Poker Stars

[adobee]

With the no limit tables.. Is there a limit to the amount of chips you can take to the table ?

ie if i rock up with a million chips can i keep taking someone all in or can you only take 200 chips to the table at once ?

 

[Largesse]

yes there is a max buy in for each table

 

[Wysiwyg]

I am thinking about joining poker stars.. any advise any one can give a novice.. anything to be aware off ?

anyone making any money on this ?

any restrictions for australians ?

Don't go there! The program I downloaded worked for about 2 months and then my computer screen started to freeze. I.e. could not operate my computer. I had to reboot to get normal function and then any internet site opened would freeze the computer again. I had to re-install the operating system and chose to write over (erase) everything on the hard disk. I was not 100% sure it was the poker stars program until I downloaded it again and the same thing happened. Frozen screen. This time I removed the poker stars program and problem solved. I wish I had done that the first time.
Matter of fact I could have saved hundreds by not going there at all.

 

[Mr J]

Adobee, check out the 2+2 poker forum.

 

[adobee]

Don't go there! The program I downloaded worked for about 2 months and then my computer screen started to freeze. I.e. could not operate my computer. I had to reboot to get normal function and then any internet site opened would freeze the computer again. I had to re-install the operating system and chose to write over (erase) everything on the hard disk. I was not 100% sure it was the poker stars program until I downloaded it again and the same thing happened. Frozen screen. This time I removed the poker stars program and problem solved. I wish I had done that the first time.
Matter of fact I could have saved hundreds by not going there at all.

aside from the hardware problems anything else ?
this cant be happening to 110,000 users .. will set up seperate computer at home for use.. will only have poker and itunes..

 

[adobee]

Adobee, check out the 2+2 poker forum.

cant find it ?? where am i looking on ASF ?

 

[Wysiwyg]

aside from the hardware problems anything else ?
this cant be happening to 110,000 users .. will set up seperate computer at home for use.. will only have poker and itunes..

Yes. Start with small buy-in games. After awhile when you get a feel for how often you lose you can work out how to win more often. The improbability factor is all powerful and the improbable might just work in your favour.

 

[Pivotonian]

cant find it ?? where am i looking on ASF ?

Its not on ASF:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/

Probably the best known poker forum in the world, and starting point for many, many world class players. Well worth a look if you're keen to learn more about online poker (especially the digests).

If you're a complete novice, my advice would be to play the play money tables for a while to get a hang of the game, and how its played online, while you educate yourself by reading forums such as 2+2. Then when you're comfortable with play money, deposit a small amount and play the lowest limit tables, and work your way up. FYI, I started with $50 playing 2NL (thats no limit hold'em cash games with .01/.02 blinds and $5 buy-in), and am now playing 100NL (.50/1 blinds and $100 buy-in).

By the way, I've installed the PokerStars software on 4 different computers over the past year and a half, including a Mac, and have never had any problems with it. Works a treat.

And on restrictions for Aussies, there is no problem on virtually any sites, despite the fact that it is actually illegal to offer online poker to Australian residents. Its only illegal for the site though, not the user, so overseas-based companies such as PokerStars simply ignore it and there's no issue. However, we can't play on Betfair or Centrebet because they have Australian licences that would be endangered if they allowed us to play, and one network (Merge) actually has its HQ in Brisbane so they don't allow Australians to play on most of their sites. Other than that though, there are literally dozens of sites to choose from.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Probably the best known poker forum in the world, and starting point for many, many world class players. Well worth a look if you're keen to learn more about online poker (especially the digests).

How many make it do you think? 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 roughly? I bet there are 100's upon 1000's that do their dough and a few that make it from them.

 

[Mr J]

How many make it do you think? 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 roughly? I bet there are 100's upon 1000's that do their dough and a few that make it from them.

It's no harder than trading, at least until you get to higher limits. In fact, I'd say it is easier than trading because good players move up. At lower limits, even a player with basic skills will be profitable. You can make a 6 figure income on medium limits. Well at least we could back in '05, but it may have become tougher with increased competition. I haven't experienced a gambling market better than trading though. Poker beats it only when it comes to start up capital.

 

[Pivotonian]

How many make it do you think? 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 roughly? I bet there are 100's upon 1000's that do their dough and a few that make it from them.

Depends what you mean by "make it". If you mean make a living from poker, then yes, the vast majority never make it. But thats OK, nearly all of them either just play for fun and/or don't risk a problematic amount. The losses they incur are "entertainment expenses" or just normal hobby costs. Pretty much all hobbies - gardening, golf, stamp collecting, whatever - cost money, but you pay it because you enjoy doing it.

By the way, many "pros" haven't really "made it" imo - they play an enormous number of hands at a breakeven or even slightly negative winrate, and live off the rakeback. I would have thought there's only a very few who actually make a really good living out of it. I have no idea of the proportion, but its not high.

 

[Mr J]

By the way, many "pros" haven't really "made it" imo - they play an enormous number of hands at a breakeven or even slightly negative winrate, and live off the rakeback. I would have thought there's only a very few who actually make a really good living out of it. I have no idea of the proportion, but its not high.

Perhaps for limit, but when I was playing there were at least as many people playing NL and sngs. The people who played these certainly did not live off rakeback, it was just a bonus. As for proportion, it's misleading. Most people do not seriously try to profit, which is why when I was playing online poker was so profitable. A lot of the losers are also very casual, so it's not a fair comparison to something like trading, where the aim of everyone is to profit.

The question is what proportion of traders who attempt to become skillful, end up making a living? I would think it's reasonable. More than trading, if only because of poker's table limit system (protects the less skillful players from good players, unlike in the markets).

