ScooperNova
Hair in a Biscuit
Loyaler
I have a theory on why an overwhelming number of poker players suggest Bovada as the best current option for US players. There are some obvious reasons people choose Bovada, mainly traffic in both tourneys and cash games. The variety and sheer number of MTTs blows everything away hands down. I also hear people have good experiences with cashouts.
The possibly controversial part of my theory involves anonymity. I think some may secretly, or even unwittingly thrive on the anonymity. When you think about it, the fact that every player is a new player makes it an entirely different game. You can literally play the exact same way every time in short sessions with no one the wiser. Long sessions are rare. There are no lasting notes, and no memory. I think this can give some players an advantage, and aggression becomes even more important. The need to adapt, as you must do in in any non-anonymous(?) game, like live play, or any site with a screenname), is rendered nearly useless. I could expound on this even further, but I'm saving you from a Wall O' Text that may reduce into blathering.
I would also like to add that I feel like non-anonymous poker is a more complex game and therefore better suited for better poker players. In most situations where there is a name, or a face and a name, you will see some the the same players. Adapting play to overcome known opponents is, in my opinion, part of the true essence of poker. It also gives better players opportunities to exploit weaknesses that can ONLY be found over time.
I do know there are many great players on Bovada, and even more horrible ones. I'm not taking shots at anyone for liking Bovada by saying it's not ideal for good players. Many good players play there and love it. I'm not a fan, but I understand some people make a living playing on there and that's great. I'll save my Bovada bashing for the appropriate threads. If you like the anonymity of Bovada, that is a completely understandable stance and again, Bovada has it's share of great players and sharks. I do mean the part about better players and the essence of poker though.
Thanks, and any opinions are appreciated.
Good Luck at the Tables,
ScooperNova
The possibly controversial part of my theory involves anonymity. I think some may secretly, or even unwittingly thrive on the anonymity. When you think about it, the fact that every player is a new player makes it an entirely different game. You can literally play the exact same way every time in short sessions with no one the wiser. Long sessions are rare. There are no lasting notes, and no memory. I think this can give some players an advantage, and aggression becomes even more important. The need to adapt, as you must do in in any non-anonymous(?) game, like live play, or any site with a screenname), is rendered nearly useless. I could expound on this even further, but I'm saving you from a Wall O' Text that may reduce into blathering.
I would also like to add that I feel like non-anonymous poker is a more complex game and therefore better suited for better poker players. In most situations where there is a name, or a face and a name, you will see some the the same players. Adapting play to overcome known opponents is, in my opinion, part of the true essence of poker. It also gives better players opportunities to exploit weaknesses that can ONLY be found over time.
I do know there are many great players on Bovada, and even more horrible ones. I'm not taking shots at anyone for liking Bovada by saying it's not ideal for good players. Many good players play there and love it. I'm not a fan, but I understand some people make a living playing on there and that's great. I'll save my Bovada bashing for the appropriate threads. If you like the anonymity of Bovada, that is a completely understandable stance and again, Bovada has it's share of great players and sharks. I do mean the part about better players and the essence of poker though.
Thanks, and any opinions are appreciated.
Good Luck at the Tables,
ScooperNova
Last edited: