someone wins the hand and collects the pot, the house takes their share of the rake from the pot and the winner often doesn't even notice, since they are now a pile of chips richer. However, when you start putting the numbers together of the average pot, number of hands per game and average buy-in per player, you realize something rather disconcerning: the house rake busts one person at the table per hour. Over a ten hour span, this means that the entire table should theoretically be busted out.

What happens of course, is that the skilled players usually walk away with a fraction of the non-skilled player and the house cleans up the rest by virtue of being there. The downfall is thus that the non-skilled players (aka "suckers") will and eventually do get tired of putting money back into a system where they constantly lose.

The truth is that poker is a recreational pasttime not unlike most other there, such as video games. And like video games, there are those players who are hardcore and live to play (this becomes literal in poker) and those who play for fun. Some people just don't have the effort, time or I dare say, the mental capacity to excel in competetive games. But unlike counter-strike, where you can still have fun being mediocre, you lose money when you're mediocre in poker.

Two cents from a winning poker player of many years, anyways.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

It also said "bite my shiny, metal ass" a lot, too.

math

[Sir Holo]

Why have you stopped playing?

I took a math class.

Re:math

[bnenning]

I took a math class.

So did this guy. As many others pointed out, you really can win at poker because you're not playing against the house, but against other players.

there are other games out there people

[Anonymous Coward]

i wouldnt focus on online poker too much. there are online gambling sites that do well and offer a multitude of games other than poker including slots, bingo, keno, the list goes on. heres one i play on all the time - http://www.mapaubingo.com/

Great!

[squidsoup]

Does this mean less "PLAY POKER ONLINE NOW!" trackback spam on my weblog?

funny story

[ScooterBill]

Back a few years ago when my wife was "between" jobs, I gave her $50 so she could begin her new career in online gambling. We had a laugh about it and I imagined that within an hour it would be gone. Well, she lost it all, then used my credit card to shore up her account, then made it all back, then lost it, eventually to make it all back. She quit this a few days later with a grand total of about $200 in winnings. I told her I'd be surprised if they let her quit that easily. Sure enough, they paid up and I heaved a great sigh of relief. Of course this must be totally against the odds especially when I'd watch her win a big hand, do a little victory dance and then announce that she was "almost" back to even...

Happiness

[mongrol]

I've stopped playing (well I never started) because I'm generally happy. Only unhappy people gamble.

Why Have you stopped playing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who Said I ever started playing???

The answer is obvious

[Sleestack]

They're all off playing World of Warcraft! Blizzard is killing the gaming industry!

Re:The answer is obvious

[Hassman]

I know this is suppose to be a joke...but it is true for me.

I haven't played any other computer games since this came out. Not even Half Life 2... This one game has single handedly held my attention for almost a year now, and there is no end in sight.

Re: Online Gambling Running Out of Steam

[OBx2]

Thank fuck.

Normal fluctuations

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just normal, there are ups and downs in anything. There are so many poker rooms now that the market is somewhat more diluted. Many of these will close up shop before too long. But poker isn't just a passing fad, at least not anytime real soon -- when the economy goes down, vice goes up. Poker will continue to increase in popularity as long as the economy keeps tanking.

The fallout from Katrina alone should keep Poker going strong for years to come.

I didnt start playing..

[stickyc]

Because I refuse to support all the poker spam.

Really Only a Question of When

[Anonymous Coward]

When online poker really got going in 1999 or so, my poker buddies and I played in a frenzy for the first few months. This was because we figured it couldn't last for more than a short time. But it just kept growing and growing, who would have guessed?

But it's always just been a matter of time before the pool of losers begins to taper out. With the crazy amount of poker shows with the accompanying poker advertising, it's likely that almost everyone who was predisposed to playing poker online has had a chance to do so.

There's always going to be online poker for the foreseeable future. There's presently always more than 100,000 players online at any given moment. Even if it winnows out to 10,000 or so, that's still a big poker economy.

