Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro Playa
um...i have a few problems with phils ideas.
They all benefit him and the top 5% of poker players.
I don't see how this benefits everyone...most of this just benefits the best of the best....and I don't like that.
I think the way it is now... its more "democratic" where if you want to bumhunt...u can..if u want to play regs..u can...if you want to do both..u can.
His ideas seem a little to controlling to me, if you consider it from the viewpoint of majority of the poker players.
I think his ideas are trying to accomplish two things:
1) Give a little more protection to recreational players and ensure that the game stays enjoyable to them.
2) Give a greater chance for ANYONE to get action, including the best players.
I think that both points are important. Poker is a game that would not operate well at all without different skill levels. It would be TERRIBLE for the game of poker if there were no recreational players as well as elite pros.
Many (weaker) players play the game with a hope that they will be able to be an elite player one day. Would those players still play if they knew that when they do become an elite player, they wont be able to find a game anymore? It may be a bit of an exaggeration but that's the idea. I think poker needs both groups of players, and both should have a chance to play in games.
An analogy could be made with professional sports. Pro sports teams do not have the option of who they play in a season or in the playoffs. That is part of the game, they have to play who is on the schedule. Sometimes they will play better teams, and sometimes they will play weaker. If they want to succeed and be the best that year, they have to improve greatly and prove they are the best by beating other good teams. Poker could be the same way.