Quote:
Originally Posted by wayneking7
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AW
Also the idea that "'1% roi is considered good' is a joke" is bad. 1% is $180/hr. Who in 2012 makes $180/hr ?
|
Thing is, its only the very top regs that will be able to make even 1% ROI. Id say the average reg will make <0% ROI. And any game where that is the case is a pretty big joke imo. |
It's not a joke. Almost all forms of poker nowadays depend on rb. Again I agree that it would be ideal to have people win at higher than 0% roi. But only through reform that includes both rake and rb cuts. Basically rake remodelling. But "effective" rake will probably stay near current levels.
If say hyper rake was lowered from 4% to 2% (*ignoring effects of sne and etc., suppose sne was 2x easier to get), more regs would move in. Current regs would see a small increase in profit likely. Fish would lose slightly less fast. But PS would lose by a lot.
Its pretty obvious that the optimal rake for stars is clearly for regs to win as little as possible. This is because of a simple equation: Profit = Deposits minus withdrawals. Because of that they are not going to just cut the rake in half. But theres tendency in this thread for everyone to "shoot the messenger." You think I hate money or something? Of course I want less rake. But we have to be realistic too. As long as there are regs filling the game, what incentive does PS have to grease their wheel?
[Again I don't want people to chime in this point with "but regs arent filling the game", so let me very clear
THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH IS ONLY REFERENCING HYPER TURBOS. (Because last time people strawmanned my argument and juxtaposed turbo/reg speeds which are a problem that I agree with)]
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AW
So would you somehow prefer players to be winning at 2%? What does that even mean, so they are going to win $240/hr? Where does this money come from (in 2012 where there is a lot of competition and 4 or 5 regs to every 1 or 2 fish at each table.) Stars doesnt decide the roi through rake, the market does through competition.
|
The money comes from the lowered rake.
The argument you (an some others) keep making about lowering rake will not better the games because the problem is not rake but the reg/fish ratio is just stupid, and would only be the case if the reg/fish ratio could get any worse. The reg/fish ratio has gotten progressively worse over the years and no matter how much money PS throws at it this is not going to get better. IMO we are at a point now where its likely not going to get worse, so the only thing that is going to make the games better is to lower the rake.
You really think the reg/fish ratio will ever get significantly better from PS spending more money on promos and advertising? U think they dont spend a **** load already?
|
First in regards to promos and advertising, those are a time honored way of bringing fish into the site. Now some aren't successful (BOP duh), but many of PS promos and advertising campaigns were clearly successful. Remember, the fact that there is even 1 or 2 fish per game (read: the fact that you have a job playing on PS) is a direct result of advertising.
Lowering rake can help add liquidity to a game. But games such as hypers do not require extra liquidity. If 4 or 5 regs are willing to open sit tables why does PS need to lower rake?
Again you keep talking from the point of view like PS owes you something. This is a simple cost benefit analysis. Why would PS lower the rake? The onus is on you to answer that question sufficiently for PS's interests. For example, you mentioned "the only thing that would make the games better is to lower the rake." Better for who?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AW
Just asking for a rake cut isn't going to do anything because right now PS has no real reason to lower the rake without any rework of the VIP club (nothing in it for them)
|
Like others have pointed out, the effects of lowered rake will create a situation for people to play more/move up faster etc. And why does there even need to be something in it for them? PS nets a ridiculous amount of profit every year from ripping us off.
|
Firstly you said that lower rake would provide more turnover and more upward mobility in games. To the latter, upward mobility isn't a likely preogative of PS. The former might be a good point so I will save that for the end.
Secondly you said "why does there need to be something in it for them?" I think it is very clear that PS as a business is not interested in charity. Just because they make money doesn't mean they are interested in giving it away.
Now to your point about turnover. Lowering the rake would increase the number of games played, but simple math would show it is not sufficient. For example, even with no equilibrium concessions, lowering the rake from 4% to 2% would mean an "extra game played every 50 games" for a typical fish -- which doesn't really do anything compared to how much rake is lost. For winners it doesn't matter -- like I said, anything that improves a winners' game conditions (without increasing net deposits) is probably going to be worse for stars. (READ: something they won't do.)
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AW
If rake was 0% the game can still be dead. Think about why.
|
This is prob the dumbest thing u have said itt.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AW
As for 0% rake that is not true. Just to make it obvious, if PS offered 0.1% rake backgammon how many people do you think would play? Games are formed around fish. Maybe when a game runs it is profitable, but I consider a game dead if almost noone is playing.
|
Games run around regs, not fish. When the regs leave, so do the fish. Why u think the 9mans never go off anymore? Because regs arent open sitting. Its a know phenomenon that fish rarely open sit games.
|
Notice in my reply above this paragraph I didn't tell you off even though I think 99%+ of people would agree that "why does there need to be something in it for PS? they are rich enough" is a very poor argument, but you didn't really extend me the same courtesy, but now I pretty much lost it. **** you you ignorant piece of ****.
As for your "games run around regs, not fish", this is basically false. "When the regs leave, so do the fish." Actually, when the fish sits out, all the regs do too -- look at any cash game. "Why do you think the 9 mans don't go off anymore?" Because there are no fish sitting.
An entire poker economy can exist with 100% fish -- take for example Commerce Casino Live 1/2 NLH. But a poker economy cannot exist with 100% regs. It's true that regs can help bolster fish attendance, so there is a symbiotic-esque relationship; but make no mistake, the games always revolve around the fish.
Two Plus Two
Linear Mode