I suspect that the coming decline will drive some of the marginal sites out of business as players start to coalesce at only a few popular ones.

Nothing to see here, move along.

it's the adware...

[Anonymous Coward]

Party poker.net's adware is natorious for both a. automatically updating over the internet, and b. having pathetic protection against suspicious hackers taking over said 'automatic update' process to replace key system dlls with trojans.

They have not done anything about the security problem, so anti-virus software as well as adware recognizes and removes party poker.nets malware and thus people can't use 'party games' software anymore.

I've told my relative countless times 'but you have to stop reinstalling this one program that keeps messing up your computer' but he keeps reinstalling party poker software no matter how many times I have to restore windows a 'pre' infected state.

total dumbass. a hacker knows his ip block and keeps scanning for the party poker update port and keeps on rezombifying him... luser..

poop is good for you

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats right fuckers!

this shit is soooo good ist's not eve true!

fundamentally stupid

[v1]

Most forms of entertainment involve paying money for a service or a product which provides distraction for awhile.

Gambling bypasses the concept of service and product, and just takes your money and leaves you with nothing. For as unproductive as most entertainment is, gambling sets a new kind of standard for "no return on investment".

One of my more favorite sayings, somewhat related... "Lottery: it's a tax for people who are bad at math." I suppose you could sub "gambling" for "lottery" and it still works fine.

Re:fundamentally stupid

[silverbax]

Maybe...

"Gambling: Because You Don't Need Your Money"

or

"Gambling: Get Nothing For Something"

3 thoughts from a winning player...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. When the economy goes up, gambling goes down.
   I played a lot of poker -- online and live -- as my career as an underemployed programmer floundered. Now that my career is back on track in a big way I am playing less poker.
2. Follow the fish.
   PartyPoker used great marketing to attract newbies. Winning players flock after newbies and PartyPoker soared. However good players also mastered the art of playing multiple tables at once. With pros and semi-pros playing 4 or even more tables at once, the competition is much harder for those who "move up" from the lower stakes.
   Meanwhile other sites have much worse software and don't allow players to play multiple tables. They also link to online casinos attracting novice players who like to gamble. 888 has used this formula and that formula has been a winner for me. $500 a quarter has been my winning rate for 10 quarters at that site. PartyPoker has been much less rewarding for me since I am not even up to the standards of play of the semi-pros.
3. Tournaments are super popular.
   This is the form of the game featured on TV. In a tournament, almost everyone loses, but the top winners make a lot of money compared to their buyin. The problem is that this dries up money from losing players pretty quickly. Furthermore, if you win big, you won't necessarily play more either and so excess winnings get removed from "poker circulation".
   It happened for me just this week. I finally made the table at a large guaranteed purse tournament and won a bunch. $5,000 of my winnings immediately exited the poker site and will not go back as my remaining online bankroll is more than adequate for future dabbling.

Having said all this, I still respect the marketing arm of the PartyPoker guys (even though their software and service are pretty rank) and I would not be suprised to see them get back on the growth path. There are many large international markets yet to be cracked!

Its just a bubble, surely?

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

A Reuters report from yesterday suggested a valuation for Partygaming (after the slide) of "about the size of Scottish and Newcastle":

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/news/newswire.php/news/re uters/2005/09/07/business/bruisedpartygamingsettoe nterftse100.html&template=/money/feeds/story_templ ate.html

S&N's a big company, active not just in the UK - anywhere there you go you can see their brands and products. I can't imagine that anything like that amount of money is going into online casinos in the long, or even the short, term.

Am I missing something here - do people really spend as much on poker as on beer?

Well, to be honest

[markass530]

Nothing serious, but I had to quit because, 8 months ago after 2 weeks of meth fueled all night gambling binges on various online gambling sites, my bank account is emptied, I was broke and in debt beyond reason, and In two months I leave for army resrves bootcamp, hopefully getting deployed to iraq because getting deployed and clearing the tax free paycheck for 12 months is the only way I'll fix the craphole I dug myself.

