Partypoker had implemented a segregation between them temporarily.
I actually dont blame them. If u think bout it. Or i was thinkin about it.

Because, in any sport u have categories right? Nobody can start playing pro's as a beginner. At least not for real. And if so it would be a complete joke.

However in poker this is possible. So, how fair is this exactly?
A guy that wants to play for fun basicly cant because once he sits down sharks will get to m. Fish almost litterally donate money to good players.

Or is it like once u play for real money ur, even micros, ur stepping in the battlefield and there is no place for fun. If u want fun, go play playmoney?

How exactly did partypoker segregate them?

I never experienced it, but they did so i read. But its not really important regarding my topic.

I ran a marathon together with world class people wo finished in almost half the time I did.

Besides that, poker is a game where you have to buy in for a certain amount of money. Exactly the same as in other games like backgammon.

FWIW, if you asked Magnus Carlsen if he wanted to play you in chess with the winner getting $1000000 we would probably agree.

By winrate. Your first couple hands you could join whatever game you wanted, but as soon as you won big in the fish pool, you got removed from that.

Segregating players by skill is bad for all winning players and good for all losing players. The better you segregate them, the more so it's true. Imagine you segregated them perfectly - each player would have an exactly equal chance of winning, which means that over time the regs would only pass money back and forth. They'd all lose at the rake rate.

This improves the lot for fish, because their expectations were already below this loss rate, so they'd lose more slowly.

A perfect system would collapse immediately, so I think you'd have to presume that the better you segregate them, the more the games die off.

seems legit

If a rec doesn't want to sit with sharks, that's what micros are for. Stakes already segregate players by skill for the most part. (Edit: and if someone can't at least compete at .01/.02 then no amount of segregation will help them.)

If a fish wants to play for higher stakes and also not be the fish at the table, that's too bad. If I go on the street and challenge people to a game of chess for big money, the only people who will accept my challenge are damn good players. If I expect to break even doing that, I'd better improve my chess game. Why should it be different for a fish who wants to play difficult stakes in poker?

But on all mainstream sites even the micros are filled with NIT/"regs" that are enough skilled to kill the fun for the average i "call QJ > flop top pair > all in omg he has a set I am so unlucky. And the worst part is when the lowest stakes are filled with those players anyone with a brain can see something is going on. Then he has a decision: see, learn try or leave frustrated. They should try to make their expirience at least more fun by protecting all stakes under NL200... what should they do i leave to people with ideas.

And the majority of poker players are so hypocrytical because we all want to play with the fish but when a better player sits and starts crushing you what do you do ? SIT OUT.

So please don't be so mean to them and start looking things from all angles not only the one that suits you.

But they're not "filled" with them. At least not on Bovada. At zone .02/.05 the "top pair omg precum" types you describe far outnumber the nits.

How is that hypocritical? They're saying one thing, and doing exactly that - avoiding tough players and seeking fish. No one says, "I want to be the fish".

Ok I get your point. I still feel it's not fair and that aproach is just sad 2 me because i never bumhunted and sit out. When a really though player sits at my table ofc i will adapt but i LOVE IT. Extreme bumhunters/sitout asses will F up the cash game, it's allready dried. I used to play 6max deepstack, before you could get a lot of tables runing with good action regs included, now the *******s don't wanna play and there is 3 tables but all of them have 20+ waiting list. That is hypocritical isn't it ?

If people are playing solely to make profit and not for challenge / love of the game itself, then bumhunting is logical for them. For others it's a mixture, but they play for a living and it would make no sense to reduce their hourly profit on purpose (by not playing at the softest available table). The latter describes me. If I had another source of income and poker were just a hobby, then I'd seek the tough tables since it's more fun (for me) to play when being challenged. Shoot, right now, if I could play HU against Tom Dwan (or whoever's the best now) for micro stakes, I'd do it as often as possible. It would be an indirect form of coaching, he'd be showing me all my mistakes. (So actually, if I were a rec player, I'd want the micros infested with sharks.)

But back to the subject of hypocrisy, I'll reiterate -- even if you think bumhunting is a bad thing, I still don't see how it fits the meaning of "hypocritical". If someone said "I play for the challenge" and then bumhunted, that would be hypocritical. But if they said "I want to play with fish", they'd be hypocritical if they didn't bumhunt.

+1

Tourneys are the way to go for recs. Plenty of play for your money, and even if your ROI is -50%, you'll score a good win now and again.