I know i have never explained myself very well, but it was critical of me not to do so. The stuff I have written will start to make sense soon, and please try to read it carefully and think about ‘double meaning’ as you go. I’ll try to give an example of how ‘ideal poker’ can be read clearer. Just keep in mind, there is not need to complain anymore, we have solutions, we are just not hearing them and not letting them be heard. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=43602250&postcount=2719
“Your points are well made, but I still think the situation is not so negative for the regs in these games. I would contend that the reduced ROI in these tournaments can partly be attributed to a continuous increase in skill among the players in general. So regardless of the paytables, you would still have to increase your volume to keep your earnings the same.
You are absolutely right in pointing out that PokerStars benefits from having more games run, so in that sense the 27 man payout structure is good for us. I do think, however, that if we kept the 18 man structure, you would see the reg/recs ratio slowly increase over time thus making the achievable ROI go down even further. Finally, giving more players a positive outcome from the tournaments will not only make initial deposits go further, but it will also encourage further deposits from those who get positive experiences from our MTTSNGs more frquently. This is definitely very good for all parties involved, not least of all the regular players.
As for a leaderboard or something equivalent for 45+ players, I have to disappoint you, unfortunately. We have been moving away from leaderboards as a promotional mechanism and don’t plan to add new leaderboards anytime soon.”
Bad math sir. You’re trying to sell the players that quasi-doctrine Nash describes in ‘ideal ‘poker”, “that “less is more” or that (in other words) “raked poker is better than not raked poker” And I can assure you and the players that your math doesn’t hold. However you are going to want your post to be deleted as you have said too much. People like to explain how the markets of poker works in relation to the invisible hand we all attribute to Adam Smith, when we say ‘if the game was raked less, then there would be better players, and so the game would actually be effectively raked harder’. Well as far as I have learned Adam Smith asked his books to be burned on his death bed, and we have what remains. Why did he do this? Clearly to prevent the perverted misuse of the knowledge he spelled out. Lets hear it from the best poker player in the world (not me):
The Confessional of Targeting
It was the observation of a new “line” that has become popular with those responsible for “raked” functions relating to national poker sites that gave us the idea for the study of “asymptotically rakeless” poker.
The idea seems paradoxical, but by speaking of “rake targeting” these responsible officials are effectively CONFESSING that, notwithstanding how they formerly were speaking about the difficulties and problems of their functions, that it is indeed after all possible to control rake by controlling the supply of chips (as if by limiting the amount of individual “prints” that could be made of a work of art being produced as “prints”). This popularity of the line of “rake targeting” seems to have started in the US, which is the place, among the USA, Canada, Australia, and Europe, which had the most losing players. And we can note also that US was hardly a place where any crisis of poverty really forced them to not maintain the value of their chips but rather just a place where “raked” thinking was probably very influential.
Our observation, based on thinking in terms of “the long term” rather than in terms of “short range expediency”, was simply that there is no ideal rate of rake that should be selected and chosen as the target but rather that the ideal concept would necessarily be that of a zero rate for what is called rake.
But of course, also, poker sites of a state cannot actually do anything of the form that can be called “rake targeting” without having some means for measuring rake. How would they do this? The means for measuring inflation that they would naturally use would be a “deposits raked” index relating to domestic transactions within the territory of the state.
In the USA the standard domestic “deposits raked” index has a long history and it actually originated back in the days when the USA was still on the “rake standard” with regard to the monetary standards being accepted then. And most sites nowadays having large domestic economies also have some sort of an analogous index of ‘deposits raked’.
And now we start to understand why the leaderboards are disappearing (or not appearing at all), or at least I do, and the kids will when they start to READ and therefore understand ‘ideal poker’, what it means and what changes it will bring to the poker world. Only so long as they don’t read what has already been written, will such ridiculous examples of bad math remain.