Re:Well, to be honest

[markass530]

Error correction 2 months = 2 weeks

Just like real life

[piznut]

When I moved to Reno 6 years ago from Seattle (dont ask), gambling seemed like a fun and novel way to blow some extra cash.

In real life I think that part of the appeal of gambling is that it can't be done everywhere.

After a couple weeks, the novelty wore off. I don't think this is exactly rocket surgery. You could probably survey residents in any given town where gambling is legal and find that most of them don't really gamble very often. Those that do, in my experience are usually suffering from some sort of gambling addiction.

When you make everyone's hometown a 'virtual gambling town' you shouldnt be surprised to see the same sort thing, addicts stay and everyone else gets over it.

Instead I have been ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to go to online g@mbling p0ker but now I spend far more time using \/iagra and c1@l1s to eXtend my m3mb3r, and getting 5uper-l0w rates on my m0rtg@ge ref1n@nce!~!!~~!!~~

Why do you ask?

not to be an ass, but...

[Trailer Trash]

some of us were smart enough to never start playing. I see people get hacks so that they can "win" warcraft (back in the wc2 days) and counterstrike, how much more when money's involved?

Texas hold 'm

[baomike]

Calling that poker is like calling a hotdog a gourmet meal.

"Why have you stopped playing?"

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Hmmm.... Maybe Because It's A Total Waste Of Time And Money???

Yeah - I think that's why.

RS

I stopped playing...

[Anonymous Coward]

After I netted a bit over $1k in a session. After that, I figured I had nowhere else to go but down.

Stock relates to what?

[herk]

I've been making a killing at online poker for about 14 months now. Most of my time is spent at Party affiliates, probably about 85%. There continue to be more people online playing just as poorly as at any time in the last year. Bots are not a problem, collusion is not a problem, online poker sites cheating you is not a problem. Frankly these fear mongering threads are frustrating for us because if anything is interfering with this industry, it's dumbasses spreading around propeganda about how online poker is rigged, legions of bots await you to take your every last dime, and everyone else is a cheater.

(a) Poker sites are not out to cheat you. They're making a fortune by raking every pot, why jeopardize it by cheating as well? Why are focused and dedicated players able to beat the game consistently?

(b) Poker bots are not a problem. There are no known profitable bots, winholdem is a joke, and it's best success stories are almost surely less effective than a good human player. If there are massively successful bots out there, nobody knows about them. Poker remains a game of incomplete information which involves a great deal of finesse and instinct. Coding this into a bot is NOT trivial, and while I don't doubt that it would be possible to write one to post mild profits at the lowest limits, it won't pose a threat to a reasonably competant player. A bot will not know what you hold, will be just as easy to fool or extract money from as people, perhaps even more so once you can isolate and understand it's behavior. Bots are the last thing on my mind at the table.

(c) Collusion is a problem, but it's ridiculusly easy to detect. Groups of people constantly signing on together, playing the same tables, leaving together, that's just a start. You can only do that for a very short time. Then tack on even simplistic collusion detection to find trends of raises that are simply to build up pots, odd behavior outside of that players normal reaction in that situation, even a computer science undergrad could code relatively effective detection for this. Poker sites have every reason to try and protect their players from this, and they do, see point (a). Collusion certainly does take place, most likely in the higher limits where it's more worthwhile, but it's going to be extremely difficult to pull off for any sustained amount of time. I've seen poker sites effort to prevent it first hand, collusion is NOT something I worry about.

Why Party's stock is down I have no idea. Does this necessarily correlate to their profits? Their attendance? Their new signups? The games certainly aren't drying up, that much I can vouch for.

Why I stopped playing.

