Seriously mate, this is just getting silly now.

A misunderstanding of the terms "bonuses" and "rewards" indicate a flawed understanding of the poker model at the most basic of levels, hence I highlighted this, because it's important not to make that mistake. You responded with sarcasm, implying you were well aware of their meanings, and now you post this:

Respectfully, your stature allows this important topic to gain traction and focus, but your experience and understanding of the online games, especially at the limits that are most commonly under the microscope is lacking. (Now, that doesn't mean what I say- or anyone else with similar experience- is correct with our predictions and claims of course, but I believe our training at least gives us a box to stand on and talk from.)

There is an actual term for this misunderstanding of the rewards system that Negreanu and Amaya like to propogate. It's called the "Moshe Fallacy", named after the central figure in the flawed "Free Sandwich" anecdote that Negreanu regurgitates every time he talks about the subject on a podcast, or in a blog or forum post.

Interesting. Modelling of the poker environment only really started at the basic level about 4-5 years ago (I think, although I may be wrong. At least that was the earliest that I was involved in any type of discussion and I know Stars' ring-game rep had started to look into it, and making comparisons with real-life ecosystems.) Anyway, as our understanding of the environment evolves, one thing I think we see, is that often ideas that seem intuitive really aren't as straight-forward as they may appear, and other ideas that seem counter-intuitive actually yield positive results. For example, during happier times the notation that reducing table limits- ceteris paribus- would be a positive change would possibly never have crossed anyone's mind.

All that to say, I wouldn't be too quick to disregard any idea (such as doing away with micro-stakes) as being nonsense without first looking more closely into it. (I'm not saying that removing micro-stakes is a good idea by the way- I've never considered it, but your mention of it causes me to think "Ooo, hello there. I wonder what would happen if...")

Softening NL200 is the whole premise of my argument. You need beginners playing at meaningful stakes and it also discourages microstakes regs mass multitabling

I somewat agree w you but think NL200 is a tad to high. I think entry level should be sth between nl25 and 100, everybidy else can grind playmoney or donkaments

Win rate = money won off other players, minus rake (measured in big blinds per 100 hands)

But really why do you want anything lower than nl200? Give me one good reason why microstakes is good for the game.

I believe the only reason a reasonable player would argue for retaining microstakes is because it seems radical to them to remove it.

All I hear is that it's unbeatable. If that's the case is a better rake structure really even worth considering? It's so marginal, what do you actually want to achieve?

All microstakes is is a training ground for players to hone their skills so they can move up. Why do you want to provide that?

You should want new players to be playing as high as possible. If that means they won't play at all then what does that even matter?

was your first deposit online enough to roll you for 200 nl?

That's not the point. If that was the smallest game then I would have played it.

Really you have to have a completely different mindset if you're going to appreciate what I'm saying.

You guys...

If sites don't offer games < 200 nl. Another site will (hell ill start a site and do it) and the sites not offering the games will lose a truckload of money.

Lets try and be a little realistic.

1,2, are fine,

3) the fastest growing euro sites have made big cuts into the rake at the lowest stakes (Unibet has 1% rake at NL4, whereas Microgaming caps rake at 3BB for any stake which obviously has the biggest effect at the lowest stakes, it's still a 3 euro cap over NL100 though). The reason is so people climb up the stakes and rake more long term.

I'm not sure about your reasons for 4 and 5.

I agree with 6. Rather than straight rakeback (or lossback) I would be giving tickets to encourage people to play around the site more. So someone who has lost $100 at NLHE could be given a $25 seven card stud tournament ticket, or vice-versa.

In Budapest 10 years ago the tourist game in one of the parks was 3-card monty. Professional gamblers and locals never played it because it was unbeatable.

With respect, I think the situation in Las Vegas with a continuous supply of tourists who need to be relieved of their money as quick as possible is different to online where its all about return custom. I understand Las Vegas also runs roulette tables with an extra zero in order to get the money quicker. Interestingly, in Europe where gambling takes place mostly in major cities where people live and work and not specialist tourist resorts, our live venues run roulette with only one zero because they have calculated they get more return custom that way.

But if beatability isn't among the criteria for a tourist game then we can devise a much more profitable "poker against the dealer" game than anything we would call poker.

Stars have done everything in their power to **** things up and everyone still plays there

Agree with LU, a solution isn't a solution if it has zero chance of being implemented. Mason your solution is asking pokersites to take a monetary loss for the betterment of the games, regardless of whether your suggestions would actually improve the games, the sites will never do this so it's a moot point.

I'm putting it to you that a site that offers nl200 capped at one table as their smallest game is a more attractive offering than what any other site can offer in the current environment.......including your site.

We're talking about this in the Galfond thread. As another poster points out, the CPM (money per 1000 views) for showing them ads for beef jerky isn't really that high. You should advertise other gambling products to them instead. Here are some of my posts from that thread.

