A response to this post.
I’ve seen a lot of talk about the poker ecosystem and what kills games, etc. Do you know what kills games and destroys the poker ecosystem above and beyond all the things mentioned? Winning players.
Allow me to disagree but at least state my case. What kills the games is paying out from the poker economy to 3rd parties, profits, that would otherwise remain in the economy of the game (whether it goes to recreational players as good variance, or professional players as skilled monies won). This and the speed at which the 3rd party is able to extract this money, or in other words how much % of the economic transactions of poker does this 3rd party receive. And how does this number change over time, knowing that the general field is obviously getting more and more difficult, for many reasons which includes different regulatory controls imposed on the player field, which always seems favorable to the 3rd party profit margins and seemingly never to the players side of the effective rake scale.
Yup, you guys lol. The winning players as a whole win a lot more money than the company makes each and every year. Yet, oddly, they still offer VIP programs to the very people who are essentially “killing the games.”
So if we may take my view for a moment (which is really just “Nashian” economics) and extend it further it is not the professionals receiving rakeback that could possibly be ruining the game, but the 3rd party “service provider” (more on this later) that seeks to align the objectives of the game in the favor of higher “effective rake”.
If Spin N’ Go’s deterred pros from playing, that actually HELPS the poker ecosystem immensely, it just may not help YOU personally.
This observation is interesting in comparison to the introduction of a “special paper” posted over a year ago entitled “Ideal Poker”:
So I wish to present the argument that various interest and groups, notably including PSFTFBICIADOJ has sold to the players a “quasi-doctrine” which teaches, in effect, that “less is more” or that (in other words) “raked poker is better than not raked poker”.
It seems that “someone” with a stronger game theoretical and economical background than you believes that “central banking” type economic thinking, is actually what is (ass) “backwards”.
I love, love, love, and love this concept and if it helps to level the playing field a little bit, while allowing rec players to stretch their dollars a bit further than before, I think in the end that is a win for everyone- even the winning players who are upset about it now.
This is the kind of perspective that doesn’t tie into itself logically. It is old school and the kids of these days are all the wiser to it. In a break even field there are no “winning players” to be “upset”. Rather everyone is upset because it is not a skilled game anymore. As players get smarter they seek sites that offer lower and lower effective rake, but this can only happen if the players have an option to exchange their chips for chips on other sites!
Imagine instead players start asking for vip points on a blockchain, in order that we might standardize vip points, and allow them to be traded on “poker coin” exchanges. This would facilitate what we would call “asymptotically ideal poker”.
So here is the possibility of “asymptotically ideal (rakeless) poker”. Starting with the idea of value stabilization in relation to a domestic ‘deposits raked’ index associated with the territory of one state, beyond that there is the natural and logical concept of internationally based rake comparisons. The sites being compared, like PSFTCIAFBIDOJ, Merge, Party Poker, etc. can be viewed with critical eyes by their players and by those who may have the option of whether or not or how to use one of them. This can lead to pressure for good quality and consequently for a lessened rate of rake.
You guys don’t even want to know what I would do to the VIP programs if I was in charge! I would focus on giving bonuses to the LOSING players exclusively. They’d play more, last longer, and the pros would get the money in the end anyway. I think it’s overkill to not only have pros crushing all the rec players, but then also giving them the majority of the bonuses on top of that?
This part we are in partial agreement, and possibly more but you haven’t expanded on your views yet. I think you might propose a version of “negative rake”
It is true we can agree any type system would be better than the current, that forces “pros” to rely on significant rakeback programs to consider the variance low enough to be “income”. But any player can see what is “ideal” for the game is to lower the effective rake (3rd party profits).
The mindset of some pros is backwards. You think they need you, when the reverse is true. They would do better as a company if pros didn’t play at all. They need the rec players, THEY should be the priority, not the pros. If you lose rec players, then pros don’t play anyway. If the rec players continue to deposit and play, then the pros will be there to get that money.
Yes the mindset of some pros is backwards, and we now have defined an “old school” style of thinking, and a “new school” style that has developed and is surfacing. We the players, agree and understand this game must be built on “recreational” players, however the key advertisement that it should be built on is that poker is a game of skill. And since the general player pool is getting better on the whole, the rake needs to come down in order to maintain that type of integrity for the game to thrive.
Look at it this way, PokerStars provides a service that allows some of you to make a living. You are not employees, and they are not your boss. As with any service, if you don’t feel it’s worth it to use, then you are free to choose a different service. That may seem harsh, but I get a sense that some people have entitlement issues that aren’t warranted.
Yes and its clear that you consider yourself on a different side of a certain economic line than the players. Which is fair. But it is also fair to point out that there are many big poker projects on the horizon (many with the spirit of decentralization), and in the very near future players will be able to choose exactly what kind of “poker service” they want from their provider:
In the near future there may be a smaller number of major sites used in the world and these may stand in competitive relations among themselves. There is now the “euro” sites and the old history of the UB scandal is past history now. And there COULD be introduced, for example, a similar international site for the Islamic world or for South Asia, or for South America, or here or there.And if “rake targeting” were used as a “line” by the managers handling all of these various internationally prominent sites then there would arise interesting possibilities for comparisons between these major sites. Each of the sites managed thusly would have its officially recognized status in terms of rake as measured by the domestic index of deposits raked of the state of the managers. But also, and this is what is more significant from an internationally oriented viewpoint, the various rakes would have rates of exchange so that they could be realistically compared in terms of their actual values.And so the various currencies managed with “rake targeting” would be comparable by professional and recreational players who would be able to form opinions about the quality of the rake. And what I want to suggest is that “the public” or the players, those for whom a medium of exchange functions as a basic utility, may develop opinions that are critical of rake of lower “value quality”. That is, the public may learn to demand better quality of that which CAN be managed to be of better quality or which can be managed to be of the lower quality observed in so many of the various poker sites in the 21st century.
This is going to cause a lot of pressure in the poker world to offer a superior product, and the new school player whether recreational or pro, is being made aware that “effective rake” is the number 1 concern for the player:
So I see the entire privately raked community as in a weak sense comparable to the “PSFTCIAFBIDOJ ” because of the support of both parties for a certain “lack of transparency” relating to the functions of poker sites as seen by the players. And for both of them it can be said that they tend to think in terms of sites operating in a benevolent fashion that is, however, beyond the comprehension of the player of the raked sites. And this parallel makes it seem not implausible that a process of poker revolution might lead to the expectation on the part of players in the “great game types” that they should be better situated to be able to understand whatever will be the rake policies which, indeed, are typically of great importance to players who may have alternative options for where to place their “deposits”.