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to play quite a bit on UltimateBet and PartyPoker, but I stopped for three big reasons:

1. The potential presence of poker bots. Although may be beatable in the short term and are more likely to fold early than pay to see your very strong hands, in the long term, and with a large percentage of them, they will be a constant drain on the aggregate chip count; more so that the majority of human players (that's the idea, yes?)
2. Legal reasons. It's actually illegal to play online poker on many sites if you are a US citizen if they are offshore and not licensed by the government (like "Indian" casinos are).
3. Lack of moderately-sized tournaments. Most small buy-in tournaments are either 10-player, 1-table jerkoffs, or, at the other extreme, massive multi-table tournaments with hundreds of players. The big tournaments can take 4 hours to finish. The small ones will only get you a few bucks if you place.

STFU about petrol

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK its just hit $6.95 a gallon. So, quit your whinging you slag.

So, its mostly tax. It doesn't make it any cheaper you whinging f""£8$ yank.

Re:STFU about petrol

[Anonymous Coward]

People in the US need to drive longer distances than people in the UK, as do people in Canada.

So shut the fuck up, Eurofag.

Re:STFU about petrol

[spauldo]

My college is 15 miles (or 24km, if you prefer) away. Next semester I'll drive to the state university, 40 miles (64km) away. My girlfriend lives 50 miles (80km) away. I've got family in Arkansas - I don't know the distance, but it takes five hours to drive there.

I'm in farm country. This county has less than 50,000 people in it. This state has about three and a half million people spread across 181,047 square kilometers. The U.K. has 244,820 square kilometers - Oklahoma is over half the size of the U.K. You've got public transport; I've got a truck - there's no way public transport is feasible with the population density here. It's driving or walking, and I sure as hell ain't walkin'.

Also remember all the goods you buy have to be shipped. What happens to the price of goods when the price of transport goes up? What about wages? What about services? What are your heating bills going to look like this winter?

So go wait in line at the bus stop or train station and STFU yourself. A lot of us over here don't have a choice on buying gas.

Re:STFU about petrol

[LordFnord]

I drive between 500 and 700 miles each week, visiting clients to do PC and network support. It takes around the same time for me get to my family in Somerset as it does for you to get to Arkansas, and although I'm impressed by your faith in our public transport system I can promise you it's a lot cheaper and easier (as well as marginally quicker) for me to drive rather than get the train.

It's driving or walking, and I sure as hell ain't walkin'.

Well, you could get a Segway :-)

Seriously, I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to drive. But even if gas prices in the US double you'd still be cheaper than just about everywhere else, plus there's suddenly a serious incentive for people to buy more eco-friendly vehicles (and manufacturers to develop better ones).

So go wait in line at the bus stop or train station and STFU yourself. A lot of us over here don't have a choice on buying gas.

It's not just those in the US that don't have a choice - and BTW if you want to drive into London or on certain roads there are additional charges, just as there have been on French autoroutes for years.

Pfft. Doesn't really matter though. In forty or fifty years, when all the oil runs out, you *really* won't have a choice.

Article's conclusion is incorrect.

[schwah]

I've been playing online poker professionally for around 2 years now. I've worked my bankroll to the point where I can play and beat the biggest games offered. I spend about half my waking hours playing poker or involved in the poker scene, so I feel like I'm speaking with some authority here.

Online poker is growing faster than ever. While party gaming's stock has taken a recent hit, that does not at all reflect the growth of the entire industry. Sites such as Pokerstars, Bodog poker, and Full Tilt Poker have all doubled or tripled their average traffic over the past six months. Party poker is continuing to grow, though not at the same speed it once was. This is mostly due to better marketing from their competitors such as Pokerstars, and the fact that Party poker is offering an inferior product.

Online poker will eventually reach it's peak and start to decline. But it's not there yet. And in my opinion, it won't be for a few more years at the very least.

I find all the comments about poker bots and widespread collusion laughable. Collusion may exist in the lower limits, but rarely goes for long without detection. I'm confident that it's somewhere between extremely rare and nonexistant in the big games, because frankly, if it weren't, there is no way I would be able to make anywhere near as much money as I do. It is easy to blame losses on a "rigged site" or "cheaters", but the fact is online poker is a secure, fair, game. And I, as well as several of my friends, have made a ton of money at it. All without poker bots :)

Re:Article's conclusion is incorrect.

