I'm not understanding why PS would claim that regular winning players are bad for the economy of their site. It doesn't make sense to me. They pay rake like everyone else and even more so I'm assuming. I can see how it would be bad if the recreational population was decimated, certainly. This might seem to be happening to a degree from some people's perspective but I would think that American recreational players not being able to participate is the true hindrance. Is it possible that this has offset the ratio of regs/recs and as reactive in nature as we are some site operators have villainized regs as a result? What is your opinion on this? How can winning players be bad for poker?
or3o1990 said:
Poker writer Steve Ruddock, and others have written several articles defining the problems that come with online poker catering to regs. That's a good place to start.
Consider all of the threads on various forums with subjects like "Poker's Dead, Everyone is Solid," and "Where are the Fish?" These threads which bemoan the disappearance of recreational players mostly started well before Black Friday, indicating that the online game was already in trouble before the U.S. shutdown.
Cheers!
Most recreational players just want to get good value and entertainment out of the money they deposit and if they deposit say $20 and lose it in a half hour and leave feeling let down it is less likely that they will deposit again.
To provide good entertainment value for the money spent so they will come back and deposit again is the challenge that online poker rooms face.
It is wrong to put the blame on the profitable players as seeing that is the carrot or dream that most new players are chasing.
By focussing promotional dollars on the rec players (net depositors) instead of the regs (net withdrawlers) , the rooms have a better chance of continued success as do the regs that rely on net depositors for their gains.
To provide good entertainment value for the money spent so they will come back and deposit again is the challenge that online poker rooms face.
It is wrong to put the blame on the profitable players as seeing that is the carrot or dream that most new players are chasing.
By focussing promotional dollars on the rec players (net depositors) instead of the regs (net withdrawlers) , the rooms have a better chance of continued success as do the regs that rely on net depositors for their gains.
I'll have to look up the article. But poker can't be dead and although everyone is more solid now there are obviously still players that have a significant edge in the games they play. Maybe those players are working harder to refine their game as the fields are continuously changing and adapting?
I'm all for focusing the promotions towards the rec players, we all want them around. But it's not just that, they're taking shots at winning players which seems counterproductive if you ask me.
Hypothetically if you removed all of the winning players and it was just the loosing recreational players from before what would happen? Correct me if I'm wrong in my thinking but it would be the exact same as what's happened over the past several years. The edges would get smaller, right? Obviously some recs are better than others and they then would be the winning players against the even worse recs but their edge just wouldn't be that large. Granted the worst of the recs probably wouldn't loose as fast as they might now. Those "winning players" would still make withdrawals and the losers would still deposit. The house would still only make money off of rake, which would be a fraction of what it could be without the real winning players.
I understand that we don't want the newest of the new to be discouraged to play but even the worst player can win a pot off of Ivey. Is that not enough of a chance? To what extent must they be catered to, there is a learning curve in EVERYTHING and when your new at something you mostly suck. If it was your first time playing blackjack and your hitting on 18 when the dealer shows a 3 obviously you don't know what your doing and your going to loose at a large rate but you learn, get better and loose at less of a rate eventually. Is it the casino's job to teach you how to play as not to discourage you from coming back? Will the casino's deter you from placing large bets on 00 when playing roulette? The fish will learn not to call an UTG raise with a6o and then call down under intense betting, the question is how long will it take and how much will it cost them. It's no ones responsibility to hold their hands and teach them.
I don't know for sure but it seems like they all wish poker was slots or something. Either that or they just feel entitled to every cent ever deposited onto their sites and take it very personally any time some of it is withdrawn, which is unavoidable because someone always has an edge.. It's the cost of doing business.
or3o1990 said:
Two interesting questions here:
1. If you removed all of the winning players what would happen? You'd get Monaco, Macao, and Las Vegas, all of which are built on losing players. Winning/advantage players are tolerated, but only to a point.
2. Rake would only be a fraction of what it could be without winning players. True with a qualifier - rakeback. Ask yourself how many businesses can succeed giving back let's say 30% off the top? Not many.
I don't blame high volume, awards dependent regs for defending their turf. That said, I understand what the sites are trying to do, and agree with their position.
Cheers!
I don't know for sure because I have never played in any of those locations but I think you're a little off with your first response. It may be true that those cities are built on losing players but from what I hear Macao's high stakes players are mostly all pro's and the same is relatively true of Las Vegas. I hear a lot of people say how much tougher even the mid stakes games are in Vegas as compared to the Commerce in L.A. for example, I've heard nothing about Monaco.. I'm more wondering what would happen mathematically and how it's bad for their bottom line.
