poker or slots ?

mikepipe

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Location
still progressing
I am not sure, but i got the impression that the poker boom is squeezing other gambling activities out of the market- or will at least reduce their turnover.
maybe a poll were a good idea?
To speak for myself: I reduced slotting by nearly 50%, after i started playing poker.
(my first exciting tournament experience was the CM event at 32 red).
Its much more fun, it has less risk to loose big money (at my beginners level)

On the other hand, it is quite different, so that slots or roulette or keno... are hardly touched by poker players.
maybe it is in a competitive market with BJ only?
 

tencardcharlie

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Location
The playboy mansion.
OT: Man your reputation points go perfectly with that avatar.

My guess is that poker brings more people inte other games, than it takes away. I would guess that many of the regular online gamblers would never have started gambling online if it wasn't for the poker boom.

I think you're right that most poker players who play other casino games stick to card games.
 

Simmo!

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
Joined
May 29, 2004
Location
England
I've started to play a bit of poker but I get bored easily playing it at home. I don't play it on my PC much at all as a result, but I've taken to playing on my mobile phone when I'm out and about (and can get a signal!). Just low stakes though.
 

Chatmaster

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Location
South Africa
Fortunately the player profiles are different between casino games and poker games. I love playing craps and roulette as it has a certain attraction, but not for longer than 30mins. However Poker to me is a skill game where the chalange is more to find the fish and to tap them dry. I do not like slots as it is boring to me. However I know that the excitement of free spins etc. attracts other people.

So in summary. Poker and the publicity it has world wide probably caused a growth for both industries. Alot of people that started playing poker has moved over to casino games and vice versa. So I think that poker if any had a positive influence on casinos.
 

KasinoKing

WebMeister & Slotaholic..
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
MM
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Location
Bexhill on sea, England
So in summary. Poker and the publicity it has world wide probably caused a growth for both industries. A lot of people that started playing poker has moved over to casino games and vice versa. So I think that poker if any had a positive influence on casinos.
Totally agree with that! :thumbsup:

My personal opinion (which could well be wrong) is that Poker is more addictive & dangerous than playing casinos, and also much harder to profit from long-term.
When I started playing it I lost $1000's. These days I only play for 'fun' at very low stakes.

Slots have been much more profitable for me, but can equally grind you down.
Best way to have fun & keep interested is switch between lots of game types.
 

winbig

Keep winning this amount.
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Location
Pennsylvania
I've decreased my casino play by at least 85% once I started playing serious poker. I found out that I can make more money at the tables compared to BJ/Slots ;)

I know playing poker is still "gambling", but at least with poker, you're not playing against the house (as long as you're not getting ripped off from the rake) - That, plus the fact that it's more skill than luck, you can't go wrong.....Don't get me wrong though, luck definitely plays a part in your results, but not really a high % compared to playing against the house.
 

mikepipe

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Location
still progressing
OT: Man your reputation points go perfectly with that avatar.

My guess is that poker brings more people inte other games, than it takes away. I would guess that many of the regular online gamblers would never have started gambling online if it wasn't for the poker boom.

I think you're right that most poker players who play other casino games stick to card games.

thanks, yes. but: i dont get thanks from the blue muppet anymore.
dont know, if not deserved, or not earned:) :) :eek:
 

mikepipe

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Location
still progressing
only btw: is the jetset33, whom i threw out of a tournament at 32red, our jetset?
if so: sorry!
your chat was not active, i think...? (if it were you)
 

lojo

Banned User - repetitive violations of <a href="ht
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Location
USA
I lost my ass at poker. Did the slots, built up, found the bj table 100! did some roulette, played my luck out, felt free, 21 bullet proof, and couldn't pull the pot when I moved to the room. Luck/skill be dangled I was out of my league. I'm no good at poker when the luck runs out.

Play poker or play slots. it realy doesn't matter. Quit when you are ahead )
 

EasyRhino

Dormant account
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Location
San Diego
There's sort of a continuum of complexity and beatability. Poker is probably up at the top, in that it can be profitable if you're good enough. Blackjack straddles the middle (slightly beatable if card counting, slightly unbeatable if not). Other table games are generally simpler, but have larger house edges. And slots are the least complex, and usually have the largest house edge.

KK, the only reason slots are profitable for you is because of bonuses, right?

Poker seems fun to play, but I'm completely outclassed. Kind of like when I try to play chess. Plus, I actually prefer sticking it to the man rather than winning from other players.
 

lojo

Banned User - repetitive violations of <a href="ht
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Location
USA
Girls play slots men count things. Grandmaster? What is the difference between a perfect poker game and a lucky slot? :notworthy There has to be some historical data; volitility aside.

I'll go for the lucky slot, cuz i suck at pocker :D smart as I think I am
 
Last edited:

REOdeathwagon

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Location
arizona
Poker falls in the catergory of a beatable game in the long term. The only games that can be beat in the long run are games where your decisions matter. Poker, blackjack (if counting, therefore not beatable online, without bonuses), some video poker, and sports, are the only games that can be beat over the long term.

mikepipe said:
On the other hand, it is quite different, so that slots or roulette or keno... are hardly touched by poker players.

Poker players like to get their money in with the best of it. Not possible in slots, roulette or keno.

Chatmaster said:
So in summary. Poker and the publicity it has world wide probably caused a growth for both industries. Alot of people that started playing poker has moved over to casino games and vice versa. So I think that poker if any had a positive influence on casinos.

After playing poker in my adolescence in home poker games, and B&M when I turned 21. I got into online casino gambling through online poker originally (well before the boom). After establishing first that I would get paid, if I won, by the online poker rooms.

