Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Entertainment Games

Online Gambling Running Out of Steam 347

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the fewer-suckers-to-rob-at-the-tables dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Online Gambling Running Out of Steam More

Online Gambling Running Out of Steam

Comments Filter:

  • Lack of Suckers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:54PM (#13503962) Homepage Journal
    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?
    • Funny thing is, Exxon Mobil just published their biggest profit EVER. High prices is, mostly, just speculation.

    • Re:Lack of Suckers (Score:5, Interesting)

      by GPLDAN ( 732269 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @05:13PM (#13504137)
      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 [wired.com] in their expose.

      • Re:Lack of Suckers (Score:5, Interesting)

        by TexVex ( 669445 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @05:37PM (#13504299)
        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 (Score:3, Insightful)

          by hurfy ( 735314 )
          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

        • 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

    • No Lack of Suckers (Score:2, Insightful)

      by lilmouse ( 310335 )
      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 (Score:4, Funny)

        by Rirath.com ( 807148 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @06:59PM (#13504851)
        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:Lack of Suckers (Score:4, Insightful)

      by covertbadger ( 513774 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @05:26PM (#13504236)
      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/ [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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Pulzar ( 81031 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:11PM (#13505624)
        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 (Score:4, Insightful)

          by covertbadger ( 513774 ) on Thursday September 08, 2005 @01:34AM (#13506991)
          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.

             

  • For starters (Score:4, Funny)

    by bigwavejas ( 678602 ) * on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:55PM (#13503973) Journal
    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... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Nerd Systems ( 912027 ) * <ben&nerdsystems,com> on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:55PM (#13503974) Homepage
    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...

    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gbulmash ( 688770 ) * <semi_famous&yahoo,com> on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:55PM (#13503975) Homepage Journal
    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.

    • Hey. I like Curling. :)
    • They both have pop-ups. But they aren't continuous and it's both just a single pop-up when you start the program.
    • 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

    • Re:Maybe it's just this company (Score:4, Informative)

      by dubiousmike ( 558126 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @06:56PM (#13504827) Homepage Journal
      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.
      • 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
      • 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

    • Parent is spot on. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tshak ( 173364 )
      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 compet

  • Because gambling is ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by waynegoode ( 758645 ) * on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:55PM (#13503976) Homepage
    Perhaps people finally realized that gambling is a tax on greed and poor math skills.
    • Perhaps people finally realized that gambling is a tax on greed and poor math skills.
      Ha! Never.
    • your faith in people is misplaced.

      they just don't have any money left, and bots are taking the rest
  • Why have you stopped playing?

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

  • Why have I stopped playing? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 14erCleaner ( 745600 ) <FourteenerCleaner@yahoo.com> on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:55PM (#13503983) Homepage Journal
    Um...because I never started?

    Because I'm not innumerate?

    • Um...because I never started?

      I think you mean: mu [jargon.net] :)

    • 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 [reference.com]

      2 entries found for innumerate.
      innumerate Audio pronunciation of "innumerate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-nmr-t, -ny-)
      adj.
      Unfamiliar with
  • 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.
  • the title says it all.

  • One Reason (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tktk ( 540564 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:57PM (#13504007)
    Why have you stopped playing?

    Maybe because the regular players have gone broke?

  • I never started playing. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by faedle ( 114018 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:58PM (#13504014) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • 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.
    • 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.

  • I Only Gamble Inside Casinos (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GecKo213 ( 890491 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:58PM (#13504019) Homepage

    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.

    • 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.
    • 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...
      • 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

  • Gambling down? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:59PM (#13504024)
    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.
    • 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 on
    • 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
      • 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

    • Re:Gambling down? (Score:3, Informative)

      by krunk4ever ( 856261 )
      yep, with programs such as WinHoldem [winholdem.net], it makes cheating a lot easier!

      it even has a link for Detection Avoidance [winholdem.net] advice.

      from this article: [wired.com], one poker bot feature is Team Mode: Flick on Team mode and you can collude with other humans running WinHoldEm at the table.
  • 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.
  • The lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.

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

    -Sean (OutdoorDB [outdoordb.org] - The Outdoor Wiki

  • SPYWARE (Score:4, Informative)

    by paradizelost ( 689394 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @05:00PM (#13504035) Homepage
    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.
  • 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 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by horza ( 87255 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @10:19PM (#13506047) Homepage
      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? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dshaw858 ( 828072 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @05:02PM (#13504058) Homepage Journal
    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

  • Trust, Trend and Truth (Score:5, Interesting)

    by curtisk ( 191737 ) * on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @05:02PM (#13504061) Homepage Journal
    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.

    • ...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.
  • It's almost like a dupe [slashdot.org]. 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... (Score:5, Funny)

    by craXORjack ( 726120 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @05:04PM (#13504076)
    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.

  • Who stopped playing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by UM_Maverick ( 16890 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @05:05PM (#13504083) Homepage
    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.

  • Stock Market (Score:5, Informative)

    by theNote ( 319197 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @05:09PM (#13504105)
    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.

    • 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 nu

      • Re:Stock Market (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Detritus ( 11846 )
        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

  • It's a bad bet from the start (Score:3, Insightful)

    by H_Fisher ( 808597 ) <[h_v_fisher] [at] [yahoo.com]> on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @05:09PM (#13504119)

    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.

  • Not enough serious pro players (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tepp ( 131345 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @05:12PM (#13504135)
    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....
  • 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.)

  • It would be ironic ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Tx ( 96709 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @05:15PM (#13504153) Journal
    It would be ironic if all the gamblers stopped playing poker so they could bet their poker money on partygaming.com stocks instead :).
  • 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.
  • 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.

  • I've been playing 2 years (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ctwxman ( 589366 ) <me@@@geofffox...com> on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @05:21PM (#13504193) Homepage
    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.
  • A few decades ago it was cocaine. Then cigars. Then SUVs. Now poker.

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

  • 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 talki
  • 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 encourag

  • 82% Revanue Growth (Score:2, Informative)

    by Rhett ( 141440 )
    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?" (Score:3, Funny)

    by switcha ( 551514 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @05:40PM (#13504333)
    Duh. I ran out of money.

  • Two words, bots and spam (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Karellen !-P ( 717831 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @05:42PM (#13504348) Homepage
    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.
    • 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.

  • Because... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @05:47PM (#13504377) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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+

  • Why I stopped... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by piecewise ( 169377 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @08:58PM (#13505553) Journal
    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..

  • Drop in stock price != fewer people playing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AugstWest ( 79042 ) on Thursday September 08, 2005 @09:08AM (#13509011)
    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Close