Estimated amount of players with just Nevada up?

[mapleleaf]

Originally Posted by TeflonDawg

Calm down. It's like, my opinion, man.

Sorry. Too much caffeine or something

Originally Posted by TeflonDawg

First of all, it's going to be closer to 100 "Phil Iveys" on the wait list and 10,000 average/clueless players who saw advertisements.

It all comes down to estimating numbers of Phil Iveys, Jamie Golds, and average guys and gals. IMO 100 Iveys to 10,0000 average guys and gals is no where close to an accurate estimation.

Say by late-2013 there is a 5 state US network up and running. Say currently PokerStars has 10000 Iveys, 50000 Golds, and 20000 average guys and gals in seats at any one time. You can bet the 10000 Iveys would insta-switch to the US network if it allowed international players, maybe 20000 Golds would switch, and hardly any average guys and gals. Say the US player makeup on the US network is 5000 Iveys, 15000 Golds, and 20000 average guys and gals. So you have a choice between a network with 15000 Iveys, 35000 Golds, and 20000 average guys and gals or a network with 5000 Iveys, 15000 Golds, and 20000 average guys and gals. Which would you rather play at?

Originally Posted by TeflonDawg

There's also an additional reason for why the larger the pool the better. The sooner legislators understand that profits are driven by the size and liquidity of the player pool, the quicker other states and possibly federal legislation will get on board here in USA.

Assuming legislators have the ability to learn this, I think they will learn it just as quick with a US player only model.

[TeflonDawg]

all these hypotheticals are giving me a headache...we're probably both wrong about our numbers, and there's so many other factors that we simply won't know about until things actually go down (rake, software capabilities, how many tables we can play at a time, etc.) that i don't see a point in debating much further...

some of us can't even agree that NV can sustain a decent site on it's own while others say not to underestimate the value of explicity knowing online poker is legal and also the access to credit and discretionary wealth the average Nevadan has

[knircky]

Originally Posted by mapleleaf

I can state with 100% certainty that you did not study math. Or if you did, you failed.

You assert "The larger the player pool, the better AINEC". This would imply that a pool of 1000 Phil Ivey's on the wait list is preferable (AINEC) to 100 average guys and gals who saw an advert for Caesar's Online Poker on the telly. Indeed.

Originally Posted by mapleleaf

Sorry. Too much caffeine or something



It all comes down to estimating numbers of Phil Iveys, Jamie Golds, and average guys and gals. IMO 100 Iveys to 10,0000 average guys and gals is no where close to an accurate estimation.

Say by late-2013 there is a 5 state US network up and running. Say currently PokerStars has 10000 Iveys, 50000 Golds, and 20000 average guys and gals in seats at any one time. You can bet the 10000 Iveys would insta-switch to the US network if it allowed international players, maybe 20000 Golds would switch, and hardly any average guys and gals. Say the US player makeup on the US network is 5000 Iveys, 15000 Golds, and 20000 average guys and gals. So you have a choice between a network with 15000 Iveys, 35000 Golds, and 20000 average guys and gals or a network with 5000 Iveys, 15000 Golds, and 20000 average guys and gals. Which would you rather play at?



Assuming legislators have the ability to learn this, I think they will learn it just as quick with a US player only model.

There will be no EU dude joining a US site. There might be networks operating in US and maybe joining with their EU networks. I.e. iPoker, Ongame, party, stars etc.

No Ivey switching over.

Folks talking about how it would be bad to have EU guys compete with US playrs just don't get two key things:

1. How important it is for the poker economy to have large player pools
2. No country playes better poker than the US. Being scared of euros for poker would be euros being scared of us folks in soccer.


Before accusing folks of not being able to do math, I'd suggesting to use your brain and think just a bit logically.How many Iveys are there on this planet again? I think he is American and lives in Vegas.

[mapleleaf]

Originally Posted by knircky

Folks talking about how it would be bad to have EU guys compete with US playrs just don't get two key things:

1. How important it is for the poker economy to have large player pools

No, most people who post here get that.

Originally Posted by knircky

2. No country playes better poker than the US.

If you say so. You should think about the vast, unique demographic in the US with little poker experience who will happily deposit at Caesar's Online Poker once they can do so using their Paypal.

Originally Posted by knircky

Before accusing folks of not being able to do math, I'd suggesting to use your brain and think just a bit logically. How many Iveys are there on this planet again? I think he is American and lives in Vegas.

You obviously didn't study English It's called an analogy. Ivey represents the sharks, Gold represents the decent recreational player, average guys and gals represent average guys and gals.

[mapleleaf]

Originally Posted by TeflonDawg

all these hypotheticals are giving me a headache...we're probably both wrong about our numbers, and there's so many other factors that we simply won't know about until things actually go down (rake, software capabilities, how many tables we can play at a time, etc.) that i don't see a point in debating much further...

I'm sure we're both wrong about the numbers. I just don't think there can be much debate that the shark-to-rec player ratio would be much more preferable on a US only site. Which leaves the question of player pool size. Considering basic economics and how quickly provinces in Canada are joining poker player pools I am confident that within a short time after Nevada seeds the pool we will have a sustainable player pool size.

[VP$IP]

There may be several phases in the Nevada-only poker pool.

There might (and should be) an initial phase of free publicity by the news media, within the state and nationally, to generate player signups. Some will want to obtain a preferred user name. Some will be curious. Some will prefer playing online for whatever reason.

After there is more than one Nevada online poker choice, some players will register on the second site, and the third, etc. Then factors such as software functionality, deposit bonuses, rake and rakeback differences would come into play.

Meanwhile, visitors to Nevada (mostly Vegas, but other options might become attractive) would have an option to register on one or more sites, deposit some money, and try online poker. Some of that money would remain in accounts long term.

