Your idea is unhealthy and achieves nothing.

There's good reason for the negativity and it's been explained several times, and each time you gloss over the critique and reassert yourself from some new angle that makes just as little sense.

I doubt you could find a single person whose had any sustained success at poker who would agree with you.

wait...did someone say their selling stakes in the dream machine?!

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/5...ng-poker-1967/

Almost makes me look sane by comparison.

sorry Sage, online regs ITT have convinced me your idea is flawed beyond repair (aka it's dumb)

sic brag. here is much better idea

It's in the public domain, free to anyone that wants.

I like it, I like it a lot. Can you pm me the official prospectus as I'd like to get into this IPO

Just off topic but if you are trader you can know: is it true that monkey clicking buttons can make the same profit as any average trader? Because clicking buttons in poker is not that easy even at micros. Sorry but other guys bashing you have given me bad idea to so also.

There are lots of automated trading systems out there for various types of markets, e.g. for stock market trading, currency (FX) trading and sports betting exchange trading.

But you have to be extremely careful to understand all of the mechanics and logic behind the system. Also, these automatic systems need careful, continuous monitoring and as a general rule should be considered as "traffic light" systems, meaning that we use Red, Amber and Green to make decisions on the roads but we still look with our own eyes for pedestrians crossing and for other vehicles doing random things.

Very few mutual fund traders (not hedge fund) have beat the market over the years. And the ones who have ... better or just the couple who got lucky? Index funds are a lot cheaper.

Anyway, this idea won’t work cause so many players from x level grouped in it will not be able to win at x+2 level (maybe not x+1 level).

Trading: I agree. I was an open outcry financial derivatives market maker, so yes I applied a lot of trading skill and technical know how, but I could also sometimes read which way brokers were (the buy or sell direction of their clients' orders) and exploit this sometimes being able to high or low tick the price. At all times I benefited from the trading (bid/offer) spread being in my favour.

Poker: I also agree with your "x+2 level" etc being a problem/negative but have stated variously ITT about ways to partially overcome this and other compensatory factors and opportunities.

I think he's just really fluid with his trolling, so he throws something out there that is neutral troll, then he gauges the responses and waits to see if it's a troll thread or not.

He's trolling here though, I'm 80% sure about it.

The idea is not a troll.

Of course I understand games get harder higher up and have acknowledged/addressed this multiple times ITT.

Anyone else noticed that everything seems to be black and white, brilliant idea or dumb idea, genius or idiot, in the eyes of a huge number of poker players generally. And the better someone is at cards (lol) the more certain they are of their superiority, and the more the poker sheeple believe them.

This is not normal. Non poker players as a generalisation tend to take a much more balanced and open minded view on things.

Maybe it's compulsive trolling, Sage denied to himself his troll side, pushed troll to unconscious part of personality and now he is doing his posts with good intent not knowing he is trolling?
"But in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp “Why?”

Replies the scorpion: “It’s my nature…”

You are over analysing me. Yes, I'm an ideas person by nature, and a person who questions convention. That's it, no more, no less.

I put forward an idea, which isn't even ground breaking, but is something IMO some smaller stakes players should consider trying because rake is so high and coaching can be quite expensive and hard to tell if worth the money.

Poker stables are already executing the same idea but with more of a hierarchical structure and with bigger funding in place from day 1.

The concepts of my suggestion and existing poker stables are very similar.

I mean, I think you're highly entertaining generally, I think people take you way more seriously than you are being and you seem to be able to rattle people up, lovely

The reason why I assumed you had to be trolling here most of the thread is that the idea has one huge flaw. This flaw is that the players won't win, so by pooling all their money they will just lose it. There is a reasonable chance that one of the guys in the pool has what it takes to beat 10x higher stakes but I'd say its pretty much impossible that more than 2/10 could.

The other flaw is that you'd have to distribute the profits (not that there would be any) based on volume contribution (either hours played or hands played) guys in the same time zone would have to alternate etc and you'd have to make sure everyone had the equal chance to contribute the volume. This is straightforward with 2 people, a bit tougher with 3, really really hard with 4 and close to impossible with 5. What if someone is ready to play for example but its not their turn, can they play on the side? Doing this with people who implicitly trust each other would be possible, with people who don't know each other too well...impossible, seriously.

The final major flaw is motivation, the only way this could possibly work is if all the players have very similar levels of ability, otherwise, the people with the better ability would have no motivation to share their knowledge as they are just giving EV away and not really getting anything for it...just shot taking at a stake they have no winning history at sharing action with people that have inferior ability to them.

So in short, you'd need;
a) 6-10 players with similar levels of ability
b) 6-10 players with similar levels of ability that all trust each other
c) 6-10 players with similar levels of ability that all trust each other who are happy to risk large %'s of their bankroll on a shot take
d) 6-10 player with similar levels of ability that all trust each other who are happy to risk large %'s of their bankroll on a shot take and have similar work ethics and fluid schedules

and once you have all that, which is actually close to impossible to get, then you'd still be a massive favourite to lose all the money, as they have no winning history at those stakes and most likely they will get beat.

This has been said 100 times and your response to it is "this has been acknowledged" like its a minor blip to the plan, whereas basically what it shows is that, the plan can't work without answers to these points, which you don't have...but continue to say it's still a good plan. For this reason, it was pretty obvious you were trolling most of the last 2 pages

Also in regards to comments about poker players and their dismissal of ideas - I am not a poker player, and am dismissing your idea - so it's not just poker players!!

I think it's very common to find people who excel in one area of life are overly confident, with no justification, about their abilities in others, and that's certainly true of some poker players and certainly true of high level performers in other fields. At the same time, you often find successful people who are very humble about their abilities when they'd be perfectly justified to be way more aggressive about their opinions. I think it's down to the individual, and whereas poker being a self-made pursuit probably encourages it slightly more than some other industries I think it's certainly more of a trait of the person, rather than their vocation.

Thats some pretty deep chit.

I'd have to agree with it all though.

I'd agree with most/all of ty4thDime$'s very good points too.

I think they are challenges that all poker stables face and I accept that they are challenges that would be harder for a starting on the ground floor and not initially very well funded little syndicate to overcome.