[Arcanix]

Yeah, you're right. The slowdown in growth for Party is not due to an overall slump in the industry, it's because competitors are advertising more and offering superior products. I started playing professionally on Empire/Party a couple years ago and now I rarely play on those sites not only due to the game selection but also because the other sites have vastly superior software.

The whole thing about people freaking out over bots is laughable. I cannot even imagine how high the edge would be against a bot once you figure out it's betting patterns, it certainly has to be easier than doing the same for a human. Like you, I've won a significant amount of money at the higher limit games and I have never used any collusion or cheating. I get the impression that those who are consistent losers would rather blame a conspiracy than acknowledge their own poor play.

I have no money.

[neo]

Since I quit my job and started playing poker full time. I thought for sure I had what it took to beat the average bot or low level player, but I came to realize that I chase flushes and straight draws, over-value suited connectors, miscalculate pot-odds, and always over bet big pairs.

But I'm still a pro player. I used to just be a consultant.

gambling? psha!

[goldberry]

Duh, I don't have funds to waste on silly internet gambling! I've found something much more effective at draining away all of my money. It looks sort of like a slot machine, and the more money you put in, the less product it seems to give back, thus provoking an endless cycle of money spending and product not-getting. That's right friends, I'm talking about the gas pump! With such great money drains on every corner, who would bother going all the way to the internet to waste their money?

Real One-Armed Bandits

[Anonymous Coward]

I think people are too busy dealing with One-Armed Bandits owned by Shell, Exxon, BP, 76, etc...

Bots are an easy excuse

[grahamsz]

It's far easier to blame bots for your failure than admit that you suck.

Unless the bots have multiple players colluding at one table then they shouldn't really do well against a decent human player.

I'm Of Scotch-Irish Descent

[aquatone282]

I'm too f*cking cheap to gamble.

Hell, I won't even pay for a golf cart when the heat index is 107F.

Parent is spot on.

[tshak]

It constantly amazes me how quick people are to post theories about why they think online poker is on the down. None of these people have obviously spent much more time than reading the headline to come up with these "+5 insightful" theories. As the parent poster correctly points out, the only thing slowing down is Party Poker's growth, not online poker in general. The poker craze is so big, dozens of sites, many endorsed by big named professionals, have entered the market. The market has become more competitive, and Party Poker is not the only trusted name in town anymore.

Are you kidding me?

[ErikZ]

It's *gambling*! It's almost like the lotto, which is a tax on people who can't do math.

I already have an addictive personality. It only took me one hour in a gambling joint, where I lost all my money, to realize that I should never do it again.

Gambling is for people with too much money and no imagination.

and here I thought Valve was going to...

[ShaggusMacHaggis]

introduce poker to Steam (featuring HDR technology of course)

Bollocks

[tshak]

The big money in online poker isn't from reading a book and playing off of statistics charts and pot odds. It's not in learning to read into your counterparts bets. It's in cheating.


There are extremely successful players who make great livings online without cheating. Those who cheat usually need a decent size team who's very good at what they do. A couple hole cards doesn't help your odds much, while half dealt cards does. Your type of sophisticated cheating is very uncommon and very detectable. The two college students in their dorm sharing hole cards is hardly worth worrying about. Their edge is so small and they probably don't even know what to do with the extra bit of information.

PartyPoker hasn't been sending out deposit bonuses

[darkbuns]

I know why I have stopped playing.... PartyPoker used to send out these really great deposit bonuses that were a real incentive to play. They were often 20% up to $500 dollars (for a $100 bonus). I made $2000 in the last 8 months, a significant part of which came from the bonuses. Helps to take the edge off the rake...

Why I stopped...

[piecewise]

I played about a month ago... Turned $200 into $15 into $500. So I was happy. It was fun. The problem? Although it was mighty quick to deposit and give them money, it took 20 days to GET my money. I had to confirm my account, send a photo ID, call them and verify via phone, and then wait a 5 day "penalty period" (read: try to get you to keep playing), and then 3 days for the actual transfer and another day to clear. Give me a break. It's just not worth it. Consumers value liquidity -- especially if times get tough or if you're in a rush to contribute to the Red Cross. I used vegasred, by the way..

