Now I'm not sure if I was trolled or not.....

I really hope you don't work for WSOP.com though

Yes and:
In the superuser scandal you had people discoverying "anamolies" and making allegations (some of which were correct) on a BB. But, what was the result. You had the site and culprits covering it up, You had a phony gaming commission in bed with the site owners, nobody went to jail, nobody was punished, many victims never got their money back, and the site kept operating. Thanks. But thats a bad system. I'll take state regulators over that system. If you had actual regulators and a legit site it would have been discovered sooner and the culprits would not be strolling around with their ill gotten gains years later.

No, I started a thread and gave some opinions to start a discussion. Is that okay with you?


Yes, if that is what they want. If they want to play aginst more skilled players, then so be it. The player has that choice.

How does this eliminate the REGs? Please explain.

I do not work for party. Do you work for PokerStars?

I actually haven't posted as much as others. Do you have an issue with people presenting their viewpoint. Do you accuse every opinion you do not like as being "spam".

Measures are taken in almost every industry to improve and sustain it. The "invisible hand" does not always cure things.

Agreed. But the RECs have little chance to become REGs if they are wiped out before they even have a chance.

The games are in decline because an extremely lucrative market is not participating.

When I look at other threads here, most REGs are complaining that the games have already dried up, that the edges are narrower, and the lowest levels of the micros are infested with bumhunting, multitabling REGs. Doesn't that need to change?

That's what we're hoping for -- legalization and regulation.

I am struck by something ITT about the REGs. Most of you may be young and have seen a lot of changes in various industries, society, politics. And yet you still cling to this dead/dying poker model. But then complain about how the games are all drying up and the how the glory days are no more. Yet you flame, insult, and troll posters who propose changes that will actually return the newcomers (and their $) back to the game. Which actually benefits you in the long run. I don't get it.

The reality for a US citizen is that the rules of the game have already changed. Their will be state run and regulated online poker. The days of FTP and PS (as they were) are over. Your going to be playing against people in your state. Maybe it expands to regions, maybe nationally, maybe internationally. Who knows. But in the short term, it looks like the model has already changed dramatically. At least you don't have to grind with 24 tabling bots in the Chech Republic. The questions is, are you prepared?

Try reading the thread rather than attacking a poster then. If you don't read then why the hell do you think you get a right to condemn those who do read and contribute to a thread?

The thread is about moving on from your simplistic "ooohh segregation evil" BS and deal with the real issues of online poker today stagnating and dying.

Wow!, we are all impressed that you made the effort to "skim" the thread. And that your biggest contribution to the discussion was to try to derail the thread with a lamea$$ insult of the OP. Next time you "skim" a thread, why dont you "skim" the title and actually respond to it. GTFO.....................

Yes, and if there was any way to verify it I would put all my life savings down on a bet saying that people have been cheated by live casino poker in vegas. However, it would be unreasonable to demand hand histories from live poker in a casino. So, for practical purposes relying on a regulatory body is the best we have.

And I've already said that I want regulators AND the ability to monitor hand histories. So, if the regulators are falling asleep at the wheel the community is there as a failsafe to expose scandals. Explain why that's bad please.

Dr MickHead,

Lets concede that you have legal and regulated poker. With good corporate citizens and a strong and honest regulatory commission. RNGs and every area of operation is checked and verified. Then:

1- why do you require hand histories?

2- Do you get to see your opponents whole cards for all hands?

legal and regulated...

pokerstars has proved that it is the only entity in the world of poker that is trustworthy

this company has an infinitely better reputation in the world of poker than the US government and any commission or board or whatever, if you're not aware of this you're just completely ignorant

i see the self proclaimed recreational players are cheering for partypoker, a site which completely changed the game without letting people know

although i find separating the player pool to be very unfair and moronic, in the end it's their business, it's their site they can make almost any rules they want HOWEVER doing it without telling people is wrong and ILLEGAL, you have modified your product in a way that changes it so much it becomes something else, you can't sell it like as if it was the previous thing, is this so hard to understand?

plus, they have also banned people from certain countries, which is.... that's right... RACIST, as overused as this word might be it actually applies here, it's like... textbook... how can you ban people because they're from a certain country?

and what's even more sickening (but expected) is the fact that the so called recreational players are happy about this, because they have come to hate the "eastern europeans" that crush them at poker via not being braindead monkeys

USA USA USA

Lots of folks ITT like to spout off general opinions, but so far the two questions I've posed have been utterly ignored. I'm starting to think folks may be here just to hear themselves talk, not actually discuss anything.

But hope springs eternal, so I'll pose them again...these are actual, serious questions that I would love to get responses on:

1. For those who feel the principal issue is that rake is too high...given that rake is the mechanism by which poker rooms (B&M or virtual) pay the bills and that the room is in business to make money, just like any other business...what do you envision as a reasonable rake structure to allow more players to be long term winners yet allow the poker room to make a profit?

2. For those who wish to segregate the player pool based on skill level...how would you have the site evaluate a player's skill level? How do you envision this working in practice? How do you actually measure skill as opposed to being lucky and running good?

IMHO, if you are advocating one of those positions and cannot give some kind of thoughtful response to that question, you need to reevaluate why you hold that position. DUCY?

They are saints! Or popes, whatever......

They definitely have a better reputation in the world than The Board of Whatever. I never liked The Board of Whatever, because they aren't trustworthy.

Those bastards! How dare they change THEIR game.

