Originally Posted by LunaEqualsLuna
Same logic can be applied to every game.
FL will be unbetable at some time in the future so lets not bother lowering the rake now.
NL will be unbeatable at some time in the future so lets not bother lowering the rake now.
PLO will be unbeatable at some time in the future so lets not bother lowering the rake now.
Again unbeatable also is a half truth, there are alternative rake methods that can make ANY non zero edge worth while.
High rake games was possible when the average player was terrible and the average 2+2'er was crushing the games and high edges were possible. Now we are entering a Low edge high rake era and the average 2+2'er is at best a slightly winning micro or SSNL grinder eeking out a tiny winrate multitabling.
Something has to give. Either poker shrinks to a small niche similar to what happened to fixed limit poker or the sites try and boost the popularity by lowering the cost.
Why we failed to win the argument for lowering the rake at PLO. "average player is
terrible and the average 2+2'er is
crushing the games and high edges are
The counter argument I deployed was that "fish" losing at 20/40bb/100 was not good for the games because recreational players who lose their money too quickly are less likely to redeposit. I argued that PLO should be much more popular than it is but from a business point of view, I had to accept that my argument was weak.
"something has to give". NLHE and PLO cash games are not easily solvable like chess because they are games of incomplete information. I don't think there is a problem with them becoming unbeatable (Limit and CAP depend much more on maths and are "solveable" - I don't see much of a future for them (sorry Nick
The edges will reduce as more people get good at them, but that is why we need to drive more new players to play. As they "pay" to learn, their money will flow up the pyramid.
The costs of recruiting these players have to be paid, the costs of operating the site have to be paid, and they are not small. The last 6 monthly report I saw from B.Win Party showed that they had lost
money from their poker business. The margins in this business are falling. The scope to reduce prices is limited. Reduce rake by 20%, and very few poker sites would make a profit.
A lot of what people want by way of rake reductions is what I want too, but it's simply not going to happen. What Nick and I tried to do is encourage PokerStars to do what was possible and what would bring benefits to Stars as well as the players, because if you pitch things that Stars won't benefit from, they have no reason to do them, unless they involve little work and less cost.
It was clear to me that Stars and Isai himself wanted to promote more Limit poker. There was a lot of discussion between him and Nick about how to promote the game. IMO I think it's pissing against the wind. Which is exactly what making unrealistic demands of a business is doing.
For most of us Stars has reduced the rake and we are benefiting even if it is only by 0.1bb/100 (ffs that's like a 5% pay rise for most grinders).
Yes it's possible for a few regs to get 60% rakeback elsewhere. The sites offering that are not going to be making a profit from those players. They want them because their sites have low traffic and high volume players help keep tables going so that recreational players have somewhere to sit when they want to play. SN/SNE is pretty comparable to these high rakeback deals, so I can't see the business case for Stars even trying to compete with these sites for players below SN. They simply don't need to.
It's not a perfect world, we have to work with PokerStars if we want to improve things, fighting them is a no-win situation for us.