Missing The Point: Follow The Money

[PingXao]

Or rather, the lack of it. The U.S. passed a law last year that prohibits credit card companies from extending credit to Americans for online gambling purposes. All the other reasons do have some validity to be sure, but when you follow the money you can easily see how the flow has dried up. It used to be very easy to open an account and deposit a hundred or two and start playing.

Now you have to jump through all kinds of hoops to get your money in and out. Personally I don't think it's any of the government's business. It's interesting to me that when the allegedly "conservative" Republican party comes to power, in favor of smaller less-intrusive government, that the most draconians intrusions into our privacy has taken place. Oh, the Democrats aren't saints either, but at least they're out in the open about it. The Republicans are sneaky hypocrites and that makes them worse in my eyes.

In the Future

[smokeslikeapoet]

<warhol>
In the future fads will last for 15 minutes
</warhol>

888 / Casino-On-Net

[Morgon]

I used to play CasinoOnNet until I lost my money due to some obvious win-catching code.

I was steadily making my way, after depositing a good $200, to about the $750 mark.. I'd win a couple hands, lose a couple hands.. it was all fairly even.
Once I hit $750, I lost every single solitary hand until I had about $50 left. (And I wasn't making large bets, either, pretty much the same type all along)

Then they'd have update emails they'd send every month, and have a completely obvious trivia question about one of their special events that month - answer it correctly and they randomly give you between $5 and $100.. well, out of the 5 I've ever gotten, they were all $5, and it turns out those bastards put transaction fees and timeout fees on these things.

I didn't use my account for 5 months, and three of the 5 bonuses I collected 'expired', then the remaining $10 got 'charged' for other inactivity.. making my $25 worth of bonuses worth $7.50.

Of course, emails to their support (which I did when the odds went (artificially) and astronomically sour), were met with basically "f you, pay me" attitudes, hidden behind fancy form letters.

I told them if $20 was worth losing a customer who may have very well spent money there again, then that's their issue.

There's definitely a reason why the initials spell CoN.

DO NOT use their service.

Wil Weaton and Poker alienation

[miller60]

Wil Weaton figured out that a lot of his long-time readers feel the same way about his poker posts, and recently moved all his poker blogging to CardSquad, the Weblogs Inc. poker blog.

And yes, the poker comment spam is out of control. It's all driven by botnets. My blogs periodically get hit by these crapfloods, and you see the exact same comment or trackback sent to 25 posts from 20 different IP addresses in a couple minutes. Not hard to figure out ... just a pain to defend and clean up.

If you've got money and time to gamble

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

I've got an OSS project that needs funds and programmers.

More Money for PokerBlogs!

[miller60]

When an affiliate-driven industry begins to experience slower growth, it usually responds by spending more money on marketing to acquire new customers ... which might in turn boost the affiliate payouts for the eleventy million poker blogs running Party Poker ads. It's not a slump, it's just a redistribution of wealth from shareholders to bloggers!

Why have I stopped? Hell, I never started!

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife and I work hard to earn our paycheques. I'm not about to throw it all away on a game of chance on the Internet. Our accounts could be cracked and emptied, the games could be rigged...there's no WAY I'm going to take that risk.

I don't get the whole gambling thing. I've been to too many casinos where row after row of people sit, dropping their money into slot machines, one quarter or nickle at a time, over and over and over, each time hoping that this is the time the machine will pay out. They sit there, vacant and soulless, automatons, enslaved by the promise of a huge payout. A payout which is statistically improbable and which would probably only just recoup the player's losses.