EasyRhino said:
KK, the only reason slots are profitable for you is because of bonuses, right?

Playing with a bonus, in a game with a built in house advantage, can give you the best of it. Your decisions now matter. And in theory these games may now be beatable in the long term.

BTW, ninety percent or more of all poker players are net losers.
 

whooosh

Dormant account
Joined
May 25, 2006
Location
stuttgart
i've never been a big gambler in online casinos. but since i've started to play poker, i almost quit playing bj and slots. for me, poker means the same fun with less money (i play 5ct/10ct tables). and i like to see my play getting better with the time - that's something slots don't offer :)
 

REOdeathwagon

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Location
arizona
Mr. Humphrey contends that poker does not fit the definition of a skill game because for each individual session or over a short period of time (months to a year) skill does not predominate over luck. He does add that in the long-run, skill might predominate over luck. He fails, however, to grasp the complete issue. If a skilled player knows his poker-hand has an 85% chance of beating his opponents hand, he would like to bet as much as possible. This is an extremely favorable situation for that player. Nonetheless, 15% of the time, this player will lose the hand and his money. Several of these unlucky hands for the skilled player could happen in succession, making him a loser in the game for a day, a month, possibly even up to a year. But, if the skilled player continues to put his money in the pot as an 85% favorite, or just a favorite in general, over time, mathematics dictates that he cannot walk away from the game a loser.

There is an abundance of literature discussing how, in the long-run, skill dominates luck at the poker table. In fact, California has already recognized poker as a game of skill, allowing casinos devoted solely to poker while games of chance remain illegal.
....
 

lojo

Banned User - repetitive violations of <a href="ht
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Location
USA
I don't suck that bad at poker, I just lose all my money in the end. Ego, nothing but ego. I want it all, every time. easy enough to walk away from a wheel or a machine, but mano a mano I don't know when to quit.
 

winbig

Keep winning this amount.
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Location
Pennsylvania
BTW, ninety percent or more of all poker players are net losers.


You're exactly right. In the first 2 years I started playing, I lost quite a bit of money (to me it was) - which is around $2-3k. I'm only now getting to the break even point a year afterwards.


Like I tell the fish online - It's one thing to get the chips, but a totally different ballgame to keep them. When I lose a large pot to a 1 or 2 outer, I suck it up and tell them nh, but in the back of my mind I'm telling myself "It's just a loan" - which it usually is, and my interest rates are quite high :D

Don't get me wrong - The only time I'll berate a bad player is when they suck out and win a large pot against me and get a big head and start spouting off about it.

For myself, I like to be the best at everything I do; so I set high standards for poker. I'm not out to prove to anyone that I'm good, I'm out to prove to myself that I am....if that makes any sense at all :p
 

mikepipe

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Location
still progressing
You're exactly right. In the first 2 years I started playing, I lost quite a bit of money (to me it was) - which is around $2-3k. I'm only now getting to the break even point a year afterwards.


Like I tell the fish online - It's one thing to get the chips, but a totally different ballgame to keep them. When I lose a large pot to a 1 or 2 outer, I suck it up and tell them nh, but in the back of my mind I'm telling myself "It's just a loan" - which it usually is, and my interest rates are quite high :D

For myself, I like to be the best at everything I do; so I set high standards for poker. I'm not out to prove to anyone that I'm good, I'm out to prove to myself that I am....if that makes any sense at all :p

it s the only thing that makes sense at all. :thumbsup:
 

gerilege

Meister Member
PABrogue
PABnorogue
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Location
Hungary
I had been playing poker for two years before I switched to casinos last year. I make slightly less by casinos (btw not by slots), but I can manage my limited spare time better.

Suppose you have only maximum 10 hours a week to play. If you play poker, you have to join waiting lists, occasionally change your table, wait for the big blind, etc. After that you cant just simply sit out from a good poker table, because you have something else to do, because the conditions are good, and you have already invested a lot of time. If you play blackjack, you sit down, play, and quit when you want.

Another point is that it is relatively easy to teach somebody (girlfriend in my case) to play basic strategy blackjack or video poker, and you can play together and enjoy the winnings. It would be much harder to teach her playing good poker, and shes only interested in my play when I play a big no limit tournament. I understand that; watching me multitabling fix limit games is boring. For all the above reasons I mostly play casino games nowadays.

But Im seriously thinking about buying another computer and ordering another DSL spot, so while I play poker, she can play casino games.
 

happygobrokey

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Location
canada
poker is way cheaper entertainment. in two years i've deposited ~150 bucks into poker rooms, and in the last 9 months probably 6000-8000 in deposits to casinos. of course, i've been able to withdraw at least what i put in at most casinos, but never made a withdrawal from a poker client. i suppose i might one day if i final table at a big tourney or something, but mostly i just reinvest the winnings and keep playing.

poker gives you more control over your destiny, and likewise your opponent is actively trying to outwit you, which makes it quite exciting, even at low stakes. however, i'd rather stick the casino for a couple hundred than i would want to win everyone's $10 buy in. plus i aren't that good anyway. when i can't afford to gamble, or i'm waiting for next month to begin, i play poker. a low buy in at a 1- or 2-table sit'n'go can give you up to an hour of play if you don't just go maniac, and a buy in to a multi table tourney can last you all day if you manage to make it deep.

i would agree poker players tend towards casino games involving cards, but only slots and dice really don't use cards, and many table games are based on poker, as well as obviously vp.

and we are forgetting one huge aspect of gaming: betting on (sports) events. i've only ever done the mansion steelers bet, and casually bet with friends and family on hockey or football, but a lot of people bet sports online and it is a largely untapped bonus market.

anyway i've nothing relevant to add... so ciaosen
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top