🚀 go-pugleaf

CKT <ckt@world-backgammon-association.com> wrote:

> "Gregg Cattanach" <gcattanach-SKIP-@prodigy.net> wrote in message 
> news:<gARfd.24137$Qv5.6533@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>...
> > Karl-Hugo Weesberg wrote:
> > > People prefer to play BRIDGE now!

> > I'll make sure the 350 players at the Vegas tournament know so they can
> > get their deposits back now.

> Well, if you take a close look at the list of the BG Giants, you�ll
> notice that many of them have switched to poker, if not entirely, for
> sure partially and mainly. Schiemann, Levermann, Meyburg, Magriel,
> Wells, Grandell, to name just a few.....

Poker is a lot more lucrative at the moment.  The number of folks who
have absolutely no clue how to play at a high level and are nonetheless
willing to wager significant amounts of money is far higher for poker
today than it was for "the golden days" of backgammon in the 70s. 

If you want to make shitloads of money on a contest of skill and
probability, poker is the place to be.  Anyone who has the talent to
become expert in bg can make money at the poker table within a few weeks
of study and practice play.  Probably serious money within a year or so.

I'm already pretty sure of significant +EV in many small stakes games
and I've only been fooling around with poker half-heartedly for less
than a year.  

In bg, it's hard to do much better than break-even money wise, unless
you are a world-class player.  In poker you just need to be good (maybe
the equivalent of 1600 GG in terms of where you sit in the playing
populace).  If you're in it for the money, poker is the place to be.
Given how money driven some of the top BG players are, and how large the
intersection in the skillsets, it's no surprise that a lot of top
backgammon players are spending more time at the poker tables.

People who really suck have figured out that it's stupid to bet a lot of
money on the outcome of a backgammon game with an unknown opponent.  A
lot of lousy poker players haven't figured that out yet.


Michael