Count me right the hell out of that.

gambling spam

[batray]

Is that why I get over 10000 attempts a day to post gambling spam on my bbs?

online casino vs online poker

[Anonymous Coward]

* The big flaw of online poker :

Poker takes a percentage on transactions from one guy winning to another guys loosing.. which makes poker revenue very slow and slight, so poker are very sensitive to charge back (credit card fraud) -> very tight security and no privacy for players.. got to have their ID, credit card photocopy faxed, home phone number etc.

* The big advantage of online casino :

Casinos take money from people.. which makes online casinos revenue bigger - less sensitive to chargeback -> makes casino easier to get in, less privacy invasion.

Well here id more bet into 888 than partygaming (both being based in gibraltar by the way), (by the way which makes them having companies in the european union -> easier to find partners due to the particular european "Gambelli law" - nearly legit )

What?!

[Nephroth]

Why would I engage in something so probabilistically against me as gambling?

All I have to say is ......

[glitch23]

awwwww. I don't feel for anyone involved in this. People need to learn to keep their money instead of wasting it because they think they can hit it big. But it gives so much money back to the state...yeah, at the cost of people who don't have the self control to keep their money. Gambling should not be an excuse to rake in money for the state in place of real taxes.

Honest question

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't gambling online illegal?

few winners?

[phriedom]

The only study I ever saw on poker winning said that 80% of the players in a brick&mortar card room lose, while 70% of the online players lose. And no, I'm not going to go find it for you, it was about a year ago that I saw it.

So at least 30% of the players who think they are winners are not deluding themselves. And I expect that some of the losers know they are losers.

Why have you stopped playing?

[baylanger]

Cuz I never started!

STEAM?????

[Anonymous Coward]

Because after what Valve did with Half Life 2, I have vowed NEVER, EVER to use Steam...

Aw gosh, mod me up, at least it's funny.

Team Mode

[shani]

Interesting. Experience tells us that eventually someone will develop the strategy of cheating against the other team mode players, thereby gaining even more of an advantage.

Ultimately the "team mode" question should be an unavoidable part of on-line playing. Do I collude with other players? If I do, how honest should I be?

Re:Team Mode

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to eliminate the "team advantage" (that exists in all multiplayer games of any kind), you should simply stick to two-player games, aka heads-up poker.

BILL FILLMAFF!

[The Bringer]

Obviously the recent decline in poker on the internet is entirely to do with Bill Fillmaff. He made 4 MILLION dollars playing POKER on the INTERNET. http://www.billfillmaff.com/

Re:Why is this a troll?!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

the game with the highest chance of beating the house is craps.

If you are a good poker player, the odds are better in the long run than then near 50/50 split craps gives you.

And its a troll because it's implying that you'd have to be an innumerate to start playing, which is a very trollish (and ignorant) thing to say.

Full report by Deutsche Bank can be found here

[pbnx]

http://www.pbnx.com/docs/PartyGamingSep05report.pd f

hopefully this continues

[rabbot]

I hope this is a sign that the fad is fading. The next step will to hopefully see a decline in amateurs playing in the World Series of Poker. Just because anyone can enter it if they have the cash doesn't mean they should.

Because Golden Palace ...

[RoverDaddy]

has run out of useless crap to pay wads of cash for. We need another miracle grilled-cheese sandwich to get the gaming public interested again.

Did I Stop?

[Mark Gillespie]

Did I ever start, more like. Online gambling is for mugs. Would your really trust the results not to be fixed?

Social Gaming

[fdiskne1]

I play PokerStars for play money for reasons others have stated. Too easy to cheat etc. I won't play for real money online. Period. I play for fun and practice. The reason I don't play as much is that many of the people who play online are just complete idiots. Now, a bad player I can deal with. What I'm talking about are the ones who trash-talk, criticize, bitch about other peoples' playing, spout out cheap personal attacks, go all-in every hand, sit out most of a tournament and crap like that. I play for fun and if it's not fun, I won't play.

It's just not as fun

[skrowl]

I quit playing online poker because it's just not as fun. I was playing nickle/dime blind no limit tables (but you could only sit with a max of $10) on UltimateBet after I had gotten bored of PartyPoker and it hit me. This just wasn't any fun!

