Would ya do it all again???

Hey MD,

My personal opinion, yes I would. I like to be challenged. As I'm now older than Methuselah and in twice as bad shape physically, I can only accept mental challenges and Poker IS mental.

I'll move this to General Poker Discussion as I believe it fits better and you will get more responses.

What do you reckon? Should we turn this into a poll?

Cheers

Laz

Perfect thread for a poll!

For me it's a big YES! The thing I would change is to study the game more from the beginning. To learn it the "right way". To watch TV-shows and then trying to play like the PRO's with my first poker money was perhaps not the best decision in my life. But I have had a lot of fun (and some money later on) so would absolutely do it again. Used to play MTTs, but I'm playing more and more 6 max cash now.

~Thank you both for your feedback.
Happy for it to be a poll but don't know how to do it.

Poll started

for me every new poker day is a new start and a new challenge - so clearly "yes"

Only me voting no so far ♠

Would you care to elaborate, JimC6?

The whole point of the thread is to get an idea of what has changed since I last devoted some time to poker and whether it can still be a worthwhile investment. I am aware that there are a huge amount of variables to my overly simplistic last sentence, nevertheless, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

Thanks,
MD

it's not for everyone but it certainly appeals to a certain kind of people. i would

I would like to but I would have to change my mindset.
When I started I just wanted to get online and play. I didn't want to sit at my laptop reading articles and watching vids,
I just wanted the action ♦
I'm still like that now but I know I have to do these things to advance.

Small sample aside, there is a relatively high % of players saying that they would not 'do it all again.'
ITS YOU GUYS I WANNA HEAR FROM (and I never met a poker player without an opinion on almost everything so please don't be shy.)

Thanks,
MD

Well when I got into poker 6 years or so ago it felt almost like a natural progression. I was a kid who grew up playing games online against other kids all over the world. I started to feel a little too old for that when I was 17 and spending most of my free time playing and talking to 12/13 year olds.

Poker was almost exactly like the games I was playing only against other adults and for real money! It was a real buzz back then and there was so much stuff like poker leagues, exclusive games and different forums. Not everybody but there was a real high % of people who talked on the rail and many a time even when players busted they stuck around on the rail and talked.

Now poker is as anti-social as it gets, even the pokerstrategy.com exclusive games barely anybody says a word in chat. Pretty much 99% of the chat I see nowadays is to berate other players.

On top of that I really don't like the fact HUDs are so advanced I really think this takes so much of the appeal away from players who have a natural ability. If I was a new player just starting out and then discovered how pretty much everyone on the cash tables has a computer program feeding them all the statistics on you that would stop me from even wanting to start playing.

Yes I would, because it's an awesome mental game!

In a heart beat... I like that the game is constantly evolving and you have to adapt your game / strategy accordingly.

I think I still would've taken it up in this climate, but I definitely doubt that I would've gone pro if I started now.

Want to comment on something here too.

Originally posted by JimC6
On top of that I really don't like the fact HUDs are so advanced I really think this takes so much of the appeal away from players who have a natural ability. If I was a new player just starting out and then discovered how pretty much everyone on the cash tables has a computer program feeding them all the statistics on you that would stop me from even wanting to start playing.

The advanced parts of the HUDs aren't really that useful vs a recreational player, unless you develop a pretty big sample on them. Obviously there are very, very few fun players that I think I have a large sample on, so a HUD can actually be detrimental vs that type of player because you're more likely to make poor decisions influenced by a stat that is far too small a sample. And even past that point, there is a ceiling to how good a player a HUD is useful vs, because the best players varying their frequencies in different spots and adjusting constantly, so the sample that includes hands from 5k hands ago won't be relevant anymore.

I think a lot of fun players blame HUDs for their faster loss rate compared to several years ago, when the reality is people are just getting significantly better, and that would show up in the results HUD or no HUD.

Seating scripts in cash games are a far bigger issue, and so much more predatory, than HUDs are.

Great topic, we featured it here:

http://www.pokerstrategy.com/news/content/88346/

wasy8 you are probably right, I did intend to mention seating scripts in my rant but off the top of my head I couldn't remember what they were called.

ya not a bother love it