As far as the rakeback goes I agree 100%. It never made a whole lot of sense to me to give all of the best winning players the most rewards. However, that's poor judgement on Pokerstars' part not the winning players that took advantage of the rewards program. I agree with doing away with it but not how they're doing it or how they're accusing those players instead whoever put that program in place of being bad for their site's economy.
I can understand why they feel threatened by people having an edge but I don't understand what realistically can be done about it or if it's even a good thing given the nature of the game. If you for example took the top 9 cash game players in the world and put them on one table and 9 worst and put them on another the result would be relatively similar and essentially what they desire. No one would have an edge so in the long term no one would win or loose and the money would just spin around endlessly accumulating rake for the house. This is the perfect scenario for site operators or casino's because at this point no one can even beat the rake and you may as well be playing craps.
I think it more likely that what they really want is another game that no one can win at. But since that may be impossible they'll try to make changes so that people will ultimately win less. The next best thing as far as they can see. I don't see loosing players quitting poker because people still play every other game at a casino knowing damn well that they can not win. Some of those people realize they have a problem and quit but many continue just for the entertainment, what makes poker so different?
or3o1990 said:
You point out the ideal situation, where you have a large pool of players who don't mind losing. The problem comes when the patrons loose too fast to have a good time and disappear, which is the problem online poker sites are trying to solve.
Cheers!
BiliousBetil said:
Then the only solution would be to teach them proper BR management, don't you think? Maybe when players deposit they should have an icon that recommends what stakes they should play or something. But you don't have to be a genius to know that if you have only $300 and you play $100 a hand in blackjack that you most likely won't be playing for very long. Players already don't mind loosing because they're still doing it at table games everywhere. I gamble sometimes but when I do it's purely for entertainment and even if I win money I still know that playing craps is a loosing strategy. I'm just diligent in deciding how much entertainment I can afford.
It's a scary thought but I think that if they could totally eliminate any edge that they certainly would. How far are they going to eventually go to decimate that edge is the question. One day will you be sitting in a poker room building a stack and have a floor manager come up to you and tap you on the should and say, "I'm sorry but you need to leave, your play is just too good for the table."? The market will continue to respond and adjust to the changes but it should only be influenced to a point in my opinion.
Its not the winning players fault, nor are they the real problem
Think of it as capitalism, all money flows upwards, the rich get richer. The rake is draining from all players! Its just the winning players that still have money left after the rake is collected, but they will eventually be broke too. If everyone in the world played poker, and all at one site, over the course of time every penny, euro, peso and what not will eventually be in the hands of the site operators. This is why any split pot games are dangerous to play cash style, the rake hurts you even more.
The websites are just pissed they arent making as much money, and yes player traffic is down but what do they expect? Newbies and rec players will come and go, and after such a big boom as we saw from 2000 - 2009, most of those that would be rec players have already gone because they are out of money, or bored, or pissed at the collusion, or the USA for banning big 3.
Like any business, there are highs and lows, they just had a fad go through and they got super rich, and want to keep it going, well too bad for them. Just like the auto companies did, and lots of other businesses. All they have to do is layoff half of their workers and they will be fine lol.
Think of it as capitalism, all money flows upwards, the rich get richer. The rake is draining from all players! Its just the winning players that still have money left after the rake is collected, but they will eventually be broke too. If everyone in the world played poker, and all at one site, over the course of time every penny, euro, peso and what not will eventually be in the hands of the site operators. This is why any split pot games are dangerous to play cash style, the rake hurts you even more.
The websites are just pissed they arent making as much money, and yes player traffic is down but what do they expect? Newbies and rec players will come and go, and after such a big boom as we saw from 2000 - 2009, most of those that would be rec players have already gone because they are out of money, or bored, or pissed at the collusion, or the USA for banning big 3.
Like any business, there are highs and lows, they just had a fad go through and they got super rich, and want to keep it going, well too bad for them. Just like the auto companies did, and lots of other businesses. All they have to do is layoff half of their workers and they will be fine lol.
if the problem is the winner players then shut it down right away because how can you avoid to have winners? is it possible to have only losers?
furthermore, if they think people will leave the tables and won´t comeback because they lose money, then when they take away some benefits they are speeding the process of draining the number of players!
furthermore, if they think people will leave the tables and won´t comeback because they lose money, then when they take away some benefits they are speeding the process of draining the number of players!