Jim,
I cannot disagree more with your statement that Rake is like everything else. Maybe because I work in horse racing and the high takeout (Rake) has been one of the major reasons the industry is so far removed from its peak and continues to contract and decline at an alarming rate. Poker is not like going to a store and purchasing goods or services. Not everything or every item has to be profitable to be good for the company and the industry, and smart business people and industries know this and act accordingly. By raising the Rake, this prices many people out (and they don't even realize it, they just know they are now not winning as much or losing more), this makes the games fewer and the remaining ones tougher. In addition, the higher rake drastically affects the smaller games, (how can the game grow when more than $150-$175 a hour not counting tokes is taken off a game in which people buy in for $100-$300?) After several hours everyone is losing and the game breaks. If they lowered the Rake to $3 a hand, instead of $5+$2 or the $8-$9 a half hour time charge that the WSOP is charging, it would make a huge difference. I could go on, but won't, lowering the Rake would be a win-win in the long term, but I won't bet on that ever happening.
Tuffbeat

Hi PokerSeshShow:

They help to start games and keep games goign, and that's an important function. Of course, not all winning regs will do this.

I've ignored this person for years and his post in this thread is an example of why I do this.

When the balance of luck and skill gets thrown off, it can affect the total number of games. And it doesn't matter in which way this balance is thrown off. I think this is a good example. Also, the reduction of total games when the balance is off won't happen immediately.

Also, is your show going again?

Best wishes,
Mason

I'd agree. imo the premise of the book (luck vs skill) is fundamentally flawed (maybe had meaning in poker rooms a few decades ago, dunno didnt play then)

Regs are only needed in rooms that struggle to get games going or niche games that most recs dont want to play anyway.

Regs are in competition with rooms to quickly take player buyins before the room can slowly rake them over time. Why would a room want to make it easier for them to do that?


Really ? Your definition of ignore and the actual definition of ignore are two wildly different things I seem to rem several sophomoric posting wars between you and "this person" just a few months ago. Also didnt you recently start a drama laden thread on why "this person" was banned?

ig·nore
/iɡˈnôr/

verb
refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.
"he ignored her outraged question"

What you say has nothing to do with what the book is about. Specifically, it's not luck versus skill but how luck and skill work together to produce a thriving poker room, plus a whole bunch of other things.

The whole book is given away for free in this thread. I suggest you carefully read what's written and then try to understand it. While you may not agree with all of it, you should find much is beneficial.

Mason

Hi PokerSeshShow:

And this is exactly the way how a poker game should be structured. As in my post above, it's not luck versus skill but how luck and skill can work together to produce poker games that will perpetuate themselves. Of course, there's more to this than what I just wrote, but if there is a proper balance of luck and skill present in the game, the bad players will have enough winning sessions that they'll keep coming back and, even though they might lose somewhat slowly, in the long run they'll lose the maximum that they can lose. Ironically, this makes poker a cruel game, but that's another conversation.

Best wishes,
Mason

Dostoevsky? He wrote from experience, and he wrote better than almost anyone else who ever lived.

Mr. Malmuth, been doing the no must move table for a while and I think it’s working. You sent me a free copy of the book a while ago and I just got it in print today. Thanks for the book. I really enjoy it.

I’ve been doing the no must move for almost four months now and haven’t faced any mayor issues I also think it makes the process more fluid. People are starting to comment about it. Some like the fact that they are not forced to move around others don’t like it cause they are used to the other method. I guess we need more time to make a better evaluation.

Hi Motobaka:

Thanks. I appreciate the positive comments.

And as I say in the book, the must move rule is not good for poker rooms and the players who play at those poker rooms.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi PokerSesh:

The chapter on "The Must-Move Rule" appears in Post #14. If you haven't read it, I suggest that you do and then, perhaps, come back here with some specific comments.

Also, and please correct this if I have it wrong, but you're hosting games which are mainly filled with invited players. This may explain why the must-move rule is working better for you.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi Motobaka:

Again, going back to "The Must-Move Rule" chapter, perhaps the main reason to get away from the must-move rule is that, especially later at night, it not helps to keep more games going but is much better for the regular players, especially those who are only marginally successful. And this in turn is good for the long-term health of the poker room.

For those new to this thread, "The Must-Move Rule" chapter appears in Post #14 and is clearly one of the more important chapters in the book.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi PokerSesh:

I think that what you have written here is consistent with what's in the book.

Best wishes,
Mason

Mason, thanks for posting this book in full. I wish more attention could be pointed out to the trend of going to 8 handed poker after the pandemic. This is just a greedy excuse for casinos to take in even more rake. I did an analysis of 8 handed vs 9 handed rake, and depending on the # of players in the room it can be 22% to 63% higher rake for the casino. This is shameful. Bring back 9/10 handed poker!

Maybe I'm missing something here, but is saying 8 handed is bad because it drops more rake, similar to saying more taxable income is bad because you have to pay more income taxes?

Goal for player is to max hourly win, not minimize hourly rake.

Mason,

While I still do disagree that lower rake is somehow going to make millions of newbies (who don't even know what rake is) come out of the woodwork and fill up rooms and increasing the rooms meager cash flow, I do want to say that this has been an excellent series. It does highlight the things poker managers should be thinking about and would generally make poker rooms better if more places followed its guidelines.

Thanks.