I'm not in it for the money, because I don't have the kind of money you have to be willing to risk in order to win the big money. Unless you DO have that kind of money, play home games with your friends.... don't both with the goring grind of online poker.

In a recent Class...

[haplo21112]

...In a recent programming skills update class the instructor who works on both Vegas and Online gaming programming as much as admitted that the programs are purposely written to give the House a better than average advantage in the Odds.
Or example in his inplimentation of Video poker the odds of pulling a royal stright flush are about 1,000,000,000 to 1.

Can't Beat A Good Bot

[thelizman]

I think this was covered previously on Slashdot, but...bots. Gamblings is actually not really a game of chance, but a game of statistical probabilities. Really smart people have figuredout fool-proof strategies which allow you to take advantage of the house by reaping upside benefits and avoiding downsides. Casinos are wise to these strategies, but online players cannot tell if they are playing against a human who is legitimately playing, a human who is using a computer algorithm to assist them, or a bot playing while the player is watching Firefly. The upside for the house is no longer there, and as they adjust odds to retain their advantage, normal players no longer have an incentive to play.

Meteoric rise?

[MoeDrippins]

> dreamchaser writes "After a meteoric rise,...

I dunno about you, but the only meteors I've seen fall, not rise...

Re:Maybe it's just this company - YOU ARE WRONG!.

[Anonymous Coward]

im fed up of people thinking that online poker isnt real/is rigged.

firstly your argument is flawed on two counts.

a) in cash/ring NL games you make the most money from when other people make mistakes and you have a strong hand or the nut. (eg when someone tries to steal a pot, or when someone overplay their second or third nut hand)

b) you WANT people to play badly. bad play doesnt win chips in the long run. ok, for variance to be an non-issue it takes circa 10k hands - which with the amount of online players your unlikely to get against one opponent. BUT if the standard of play is generally poor YOU should be making money. playing good poker is adapting to your opposition.

a general strategy for a weak shorthanded table: you should be calling for 1 Small Bet (SB) lots of hands with good EV in multi way pots such as mid suited connectors. You should be overbetting your strong hands AA, KK, AKs AK - they probably wont be the most profitable hands in this game anyway. Also you should play a more passive style when drawing to hands rather than semi bluffing cos these dumbasses dont fold...

i do well online and well in the local tournaments (pot limit and no limit. (top 15 virtually everytime and place 1/3 of the time).

Does anyone here lose?

[MooseTick]

As far as I can tell, everyone that posts here wins nearly everytime they plan. Most say they could will $50000+ if they made it their full time job.

Actually, rarely do I ever hear of anyone going to a casino and losing. It must be great for those nice casinos to let nearly everyone win. I guess they make up the losses in volume.

Drop in stock price != fewer people playing

[AugstWest]

Come on people, stock performance often has NOTHING to do with the actual performance of a product. Growth gcould be exponential, and stock prices can drop through the floor, especially right now, with stockholders being extremely skittish.

to many cheats

[littledreamer]

stopped playing for tokens - when you realize the other 4 bodies on the table are IM each other on who has the best hand. Then divying up the pot amongst them selves after bleeding you dry. To easy to cheat with on-line poker tables

And just to put a number on it...

[tacokill]

Exxon made about $9billion PROFIT last quarter. And by quarter, I mean 90 days.

Yes, it is an unbelievable amount of money. Staggering, in fact.

Its obviously full of bots...

[Anonymous Coward]

I decided to look into this with some empirical testing during my lunch hour. Betting the max and raising repeatedly on a pair of 3's I quickly found myself broke.

Obviously, pokerstars.com is full of bot's capable of manipulating the odd's against my normally superior poker skillz.

After a meteoric rise

[Anonymous Coward]

"After a meteoric rise"

Which direction do meteors go?

Mixed Metaphor

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the real OT question is: Why do people keep using this metaphor incorrectly?

Altogether now: A meteor does not rise, it falls.

Grrr. [/rant]