The number of registered players would continue to increase, unless the playing conditions become completely unbearable, but the number of active players would increase more slowly.

There should be a bump every year around WSOP time.

The providers would have an opportunity to create brand loyalty, and compete for the largest player base, which would be an advantage when the concept spreads to other states.

The devil is in the details.

[knircky]

Originally Posted by mapleleaf

I'm sure we're both wrong about the numbers. I just don't think there can be much debate that the shark-to-rec player ratio would be much more preferable on a US only site. Which leaves the question of player pool size. Considering basic economics and how quickly provinces in Canada are joining poker player pools I am confident that within a short time after Nevada seeds the pool we will have a sustainable player pool size.

again your logic makes no sense. Why would the ratio be better in the US vs other countries?

History has shown the opposite.

[knircky]

Originally Posted by mapleleaf

You obviously didn't study English It's called an analogy. Ivey represents the sharks, Gold represents the decent recreational player, average guys and gals represent average guys and gals.

Again you don't get it. Your logic makes no sense. Like foreign regs signing up on us sites. WTF.

Of course the player pool will be best in a new market. However in a very short time that evens out.

So your assumptions are wrong and irrelevant.

[VP$IP]

A very significant source of "recreational" players might be McCarran International Airport. The number of man-hours wasted while waiting for plane departures is enormous. Instead of playing slot machines at the airport, they could play poker on their own computers or in airport concessions. Who would not want to play internet poker at the same table with them?

Another potential source of visiting poker players could be truckers and other drivers crossing the state on I-80. Many would quickly learn to plan their stops in Nevada, rather than in CA, UT, or WY when Nevada-only internet poker becomes available.

[d3 fact0]

Originally Posted by VP$IP

A very significant source of "recreational" players might be McCarran International Airport. The number of man-hours wasted while waiting for plane departures is enormous. Instead of playing slot machines at the airport, they could play poker on their own computers or in airport concessions. Who would not want to play internet poker at the same table with them?

Another potential source of visiting poker players could be truckers and other drivers crossing the state on I-80. Many would quickly learn to plan their stops in Nevada, rather than in CA, UT, or WY when Nevada-only internet poker becomes available.

I like your thinking!

[t_roy]

Originally Posted by knircky

again your logic makes no sense. Why would the ratio be better in the US vs other countries?

History has shown the opposite.

History has only shown the opposite because we didn't have legislation. With legislation, we would have many more recs per shark than other countries that have had explicitly legal ipoker for a while. Also our economic outlook is much better which means more money for the fishies to spend. Long run it should kinda even out, but as a US player, I'm hoping for a US only player pool for the first couple years. After that I really don't care... Not that I would complain either way.

[QuickCheck99]

I live in Vegas and you bet your ass I will be back to playing everyday online lol

[knircky]

Originally Posted by t_roy

History has only shown the opposite because we didn't have legislation. With legislation, we would have many more recs per shark than other countries that have had explicitly legal ipoker for a while.

Why?

Makes no sense. All facts show the opposite.

1. Us player crush any other country on avg
2. Row sites have been softer than us sites.
3. Row sites became softer after bf
4. No country in the world except england and macau has 24/7 poker. There are over 600 24/7 pokerrooms in us/ca. The avg pokerroom in eu has less than 5 tables.
5. Wherever you play live in foreign countries players are far worse than in US
6. In Germany a 5/10 game playes like 1/2 in us. In Macau local folks call 4bets with a9 and stack off 300bb against tight euro pros on a flop.
7. U compare Ca to Row. That makes no sense. ca =us when it comes to poker culture.

So now u think the people of Nevada who grow up gambling are gonna be worse than ROW poker players?

Makes no sense!

All assumption about why us pool would be softer than row are flat out wrong and mostly the opposite is true.

At the same time the size of the player pool is the most important factor for a healthy poker economy that caters to recreational players and regs alike and allows play on different levels and games.


Again use some common sense please.

[tangled]

I think a lot of opinions about player pools have to do with personal expectations. Those that are used to playing 24+ tables are going to be more concerned about a Nevada-only site.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by knircky

Why?

Makes no sense. All facts show the opposite.

1. Us player crush any other country on avg
2. Row sites have been softer than us sites.
3. Row sites became softer after bf
4. No country in the world except england and macau has 24/7 poker. There are over 600 24/7 pokerrooms in us/ca. The avg pokerroom in eu has less than 5 tables.
5. Wherever you play live in foreign countries players are far worse than in US
6. In Germany a 5/10 game playes like 1/2 in us. In Macau local folks call 4bets with a9 and stack off 300bb against tight euro pros on a flop.
7. U compare Ca to Row. That makes no sense. ca =us when it comes to poker culture.

So now u think the people of Nevada who grow up gambling are gonna be worse than ROW poker players?

Makes no sense!

All assumption about why us pool would be softer than row are flat out wrong and mostly the opposite is true.

At the same time the size of the player pool is the most important factor for a healthy poker economy that caters to recreational players and regs alike and allows play on different levels and games.


Again use some common sense please.

Appealing to "common sense" does not mean you can ignore empirical evidence. I've had years of data on US v. ROW, on a country-by-country basis. Your assumptuions about relative skill were not borne out by the historic cash flows between aggregate pools of players, broken down by nationality. Sorry, you simply are not correct in your US v ROW assumption.

Secondly, your assumptions of a correlation between the 24/7 availablility of "live" games and online skills, or that some significant percentage of Nevadans "grew up" in Nevada do not withstand scrutiny or suport your positions even if they did.

I understand you want to make grand pronouncements in your posts, and you hope some intutive, "common sense" insights are correct, but your positions lack any foundation.