PokerPlayer asks are the high stakes cash games sustainable?
YES
Neil Channing – High stakes live cash player
If anything the big live games that I play in are getting bigger and more regular. A few years ago the big game in the Vic casino had £5/£10 blinds – now we regularly have a £25/£50 game with an uncapped buy-in, which is a really big game. Whereas poker was a sudden boom in America it’s been more of a slow-burner in the UK and Europe, and is still growing. When you think how big London is and how many wealthy people there are, there are relatively few games so there’s still plenty of room for growth.
Of course, all big poker games rely on rich players – some recreational – to come and play, so you could argue that they’re not sustainable, or at least vulnerable. However, while individuals may come and go, there are always people with money that want to play. I’ve always seen it as part of my job to encourage people to come and play and make sure they have a good time, whether they end up winning or not. Unless you look after your punters you can’t expect them to come back.
The situation online is a bit different and unless things change maybe the games there are more vulnerable. The main problem is the culture of the younger players who abuse poorer players and make it obvious who the losing player in the game is. Why would a wealthy casual player want to play in that environment?
NO
Brian Townsend – Online cash game phenom
The problem is twofold really. The very high stakes games tend to be built around rich, recreational players, and because the stakes have got so high, especially online, there are only a few of these guys around. If they disappear, the games disappear. Data mining – and the sites that record the action at high stakes – also threaten the games because it’s very obvious and public who the big losers are. The reason losing players play poker is that the game lets them win enough to feel like they’re not losers – but the hard facts will get in the way of that false impression!
There isn’t too much action at high stakes already. I’d guess there are only around a million hands a year at stakes above $ 25/$ 50, which isn’t that many. The big online sites are full of guys sitting on their own at heads-up tables not playing each other. If there’s no edge they don’t want to risk their money. It’s only when there’s a fish in a game that the waiting lists are huge, but the game breaks up as soon as the fish quits. The situation is a bit different with pot-limit Omaha, mainly because there’s less awareness of the best way to play and because the greater variance can encourage some players to think they’re better than they are. But I could see the same thing happening with PLO in the future as it becomes clearer who the best players are.
If you haven’t read our magazine yet then try a free digital copy HERE
