Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek
If I'm understanding correctly, your idea to improve the poker conditions is to eliminate the low stake game? All that will do is price out a huge percentage of the typical player pool / make them go broke faster, no?
But which players would be priced out? Which players would go broke faster?
Probably the players who:
- buy in for 35BBs then
- fold 92% of hands pre-flop
- while binge watching 2 seasons of Game of Thrones during a 15-hour "poker" session
- while frequently failing to realize it's their turn and slowing down the game.
Given these players' impact on the table atmosphere, waiting lists, hands/hour, and the Vancouver poker scene generally, I want them priced out. If they do play, I want higher stakes to make them go broke faster. The seat should go to someone who values it more and contributes more to the poker scene.
Given the waiting lists vs tables in this city, the number of games running would not be greatly affected by a decrease in demand, i.e. "a huge percentage of the typical player pool" not playing any more.
And, perhaps this is motivated reasoning masquerading as benevolence, but I think such players would likely find more happiness doing something else. They obviously can't be
that fascinated by the game of poker. The multi-tasking means they can't
really enjoy their shows. So, if they don't play poker, aren't the chances high they'll find something better to do?