They must be arrested, indicted, and sentenced for changing THEIR rules to THEIR game. What business ever does this? They must be reported to The Board of Whatever immediately! Or to PokerStars, who are more trustworthy than the Board of Whatever!

Dammit! I loved playing with "the previous thing"! And then they changed it into "the something else" which I completely hate. I understood the "previous thing", but I just do not understand "the something else". How can they sell "the something else"? The "something else" is illegal.

Blatantly racist. I am from the The Democratic Republic of Caucasians so I know exactly what you mean!

Definitely! I mean its like in a textbook. You know, its that thing with pages, ink, and pictures. A textbook. That's what they call it!

Especially when banning people from a country is.......that's right......RACIST.

I mean everyone know the definition of racism:

rac·ism [rey-siz-uhm] Show (noun)

1. hatred or intolerance of people so severe that a poker site would ban people because they're from a certain country. Like in a textbook.

So true! Its sickening, but I am never happy unless I am hating on eastern europeans. And then crush them via a poker with a brain dead monkey. Or crush them with via a brain dead monkey with a poker. Or I do something with both a poker and a brain dead monkey and a via. And the poker and the brain dead monkey are both in textbooks.

I don't see anything wrong with rake as it is. The prevailing online rate appears to be 5% of the pot with a $3 cap. Since that's almost less than half the B&M rate it seems like a bargain.

I don't think segregation is a good idea.

This is exactly how controversies get started. I have always been a fan of the "something else." I get a lot of enjoyment playing the "something else." And besides, all the books I've studied say my winrate will be better if I simply play -- "something else!"

Thank you for keeping this on point

1. I think rake needs to be capped relative to the amount of money won. That ensures that many players win. this could be done on the entire population or individual level. Right now the sites seem to take away way over 50% of the money won at low stakes, I think it is somewhere close to 80% . I think a healthy ratio that allows for growth, lots of winners and also profit for the site is something more around 20%.

I'd be interested to hear what you think about this and how you think this could be implemented.

2. I think that is not a good thing to do. We should not mess with the game so much and this is also complicated. Today sites do this to prevent winners from winning. In other word they do this to increase the relative rake that is paid, which is the opposite of what the ecology needs.

If you had to do it, or want to you would however have to go after results and be ok with "error" due to variance.

The way i see this is: if we don't rape the game none of these measures are needed. Poker is a wonderful game that has been distorted with the current rake. Just fix that and everything should be peachy.

So you would cut the existing rake by 80%?

I haven't developed any algorithms, so I don't want to get flamed like Mike Caro did. But here's a few discussion points. How about a scale from 1-5 (beginner, novice, moderate, experienced, professional). Maybe animal themes, like in PH's book (joke). Some factors could be # hands played, BB/100, winnings, frequency, sessions, EV, over various times, periods, sessions. Totals and averages. Weight them out accordingly. Not really that complicated. With a nice easy site HUD you could have a rather dynamic system that is updating after every hand or session, with plenty of player data and information. If you watch football or baseball they have tons of easy stats, info, and box scores that an average fan can understand rather quickly. Not much different or too overwhelming a proposition.

How about a % of your buy-in and rebuys or a set amount per table/stakes per session for everyone and then a % of the profit on winners. The only problem that you have is how do you get here? Good luck trying to legislate how much a business can charge for its services. Convincing them with your wallet can be difficult if you only allow 1 or 2 entrants per state. They'll have a wink and a nod agreement to fix prices on the rake but compete on other factors.

I have thought about this and its better than what we have. It would be basically taking the tournament model and translating it to cash.

Tournament rake is much lower online than cash, which i think is a key reason why it is more successful, but i might be wrong.

My Tournament rake is below 30% while my cash rake is close to and maybe even above 100%.

I might be a better tournament player but i doubt that this is the key reason.


Still. I think what needs to avoided is a situation where someone wins x before rake and becomes a loser after rake because rake is > x.

I think this is important because naturally i believe roughly 50% of players can win or even more, so its important to keep that %-age high to keep players around. Clearly the way rake works today its creates lots of losers that are actually winners. That is a distortion of the game.

I think a simple solution is to pay a %-age of wins, which means u only pay rake if u win and always less than what u win.

Since the amount players win is not as important as the fact that they win for the player experience, this should significantly increase player retention.

Yes.

But: Only at low levels, at higher levels this would be an increase.

because the lower levels will be easier to beat, people should be able to move up and generate more revenue this way.

Because the odds are better for player new money should also enter the poker economy, which i think is why this model could be more profitable.



My Question to you:

Do you think charging 80% of the money that is won makes sense?

Do you think that could have anything to do with the decline we are experiencing?

Isn't that exactly the way it is now? I've personally never seen it otherwise. I only pay rake when I win and the rake is only ~5% of what I won.

Do you have an idea of what you pay in rake for the year?

Another way to state it so maybe some of the "dissenters" can perhaps understand the dynamic a little better is that the status quo is equivalent to a highly regressive tax. Find one respected economist who advocates an extreme regressive tax where the vast majority, the low to middle income earners are taxed at a rate 5 and even 10 times that of the upper quartile or tenth. You'll search far and in vain.

Although analogies usually muddle things that one is pretty direct because the poker economy is a micro economy subject to many of the same forces as a macro economy. At its most basic it functions more or less the same.

...they better not take away the HUD i use to smash the blackjack game when these rules go into effect.

Lolwat?