 

[Pivotonian]

Perhaps for limit, but when I was playing there were at least as many people playing NL and sngs. The people who played these certainly did not live off rakeback, it was just a bonus.

Its also true for NL and sngs.

As for proportion, it's misleading. Most people do not seriously try to profit, which is why when I was playing online poker was so profitable. A lot of the losers are also very casual, so it's not a fair comparison to something like trading, where the aim of everyone is to profit.

Fully agree. As I said above, its entertainment for a lot of people.

The question is what proportion of traders who attempt to become skillful, end up making a living? I would think it's reasonable. More than trading, if only because of poker's table limit system (protects the less skillful players from good players, unlike in the markets).

A fundamental difference between poker and trading is that poker is a negative sum game - for every dollar you win other people have to lose more than a dollar. And because people tend to give up more quickly when they're losing than when they're winning, you need A LOT more losers than winners to keep the poker economy alive, which keeps the "proportion" inherently low.

Also worth bearing in mind is that the standard of play has increased a lot at the lower levels in the past couple of years. There's way more information available on the internets than there used to be, and so many people are taking it more seriously because they've heard the stories about Tom Dwan, Phil Galfond, Aaron Jones, Brian Townsend, Cole South, Dusty Schmidt and all these other "internet phenoms" and think they could do it too. So the proportion of serious players to fun players has dropped and you have to be able to beat the serious players to beat 50NL these days, whereas people who have been around a long time tell me that in the past you could get to 400NL+ before that happened. That also means that although there's more serious players, more of them are losing players, and winrates for winning players tend to be lower than in the past because their edge is smaller.

 

[Mr J]

Its also true for NL and sngs.

Perhaps it is now, but it wasn't at the time.

A fundamental difference between poker and trading is that poker is a negative sum game - for every dollar you win other people have to lose more than a dollar.

More, due to rake. This isn't a difference with trading though; rather than other players, we have other traders; rather than rake, we have commissions and spread.

And because people tend to give up more quickly when they're losing than when they're winning, you need A LOT more losers than winners to keep the poker economy alive, which keeps the "proportion" inherently low.

The turnover may be high, but again, I think the correct comparison should be between those who seriously try to profit, and those who succeed. It's not a good comparison to simply compare % of pros in poker to % of pros in trading, because the primary motivation of one is entertainment, and the other is profit. The market structure of poker allows for at least as many predators as trading, if not more.

Also worth bearing in mind is that the standard of play has increased a lot at the lower levels in the past couple of years. There's way more information available on the internets than there used to be

I'm aware of this. I was playing poker from late '04 to early '06, which were golden years by comaprison (they certainly were for Sit and Gos). There was a hell of a lot of dead money in poker, and I can't imagine that has changed. The table limits also act as natural protection. There can't be much argument about information, as it was extremely widespread when I was playing. The only difference is that more people are paying attention to it (the fish started to catch on to folding equity in SNGs, for example).

I change my mind about poker. My view on comparing difficulty isn't going to be helpful, because I think it's all easy. Comparing poker and trading would be comparing two different points at the same extremity of a scale. I can see that poker requires far more effort though, requiring constant analysis and decision, while trading can do so at a much more relaxed and flexible pace if desired. I also think it would be easier to make a good living trading, because the equivalent to low-limit robotic play scales nicely in trading.

 

[adobee]

When you are at a table can you leave at anytime.. ie if you have a great had all in can you take your winnings or do you stay at table to there is one winner ?

 

[Pivotonian]

When you are at a table can you leave at anytime.. ie if you have a great had all in can you take your winnings or do you stay at table to there is one winner ?

Thats the key difference between cash games and tournaments - with cash games you can sit in at any time and leave at any time, and effectively "cash in" your chips when you leave. With tournaments however the chips at the table are worthless outside the tournament, and you only get paid based on your finishing position.

Thats why I pay cash games - I virtually never have the several hours it takes to play a multi-table tournament in one sitting, and there's nothing more frustrating than working your way into a great chip position and then having to leave.

 

[Pivotonian]

Mr J - I agree with most of what you say, but not all.

I would love to get into a long debate about the nature of poker and the state of the "poker economy", but don't have the time; suffice it to say that since early 2006 some things have changed and some haven't. Poker today is certainly beatable (at least to a certain level) if you apply yourself, and there are still very large numbers of poor players and/or entertainment players especially at the lower limits.

One thing that has changed in the last few years is that limit hold'em is almost non-existent now. The VAST majority play NLHE, either tournaments or cash games. And the new game on the block is Pot Limit Omaha - thats what all the cool kids are playing.

 

[Mr J]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not more competitive than when I played. Conditions even changed noticeably during my 12-15 months of online poker, so I can only expect that the overall level of skill is higher. I might appear to understate difficult in poker and trading, but that's just my personal view. If I can do it, I tend to view it as easy.

 

[cuttlefish]

I am thinking about joining poker stars.. any advise any one can give a novice.. anything to be aware off ?

Coming home at night plastered and firing up multiple tournaments at once doesn't do wonders for your game statistics or account balance ... particularly if you have a tendency to fall asleep on the sofa half way through.

 

[Pivotonian]

With the whole stunningly stupid internet filtering debate coming back into the news, I remembered that the original list of banned sites included Poker Stars and several other online poker sites. Because of course online poker is pretty much the same as child pr0n

Looked to me like a backdoor way of trying to enforce the almost as ridiculous online gambling legislation against the large international providers.

Does anyone know if it is still proposed to ban Poker Stars?