Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason Malmuth
Hi Quick_Ben:
This is part of the argument and is consistent with my second point in this month's Publisher Note for our online magazine:
2. Low stakes recreational players shouldn’t be playing in games that are mostly populated by pros.
Best wishes,
Mason
As it stands, this doesn't even make any sense, and it's unclear what "shouldn't" is supposed to mean.
Firstly, "low stakes" is relative of course. Generally online it refers to 50NL - 200NL, although you can't compare the standard here to the lowest stakes live games. Standards at equivalent stakes online and live vary immensely, in the main, because of the number of people who have access to those games: The more people who have access to a competitive pursuit, then the higher the skill level of the participants. Therefore it is unrealistic to expect games in the 50NL - 200NL range not to be populated by a lot of good players. (Although you overestimate the number of professionals that play at these levels- and they are not mostly populated by pros, as you think.)
As the audience has grown, and the pools' skill set has increased, the entry stake for beginners has continually been lowered. So, whereas a few years ago a fish wouldn't have been in too deep at small stakes, he now has to find a home at micro-stakes.
So when you say "low stakes recreationals players shouldn't be playing in games that are mostly polulated by pros"...
1. They aren't, although the standard is good.
2. Online Low Stakes are too high for recreational players in general.
3. It will NEVER be possible to have recreationals playing 50NL - 200NL online with games as soft as you're imagining. (Assuming a non-segregated player pool.)
4. Micro-stakes exist, and they are the level that recreational players will have to remain at- if they want to survive- until/unless they improve. (NB. Obviously lots of players who class themselves as "recreational" can take care of themselves outside of micro-stakes, but in general most recreationals are what we would call "fun players.")
So, to conclude, it's very much an unrealistic dream.
I think, all else being equal, as standards across the board improve, it's the sites who have to be the ones to eat the costs by reducing effective rake if a healthy environment (or any type of environment) is to be preserved.
Last edited by MeleaB; 09-17-2016 at 06:07 AM.