Quote:
Originally Posted by statmanhal
Unless the distribution of losses among recs greatly differs from what’s current, these two statements directly conflict. It’s hard to see how there could be more winnings for regs AND more rec winners. I didn’t see any such notion of distribution change (which would involve a smaller number of rec losers but with big losses) and if you think such change will happen, tell us why.
Hello, statmanhal.
For easier understanding I will explain it with example. Please, understand that this example will be the most basic explanation of the statement I made(how is it possible). I will try to explain it with Percent of rake/deposits that casinos make after some time. This numbers will not be realistic number, but I just want to show principle behind the statment that I made. Also, there is no way I can tell for sure the exact number of Percent of rake/deposits that casinos make after some time at nil poker, because I do not have even close enough stats to tell the right number for Nil Poker.
Here is example:
While Playing Poker(52-card deck):
100 people deposit 10 dollars each. Together this is 1000 dollars. After some amount of hands played there is 100 dollars in peoples accounts(the rake took other money: casino made 900 dollars). Percent of rake/deposits that casinos make after some time is 90 percent(this is not realistic number;using this number for better understanding). There is 5 people with 15 dollars on account and there is 95 people with aprox. 0,26 dollars(everyone of 95 people have the same amount) in their account(all together is 100 dollars). There is 5 percent of winning players and 95 percent of losing players.
While Playing Nil Poker:
If we took 90% rake/deposits that casinos make after some time at poker(52-card deck), we have to take less percent of rake/deposits that casinos make after some time at Nil Poker, because there would be less amount of bad beats, less cracks, more skills,... at nil poker. For better understanding of example this number would be 70% (not realistic number).
Anyway, 100 people deposit 10 dollars each. Together this is 1000 dollars. After some amount of hands played in Nil Poker, there is 300 dollars in peoples accounts(casino took 700 dollars with rake). 8 people have 30 dollars each(all together this is 240). 3 persons have 20 dollars each(all together this is 60 dollars). All the other people have 0 amount of money on their accounts. All together there is 11 winning players(11 percent of winning players) and 89 percent of losing players. So, winner poker players made more money(20 dollars profit(some) vs 5 dollars profit) in this case and there is more winner poker players(11 percent vs 5 percent).
To conclude:
If concluding from example, this means less rake for the casinos on average if same number of players are playing nil poker vs poker(52-card deck). But considering all the things I allready mentioned in my THEORY( poker(52-card deck) player´s pool is decreasing; Nil Poker´s pool will probably increase, and so on;all the reasons why),on a long run,this means more money for casinos if people are playing Nil Poker vs poker(52-card deck).
I expect decrease of percent of rake/deposits that casinos make after some time at Nil Poker vs poker(with different coreleation of percent of rake/deposits that casinos make after some time at Nil Poker vs poker, than it is mentioned in the example). I can not tell how much less rake/deposits that casinos make after some time,because I did not play even close enough of Nil Poker games to consider the reliable statistic number. Basically I can not tell how much more skill-based nil poker is than poker(52-card deck) in a long run.
Also , I am sorry for probably not using the right terms, but I believe my example is easy to understand.
Thank you for your post.
Last edited by blackspoker; 07-07-2017 at 01:30 PM.