It's true that the current poker boom has opened up opportunities in
the game that haven't existed for twenty years: the current
consensus is that the overall level of expertise is as low as it was
when the game of hold 'em was first introduced. The thing is, this
does NOT mean that the middling "wise guy" players can now reenter
the cardrooms and slaughter and pillage, nor does it mean that they
can simply dominate tournaments and walk away with the top prize
time after time. Why not?
1. The game of choice seems to be Hold Em. Now, this is the worst
poker game ever devised since Seven-Card-No-Peeky. The fact that
there are only 91 possible hands means that even a moron can tell
when he's got an unbeatable hand; there are very few surprises
(contrast with seven card stud where a board of 258J of four
different suits could still be a four of a kind). Therefore the
advantage the good player has over the bozo is less. If I raise Mr.
Dimbulb, and he calls, and I have KK and he has 82 suited, he will
KNOW if his hand is good simply by staring at the board. Now, this
is not so true in No Limit, but after a few scorchings, the newbies
have learned to stay away from that game (except in tournament
mode), because they really really WANT to play that J9 suited, but
don't want to call a $50 raise to do so.
2. Tournaments are still structured in extremely "top-heavy"
fashion: the vast majority of the money goes to the top three places
in most tournaments (or, if you will, to the top 1% of finishers).
The considerable accomplishment of, say, making it to the final two
tables in a 500-player event may be rewarded by getting your entry
fee back (if you're lucky). Yet, at the WSOP, the many, many, poker
cockroaches who had come out of the woodwork to play were constantly
crowing about all the "dead money" in the tournaments. They didn't
understand that a)Even a dumdum can beat you in the short term. All
that you can hope for in a (hold 'em) tournament is to eventually
get your money in with the best of it, and to survive that
encounter. The edges you hope to have are in the order of 7-5, 2-1,
3-2 for the most part. Far from overwhelming. To win a tournament
you must be CONTINUALLY surviving these encounters. And what's to
prevent DumDum, who you don't respect, from being dealt 66 and
peeling away 3/4 of your chips when you are dealt AA and a 6 comes
on the flop? b)In reality, touraments are so luck-dependent that the
hypothetical increased equity from the participation of the bad
players means that if you normally would expect to finish in the top
50, now you could expect a top 40 finish. Not good enough. As an
example, look at the list of people who didn't survive the first day
at this year's WSOP final event. The list reads like a "Who's Who"
poker hall of fame---and it includes the winner of last year's event.
3. The same ol' boring considerations of bankroll, choosing your
game wisely, psychological issues (handling fluctuations), keeping
oneself in good mental and physical trim, not letting fatigue or
substance abuse be a factor, etc. etc. unfortunately still apply.
There's a substrata of "hardcores" in Vegas--I'd estimate about
50,000 people---who lurk on the fringes looking for advantage plays.
Because of temperament, or other considerations, they are not ABOUT
to enter the mainstream (like, getting a job). But they have to eat--
so they are now trolling the cardrooms. They even have a uniform of
sorts: 1. Baseball cap with dumb slogan 2. Sunglasses (preferably
mirrored 3. Loose clothing 4. Tape/CD player and earphones 5. Heavy
little charm or other object to put on their cards 6. They slouch in
their chairs with a terminally bored expression 7. They tip the
dealer 50 cents when they drag a pot--NOT $1.
It's 1997-VP-land in the poker world now, with the added fuel of
both serious and silly poker TV all over the cable channels (Paris
Hilton: "Oooh, look!! I have two Kings--and they're BOTH THE SAME
SUIT!!!") But as in 1997 VP World, there are a LOT of pitfalls out
there, and having a small advantage doesn't mean you're going to win.
3.