Quote:
Originally Posted by lawdude
1. Jackpots attract fish, and encourage fish who are already attracted to play longer and risk more money.
2. Jackpots encourage fish to play more hands (such as calling a hand such as A9 off in a three bet pot) trying to hit the thing.
3. Jackpots supply fish with bankrolls when they hit full shares and table shares, which they then put back into the game.
4. Jackpots supply an endless amount of harmless table talk for good players and fish alike.
Good for the game. The guy at the Borgata should be asking himself why his competitors like them so much.
Neither of us are going to be able to provide much evidence for 1 or 2, but I disagree with both. The games did not get any better in Atlantic City when jackpots were implemented. I doubt you have ever played in a particular market both with and without jackpots.
Number 3 is basically the opposite of what you say. When players hit a big jackpot share, they do not generally put it back in the game. They go buy a car or something. In AC the jackpots were often over $500K. No bad player is taking his $200K share and suddenly playing the biggest games in the place. They're buying a house with it.
You are forgetting that money doesn't come from nowhere. Even if 100% went back into the poker economy, that's not a benefit, it's just breaking even. That money all came out of the pockets of players, making them go broke more quickly.
And it's not even breaking even, because most casinos take an administrative fee. And the players who hit jackpots have to pay taxes on it, so a big portion is getting taken out of the poker economy right there.
Number 4....ugh, I HATE table talk about jackpots! You actually enjoy it?