one issue with this is that your "vote" is how much rake you are generating, so 1 20 tabling reg who plays 4 hours a day (so lets say 4000 hands) equals your output for maybe 3 months. so he counts ~100x more than you, which obviously isn't fair, and i sympathize with the situation.

i wouldn't be surprised if there were many more players who prefer the rules you've outlined, and from what i hear pokerstars gets most its complaints about slow players, but multitabling is just part of the successful business model at the moment.

Obviously, you a playah.

By 2pt+ do you mean 2%+? And, if so, how high can it go? And is there a cap?

hasn't someone already told you that there are sites that follow most of your ideas and they're ghost towns?

and what does being smarter than me have to do with anything? you're the first person smarter than me who felt the need to say it

2pt means 4 big blinds per 100 hands. so 1 dollar at 25nl per 100 hands, etc. it adds up.

each pot is capped at 3 dollars per ring table and 1 dollar per heads up table, i believe. this can be pretty punitive at lower stakes, and there is a huge rake trap at low stakes PLO (a high-variance, gambling game, with lots of action and all-ins)

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...raked-1315665/ describes this

Thats the question. My gut tells me you either have to eliminate HUDs or make them known and easy if you want the REC to "play and stay". For the REC I think they want to have that same home game, tailgate, or BM experience where the game is more intuitive and less statistical and math driven. I think you draw more RECS if you eliminate all HUDs and software.

I think you would still get some (but not as much) RECs if you at least made the math/stastical aspect known from the get go. Everyone has the same data and info to make decisions. I liken this demographic to the guys who play Fantasy Football and Baseball. Pre Internet days there was Fantasy sports, but there was a lot of manual numbers crunching for players. You had a small but passionate base of players. With the Internet and sites (Yahoo ESPN) that are user friendly and pre-loaded software, it is far easy to play, but less statstical. The game exploded as it became easier and less statsitical, so there are some parallels.

That's why I think some operator would be wise to give real poker a try. Set up a room, advertise that it's the closest thing to B&M poker that exists online and see if anybody shows up.

If I hear about it and can get a deposit down I'll be first in line.

See, the herd has already started to form. Head 'em up, ride 'em out!

Are they ghost towns due to the rules or because of the fact many people believe that online poker sites are Ponzi schemes?

What sites are they? I'll go investigate. (And did you say "most?" )

You asked the question "who the **** are you?" And, since I don't play online poker for food money, I told you.

At the casino where I like to play full ring $1/2 NLHE the rake is 10% of the pot with a $4 max. So this means the online rake is less than the casino rake. Am I right?

for sure, but their overhead is extremely high, and the games are much more beatable, so it's not really a good comparison. the comparison for stars would be similar poker sites, which basically was stars itself 3 years ago (when they were extremely profitable), but still raised rake.

The reason I asked is that one poster ITT said online rake was higher than casino rake. Another poster said casino rake was twice as high as online and now it looks like online rake is lower than casino rake.

I know at the end of the year the amount of rake paid can look huge. But, at the end of the year, the rent a doctor paid on his office can also look huge. In both cases, it's just the cost of doing business.

Now, if I bring $100 to an online poker table, play three hours and walk out with $150, have I beaten the rake?

It seems like every time there's a thread in NVG about making the game more attractive for recreational players, most people just suggest a bunch of things that would reduce the skill element of the game and make it more high-variance, without actually doing anything whatsoever to introduce new players to the game. All these things do is make it slightly easier for recreational players to occasionally win in the short term, and most likely cash out their winnings and slow down the poker economy.

The introduction of new players to poker is what keeps the poker economy going, and PokerStars (at the very least) does a fantastic job of that. People need to separate the idea of 'attracting more recreational players to the game' from the idea of 'making it more difficult for professional players to win', because there's no correlation between the two. There are a million things that poker sites can do to attract new players and keep recreational players interested without losing income from the professional players that pay huge amounts of rake, and every time someone posts something asking for all sorts of sweeping changes to be made that aren't necessary at all, it just smacks of a losing player trying to catch a break from the regs who beat him up at the tables every weekend. Please have some perspective, NVG - there's such a thing as marketing, and PokerStars in particular does some fantastic things for the image of poker as a game.

lol. I'm in it for me, not you. I'll only play if it's fun. A slow game's no fun.

Thread title is about rec players. We don't care about protecting your career.

If the online game were made to more closely resemble the casino game would that reduce the skill element?

Hear, hear. Spoken like the real Howard Beale!

A very large part of the value of online poker is that you can play more than one table.

Why would anyone play online poker vs live poker if you can only play one table? Provided I have casino I would. What online poker hate about live poker. I have stopped playing online after BF because i could only play 4-6 tables at one time.

Multi tabling is not the problem. Again the problem comes down to rake. Multi tabling increases the rake which is why it IS actually creating the key problem of online poker. However the solution is not to get rid of Multi-Tabling but to fix the problem it creates: effective rake vs winnings.

op conveniently beams himself up to the mother ship after valiantly giving one liner replies to all his critics.

adios reg hater.

I doubt the average REC player ever thinks about rake. He sure doesn't worry about complicated concepts like "effective rake vs winnings."

But the average Rec care about winning or losing, and a -3 bb losing rec become a winner if rake is lower

But can you articulate the reason? (Cue Richas explaining cash flow accounting)

REC players care about winning or losing per session. If he wins he's happy and has great stories to tell at the water cooler the next day. If he loses he only knows that he had $X in his account when he started and now he has $Y. Rake or long term winning/losing don't matter.

How do I know this? Because if he plots his "effective rake vs winnings" long term he's almost certain to be a REG. RECs just don't give a damn about it.

But they give a damn about getting their $600 deposit taken out in 2k hands. And it's precisely their lack of understanding which is key to the argument being made by Knircky et al. How many vegas blackjack players have you heard claim to be ahead lifetime even though you know their skill level would make that very unlikely? Now how many indian casino slots players have you heard claim to be ahead? See these degen types subconsciously incorporate all of the available market info, they just don't know it. And it has tremendous impacts on their long term behavior.

Of course nobody likes to lose. What's your point?

It was made.

If you say so. I didn't see it, though.

I thought knircky was saying rake is the biggest obstacle to winning.

You're saying it's possible to lose a $600 deposit in 2k hands. Are both of you talking about the same thing?