Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? - Page 2 - Poker News

Two Plus Two Forums Poker News & Discussion News, Views, and Gossip

Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables?

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3

01-29-2017 , 06:06 PM

#26

suspect76

journeyman

Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 336

Some of us have so much $ that we own stables.

What can I say gotta lose that $

Quote

01-29-2017 , 10:39 PM

#27

coinflipper

veteran

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,223

Quote:

Originally Posted by zachvac

It would be more beneficial if they only allowed those with the majority of their 2p2 posts in nvg to play.

Quote

01-29-2017 , 11:32 PM

#28

Hardball47

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 13,308

Yeah, it's fine. I just don't get it, and I'm not afraid to admit it.

Quote

01-29-2017 , 11:53 PM

#29

TreadLightly

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 3,722

Quote:

Originally Posted by bumpnrun

I think this is a really good discussion OP

Although impractical....a ban on staking online would be beneficial for poker. The high % of online MTT pros that are backed/giving away their profits to scumbags like ZIMA is absurd.

Are you suggesting the MTT pros don't make any money ? Obviously they get a decent split + coaching to get better + take on no risk of losing their own money. It's a good deal for players and the person staking if it's a strong/honourable staking group and the player is dedicated/honourable as well.
They aren't doing it just for the fun of giving up winnings to someone for the heck of it lol

Quote

01-30-2017 , 03:28 AM

#30

awfulposter

newbie

Join Date: Jan 2017 Posts: 15

Hell, just ban poker and other forms of gambling.

Quote

01-30-2017 , 07:16 AM

#31

bumpnrun

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 2,893

Quote:

Originally Posted by TreadLightly

Are you suggesting the MTT pros don't make any money ? Obviously they get a decent split + coaching to get better + take on no risk of losing their own money. It's a good deal for players and the person staking if it's a strong/honourable staking group and the player is dedicated/honourable as well.

They aren't doing it just for the fun of giving up winnings to someone for the heck of it lol

No what I'm suggesting is if it wasn't for backers they wouldn't be able to play due to having to use their winnings for life expenses /be unable to withstand downswings

This leads to more decent players playing online than perhaps should be , hurting the Rec/pro balance

The not risking your own money thing is also slightly gross. Why should a rec have to face a pro at a FT who doesn't have as much at stake as he should? And the backer is highly likely to ghost/advise his horse as well. Basically cheating waved through as standard by stables

Quote

01-30-2017 , 11:44 AM

#32

PTLou

JellyBean

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 5,516

uh.... cliffs ?

Quote

01-30-2017 , 02:25 PM

#33

Top Pig

adept

Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 773

there'd be like 11 people left online

Quote

01-30-2017 , 06:03 PM

#34

Josem

human chemical weapon

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 18,249

I think there's a mistaken implication here that winning players are bad for the "health of a poker room".

I don't see any evidence that that's true, but plenty of evidence that it is untrue: after all, many online poker sites heavily courted high volume players to build up a high level of liquidity.

It seems to me that the much more important thing is to ensure that a poker economy is balanced (or growing). It's likely tough to find that right balance.

Quote

01-30-2017 , 06:17 PM

#35

blitzT4M4Y0theGOAT

adept

Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 1,069

Yes please ban them all. Recs only. No huds. No stables.

Quote

01-30-2017 , 06:17 PM

#36

ProRailbird

banned

Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 1,292

If you want to stake cash game players you should stake players that win at casino stakes but don't have the bankroll for private game stakes and won't anytime soon playing redchip games even as a winning player.

Quote

01-31-2017 , 01:16 AM

#37

e1cnr

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,042

Quote:

Originally Posted by grindilocks

I think there is no question that the overall health of a poker room would greatly benefit if these people were not allowed in.

Maybe they should just segregate them and have them all play at the same table so they still get the rake.

Quote

02-03-2017 , 01:22 PM

#38

grindilocks

journeyman

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 211

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobo Fett

Hard to argue with reasoning of such depth.

Ill give an example. Lets say there is a guy that stakes 10 winning players. They take a lot of money out of the game a lot of which goes into one guys savings account. This causes games to dry up and run less often. If you ban the guy that runs the stable that is 11 winning players that wont be taking money out of the games, causing money to stay in circulation longer, games run longer, and room makes money for a longer period of time. Thoughts bobo?

Quote

02-03-2017 , 01:26 PM

#39

grindilocks

journeyman

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 211

Quote:

Originally Posted by DesertCat

Since most staked pros are losing players, banning them hurts the room.

This is not true. If you are a pro you win money. They just dont have a bankroll for the games they are playing.

Quote

02-03-2017 , 01:51 PM

#40

grindilocks

journeyman

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 211

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwoopAE

I'm sure it would completely stop staking as it's totally impossible for a backer to transfer funds to a horse to deposit into their online poker account via any other method.

Bad thread is bad.

