Article: CS Hold 'em

[CSN NewsBot]

Sublyme has written a new article for us titled CS Hold 'em. In the article, Sublyme compares and contrasts the recent poker boom in the sports world with the relative stagnation in the Counter-Strike eSports community. Here's a tidbit:

If you type poker into a search engine or just happen to be browsing any websites, chances are good that you'll see an advertisement for an online poker room. Since the majority of these rooms operate away from US shores, under 21 (but over 18) gamblers have a chance to make money. But why is poker so popular?



In short, because it has a small learning curve. "But Sublyme," you cry, "CS has a huge learning curve! I don't understand how you can make that comparison!" Competitively speaking, yes, Counter-Strike has a huge learning curve; however, poker is almost exactly the same in the fact that it's easy to pick up and entertaining to play amongst friends but very difficult — or even impossible — to master.

Be sure to read the article and debate the merits of the article in the comments!

[Invis]

very difficult �" or even impossible �" to master.

[itsMrHankey2u]

interesting article considering i basically quit cs competatively for poker

[pablo_m123]

my opinion:

gambling money is at the heart of how poker works; with videogames, however, the core component is _having fun_. it isn't realistic to imagine a large gambling community centered around a game like counterstrike. nevertheless, a very interesting article.

[Spedmaster]

Hey Invis, leave rizzuh alone. Go �" yourself.

[thor2488]

It's true that until the pay gets higher, esports don't hold a �" to poker.

[Snakebyte]

I can't really understand a comparison between CS and poker. Now, checkers, maybe...

[furmdogg13]

The only problem that I have with cash games in cs is that cheating could be rampant and the system would fall apart. If someone is cheating in poker, you can beat his face in, while in cs it can be almost impossible to pick up.

[EtErNiTyU]

mm i like your comparison between the two, makes sense about the return investment and everything. Good article.

[Pan the Goat God]

Edited by [user="11423"] @ [time="1115616253"]

Defintely shoulda compared it to checkers.



Ah..memories. Now commence the beating of the dead horse.

[-:Nighthawk:-]

Nice article Sublyme. Good info, even if the entire realm of eSports isn't exactly the most exciting topic ever to me. Those pictures are totally random though, haha. "PWNED"

Snakebyte wrote..

I can't really understand a comparison between CS and poker. Now, checkers, maybe...

DAMMIT! You beat me to the reference! Same thing that came to mind for me immediately!

Pan the Goat God wrote..

Defintely shoulda compared it to checkers.



Ah..memories. Now commence the beating of the dead horse.

Haha, yeah... I have to admit, though, without DocUK's help I wouldn't be half the checkers player I am now! Sadly, I run an activity center for little kids, and yeah, I never could do well at all even against them until I learned to control the center! :)

[dugan_yoyo]

Great article. I think you hit the nail right on the head. I'm not an esports man myself, but I would love to see it take off and be widely successful. As far as poker is concerned, I think it will be interesting to see if it can keep the popularity it has built up in the past few years, or if it will fizzle out as time moves on.

[Pan the Goat God]

God I was waiting for a "control the center"



This was a nice article though.

[lockhart]

One of the reasons CS is as popular as it is is because it's random. Bad players can beat good players... if not on a consistant basis, far more often than really should happen.

Poker, and specifically hold 'em, is much more random than CS. A/A will lose to 2/7 about 12% of the time. This helps it's wide appeal: good players will beat bad players in the long run, but with a little luck, you too can win a big tournament. Moneymaker is a BAD poker player. But the reason he's so popular is BECAUSE he's a bad poker player. He's like the majority of people who play poker for fun: not good, but with a run of luck they can win.

If you look at Painkiller, it would seem to have a lot going for it. It's a fast and exciting game, and it's the CPL's official game with very large purses on the World Tour.

Maybe 3,000 people play Painkiller worldwide, total. That's probably an overestimate, considering when I go and play there's usually like 30 people playing.

Why is this?

Because it's HARD. Good people will win ALL the time. I consider myself to be pretty good at it, yet I will lose to most of the players in #pk1v1.

Randomness = mass appeal. Slot machines are essentially an infinite money cheat for the casinos, because SO many people play them.

[[CyW]-=BigBear=-]

Edited by [user="6035"] @ [time="1115621782"]

lockhart wrote..

One of the reasons CS is as popular as it is is because it's random. Bad players can beat good players... if not on a consistant basis, far more often than really should happen.

Poker, and specifically hold 'em, is much more random than CS. A/A will lose to 2/7 about 12% of the time. This helps it's wide appeal: good players will beat bad players in the long run, but with a little luck, you too can win a big tournament. Moneymaker is a BAD poker player. But the reason he's so popular is BECAUSE he's a bad poker player. He's like the majority of people who play poker for fun: not good, but with a run of luck they can win.

If you look at Painkiller, it would seem to have a lot going for it. It's a fast and exciting game, and it's the CPL's official game with very large purses on the World Tour.

Maybe 3,000 people play Painkiller worldwide, total. That's probably an overestimate, considering when I go and play there's usually like 30 people playing.

Why is this?

Because it's HARD. Good people will win ALL the time. I consider myself to be pretty good at it, yet I will lose to most of the players in #pk1v1.

Randomness = mass appeal. Slot machines are essentially an infinite money cheat for the casinos, because SO many people play them.

There is a luckfactor in CS yes, but it's not that big that good players will lose often to not so good players.. And it's only in aiming, getting a lucky HS etc, not in all other parts of the game, like tactics/reading the game etc.. Therefor 9/10 times the better player will win in CS.. If there was more luck then skill involved in CS some players and clans couldn't be on top all the time..



But yes, since everybody can get (lucky) kills in full unorganized public servers, CS can be fun for alot of people, even if they are not that good.. Fast paced DM games like PK are not as much fun when you can't get a single kill, that why most people play slower team games like CoD S&D, UT2004 OS and CS etc..