The basic idea is you offer rake-free poker as a courtesy to gamblers and you then cross-sell them sportsbetting, slots and casino.

It's hard for an established brand to cut off its revenue stream with an experiment like that but given he doesn't have a player-base to lose yet, he (Galfond) should have a go.

The bizarre thing about the above is that its the model that corresponds most closely with Amaya's "we're buying a database of gamblers to cross-sell to" statements when they bought Pokerstars. If such a DB is really worth 5 billion then offer a bit of free poker to build the database.

(in tournaments breaks)
A cool animated effect where the table appears to physically flip over and there's a roulette wheel or blackjack game (maybe something different each time) would get people dumping serious money.

As for cash and SNGs - maybe enforce a 5 min break at the same time and move on from the p-bottle culture.

If you can still monetize the customers you can run zero-rake poker as a way to attract them. It's maybe a smaller share of the pie for the site than the current model but someone like Galfond doesn't have a pie at all at the moment.

@ <"))))>< The trouble is that people would just multi-site.

Yeah but they only pick up one extra table.

....and you'd have a shot clock

Yes for pros, I agree.

I'm putting it to you that a site that offers nl200 capped at one table as their smallest game isn't going to make any money.


Anyways, this isn't rocket science.
Online poker is ****ed and the cause of this is three reasons. One, regulation. Two, the pokerstars monopoly and three games are getting solved. Raking games to death, micro stakes, multi tabling, russians playing for $5/hour are all just symptoms and nothing is going to change significantly until the driving forces change.

No matter how i think about it(and reading ITT too), i fail to see how increasing the rake at micro/small stakes will solve the problem.
The other topic which is being discussed ITT - getting rid of say, 50NL and below. So those regs who can not afford to play 100NL, will go away, ok that could be good. BUT those who can, will obv move up and some regs might move down because 100NL will(allegedly) will see a new influx of fish, but eventually regs coming from below and above levels should make the game harder.
AND - if the net depositors have less disposable income than, say like 5 years ago, the site which will not get rid of the micro stakes will be a winner. Would you rather have 1 player depositing 500$ or 20 players depositing 50$???
Just close down the cash games altogether or make the rake REALLY unbeatable so everyone will only play hyper-rebuy-donkaments or Spins. I suppose only thing Stars is yet to introduce is all-in shootouts for $$$

How about an increase in rakeback but in a form of only usable tickets/cash(for a level higher-example:Person who has average buy in 10$ will get a 50$ ticket). Players will get more value from rb, there will be worse players in higher limits, so there should be more action total.
Example 1: Player has average buy in of 10$, is currently a silver star and gets 20% rb. He generates 150$ on average in rb a month. With new program he would get a 109 ticket when he generates 80$ in rb or 215 ticket when he generates 150$ in rb.
Example 2: Player plays mostly 10nl and 25nl, is a platinumstar and generates 240$ in rb on average a month. He gets a 100$ cash(for every 80$ he would generate in rb) that is usable only in 100nl(it will convert to real cash after he has played a certain amount of hands at given stake).

That is probably not a bad idea. HOWEVER, let me tell you what would be an even better idea, instead of giving tickets to MTTs or CG, let's give players moarr all-in shootout tickets. I think I need to suggest this to Amaya.

that's actually not a bad idea, problem is, before recreational players rakes enough on his usual stake to get a ticket for higher stakes, it could take months, if not longer, due to overall low volume

Good idea, but not always the same thing. Give people tickets for different games too. Cash players get tournament tickets sometimes, hold'em tournament players get badugi cash tickets etc.

So if you are grinding NL50 your rakeback is in the form of running the gauntlet for 80 orbits at 10-20 deuce-seven triple draw.

Also make it progressive - start with tickets for the same level so people get them frequently and as the year goes on move to the higher limits. Unibet are moving away from giving away random tickets to a bonus shop where everyone can buy tickets for the game they play anyway and I think its a real mistake.

Yes, I realize that. There could be some solutions for it. Rakeback could increase for lower vip levels, while stay same for higher. Also if there would be a problem for rec players that put in a very small volume in the way you said, there could be smth like all in shootouts(that Amaya loves) but in a bit different way, lets say you are a bronze player that plays occasionally and with your current 8% rb you would get 3$ in rb a month on average, you could be "paired" with like 5 other similar players and one of you would get like a 27$ ticket, or players could choose what ticket they would like and then put in a pool with similar players and the tickets will be awarded at random(all in shootout or some **** like that) or in normal tournament.

Yes definitely, those were just the examples, give various usable only rewards, not always the same ones.

My solution is to add 1 million players to pokerstars.

by recreational standards $100 is enough to play 200NL...