I think it is better for the long term health of the site if you make it as hard as possible. Bovada for instance doesn't have player to player transfers. It was hard to get money on and off the site. Games thrived. Then they started to allow bitcoin which made it easy to transfer money and games instantly got more difficult and are starting to dry up.

Quote

02-03-2017 , 01:54 PM

#41

grindilocks

journeyman

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 211

Quote:

Originally Posted by zachvac

Why do people invest money in the stock market instead of just working themselves?

The question is is it better for the long term health of a poker room/site.

Quote

02-03-2017 , 04:04 PM

#42

DesertCat

I am a Regulator

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 13,745

Quote:

Originally Posted by grindilocks

That's not true. Games were still super soft with bitcoin.

Then they split the poker room from the sports book...

Quote

02-03-2017 , 04:15 PM

#43

OutTaGetMe

banned

Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 170

Quote:

Originally Posted by bumpnrun

This sums it up, this kind of **** has totally destroyed the balance of regs to recs online and **** up more by the fact that regs dont play regs yet most of the people are regs with many not evening playing on thier own dime

and Im sure most of these stables and **** have teamviewers going full force with 10 people making decisions for that player if they get deep. The whole concept just reeks of collusion, softplaying, and those other terms everyone around here uses

Quote

02-03-2017 , 04:30 PM

#44

sump

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 3,136

Quote:

Originally Posted by zachvac

It would be more beneficial if they only allowed those with the majority of their 2p2 posts in nvg to play.

Where can one sign such petition?

Quote

02-03-2017 , 05:18 PM

#45

Bobo Fett

Carpe Diem

Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 57,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by grindilocks

Wait, so you actually did mean to ban the staker? Not sure how you think this is going to change anything - all it does it make it a little more inconvenient to transfer money to the stables, but it'll still happen.

But in essence, what you're talking about is just another version of banning winning players, something a few sites have done before. Sounds pretty good for the poker sites - take out the players that win the most to create more parity and let the players churn the money for more rake. But is that really the way they should be doing it? And if you want to go down this road, seems like it would be simpler to just ban the biggest winners.

Quote

02-03-2017 , 06:59 PM

#46

grindilocks

journeyman

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 211

Quote:

Originally Posted by DesertCat

That's not true. Games were still super soft with bitcoin.

Then they split the poker room from the sports book...

The higher stakes started drying up right after bitcoin.

Quote

02-03-2017 , 07:09 PM

#47

grindilocks

journeyman

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 211

Quote:

Originally Posted by zachvac

It would be more beneficial if they only allowed those with the majority of their 2p2 posts in nvg to play.

Yeah all the best players post strategy on a public forum.

Quote

02-03-2017 , 07:26 PM

#48

grindilocks

journeyman

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 211

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobo Fett

I think if the mgm banned a guy like chad power hes not gonna go through the hassle of trying to stake players. Him and his 10+ horses will leave the room and the room will thrive longer. Not to mention he is on record for poaching players from the room for home games.

For online you eliminate player to player transfers and bitcoin. You make it so only the account holder can depoist via credit/debit or money transfer or wire. This would pretty much eliminate stables.

I dont think banning stables is anywhere close to the same thing as banning winning players. Stables allow one person to have a huge negative impact on the longevity of games.

Quote

02-03-2017 , 08:47 PM

#49

Bobo Fett

Carpe Diem

Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 57,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by grindilocks

I think if the mgm banned a guy like chad power hes not gonna go through the hassle of trying to stake players.

Probably depends on how much he trusts his stable, and how good the room is. I wouldn't count on this being the result.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grindilocks

Not to mention he is on record for poaching players from the room for home games.

A completely separate issue, and one I could certainly see a room banning him for if they thought it was a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grindilocks

For online you eliminate player to player transfers and bitcoin. You make it so only the account holder can depoist via credit/debit or money transfer or wire. This would pretty much eliminate stables.

This isn't going to work for US-facing rooms, and it wouldn't necessarily eliminate stables, but it certainly would make things more difficult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grindilocks

I dont think banning stables is anywhere close to the same thing as banning winning players.

That's exactly what it is. You've simply chosen a given subset of winning players to ban, but that's still what you're proposing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grindilocks

Stables allow one person to have a huge negative impact on the longevity of games.

Pretty sure the horses are people too (horse/people jokes aside).

Quote

02-03-2017 , 09:02 PM

#50

DesertCat

I am a Regulator

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 13,745

Quote:

Originally Posted by grindilocks

The higher stakes started drying up right after bitcoin.

I played as high as 20-40 and didn't see it.

And a room could ban Chad Power but never his horses. If they ban him they'll never know who he stakes, and he can have them playing together all the time, and he may no longer give a **** about collusion.

Limiting Online transfers and deposit options would kill high stakes action faster than anything. I can't count the times i've seen a whale show up at a casino when banks are closed and want to gamble so he borrows six figures from players in the game.

Quote

Page 2 of 3

First

1 2 3

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 3

First

1 2 3

Last