fish= dont even notice that someone is 24 tabling
fish= are annoyed at times when ppl take long to make decisions sure but honestly lets be real they dont know why that is the case

regs who play limited # of tables= the ones on 2+2 expressing their hatred for mass tablers by stating how the general fish thinks a certain way when really they are just ranting on their own frustration


just wanted to rant about something ive always noticed on here...

People play poker for many reasons, including but not limited to distraction, fun, mastery, ego, and money.

One of the common themes among the rec players I've interacted with is fun. Winning is fun. Action is fun. Challenge is fun. Getting your *** handed to you is not fun. Feeling like you can't win is not fun. Slow is not fun.

People will pay for entertainment, but they have to be entertained. They may be willing to risk their money, but they have to feel like they have a chance. FWIW, many of the free players I've met, who spend hours playing poker online, are reluctant to deposit because they feel like they will be fleeced by significantly better players.

UUUUP makes the comparison to sports. If one of your reasons for playing is mastery, then competing against, and beating, people better than you can be motivational. Even losing can be fun if you can learn from it. However, an amateur may get more discouragement than learning if badly beaten by players who are much better than they are.

You could blame the player for not having the constitution to positively learn from the experience, but each time someone who is interested in poker quits, the whole community loses. The pool of potential poker players is not unlimited. It is in the interest of the sites and the other players to make sure that people stay in the game.

From OP:

I'm very interested in this topic

Did you finish the detailed model?

In your OP, you state that:

I disagree with this.

I believe it is the average skill difference between the other players at the table, and the weak players (those who are willing to lose playing poker).

For example, you state that a poker room with 80% decent players and 20% weak players results in a higher deposit to rake conversion than a poker room with 50% decent players and 50% weak players.

I cannot logically understand this, and you explain my reasoning in your OP:

i.e I cannot understand how if I am a weak player on a 6 max table, I will lose my bankroll slower when faced with 5 decent players, than if I were faced with 2 other weak players and 3 decent players.

However, to counter that, lets assume you have 3 weak players and your goal is to maximise the rake until the 3 weak players go bust.

You can choose between having:

i) 6 max game with 3 weak players and 3 decent players
ii) 3 tables of 6 max with 1 weak at each table and 5 decent players at each table

Ideally we could use some data to find the answer to which generates the most rake.

However, thinking about it, there is a chance that the decent players would win multi way pots against the weak players, and given the rake is capped, this would damage the loss to rake ratio from the poker sites perspective.

However, maybe this is more than counteracted by the weak players not being beaten so quickly.

Either way, I'd be very interested if you could post the conclusion of your detailed model

Imo the very best players should be forced to play higher and higher stakes in certain fields. Most obvious instance to me is when livb/adonis112 practically had a monopoly on 5k hu sngs on fulltilt- decreased liquidity and rake was the result. If a site wants to maximise rake monopolys have to be broken up/limited- its a basic principle of economics. Liquidity obv less of a problem in cashgames.


Edit: would point out I am only talking about the extreme outliers- also doubt this will ever happen, esp when stars gave pro status to the likes of nanonoko, jorj95 etc- those players single-handedly have reduced winrates on up to 50 tables plus at a time- and they were awarded pro status and 100 percent rakeback for it!

You also have to factor in how many donkeys have lost their money dreaming of becoming the next big thing though?

Juk

You can shear a sheep many times, but you can skin him only once


This is obv a great talking point (the debate on the value of winning players to pokersite) and something that is crucial to olp moving forward imo. What I find disconcerting is the comments and general attitude of known winning pros.

When you relate the whole 'gtfo fish' attitude demonstrated by people who SOLELY make a living from poker to the above quote, you can see the disconnect some winning players have regarding their bread and butter. Kinda scary imo

This was a nice OP

It seems a winning players value is even less these days...

Seeing as you missed it the first time round.