Originally Posted by J.A.Sucker
They wonder why games struggle at the commerce these days... Pathetic.
Regulars should be totally willing to keep a game going/start it up everyday, even if the lineup sucks. Agree to play for a couple of hours if it is so tough- it costs little, if anything in the short run. In the long term,.you can grow a great regular game and make a mint. If the guys can't handle that, they are playing too big.
lol. people take shots. people play in bigger games when they're good even if they wouldn't play in them when they're bad. they're not playing too big, they're just being smart professionals.
yeah, the people that broke that 100 game and fought over the 60 seat are retarded. but your argument is equally retarded.
it's basically a prisoner's dilemma type problem, with the exception that if you use the cooperative strategy (keep the game going even when it's bad to maximize overall earn), you're still going to get raped by the vultures who jump in the game when the fish shows up. and the vultures are gonna make more money than the people keeping the game going (assuming similar playing ability) cuz they're making a good hourly playing 60/120 on the side while you're keeping the game going for them. it's easy to say what you're saying when you have infinite money and dont care about making more, but a good professional isn't going to give away money just to keep the game they'd prefer to play when the fish shows up going.
in a healthy poker economy keeping the game going works, because having the guaranteed seat when the fish shows up is worth enough to make up for the lost hourly when the game sucks. but there's always an upper limit to the stakes that can be supported given the supply of fish. it's obviously lower today in limit hold'em than it was 3-5 years ago. if a regular 100/200 isn't sustainable, it's because there aren't enough fish. not because the regulars aren't smart enough to maintain a profitable collusive strategy to keep the game going while they pay $26/hr/person in rake.