I'm curious to respond to an argument that banning certain countries is racist.
The play is divided up at cash games into stake levels. That is so there is the universal denominator of the chip value allows a certain level of play at that table at a certain risk to each player.
The disparity of what the chip means between players of different economies though is a great factor on affecting the play. This is real economics catching up with the layout. I don't see a problem in sites at least acknowledging a problem in that the .25c chip is not of the same value to all the players at the table.

I have not advocated segregation of players by skill. I don't want a segregated player pool - I want protection for rec players from bumhunters and their third party software and illegal databases.

As for how Party is doing this - we still don't know. Personally I would use exactly the same software as the bumhunters to see which tables or players are being highlighted to target and then hide them from the high volume players, measured by average number of tables or VIP points in a given timescales - say past two months.

The problem for rec players facing mass tabling bumhunters is not just the good ones with a high win rate but also the bad nitty slow ones who basically break even and bank VIP rewards with sheer volume. Facing a good player is not the problem for a rec, a new rec is likely facing every player being better than them - average win rate is not the measure of a bad person to play for a rec and win rate is volatile anyway. A good player playing few tables, seeing flops, playing multi streets, making elaborate bluffs, chatting and WINNING is fine for a rec - a mass tabling nit who never talks, slows play by not acting and is unwilling to play multi street and instead reduces the game to pre flop aggression is a plague on rec players.

Ducy:

While you, I and others may agree that changes are needed to site terms and conditions (as well as the rake structure), the question is how site operators view these issues? It is the site operators (with the consent of their regulator) who will ultimately decide what the internet "player experience" will be like. The problem with this is that player interest and the [financial] interest of the operators are simultaneously in agreement and at the same time opposed. (We're all in agreement that "millions" of new recreational players would be nice. We're not necessarily in agreement on changes to the rake structure - especially at the lower limits.)

The question is whether site operators are going to be willing to institute changes that are more favorable to these "millions" of new recreational players they are hoping to attract? I have my doubts as they may conclude that only a very small minority of players, (that would primarily be us), care about terms & conditions and the rake. The vast majority of low limit "recreational" players are oblivious to the rake and site terms & conditions - and site operators know it.

I fear operators will "run the numbers" and conclude that they can leave things pretty much as they are and see how "the market" responds. (They'll certainly start off this experiment by aping a close approximation to the Poker Stars model.) If they get (and manage to keep) "millions" of new rec players, then we're stuck with this lousy model ... they won't change it since they will be maximizing profits. They'll only make changes, (especially to the rake structure), if "legal" internet poker is rejected en masse by the "millions" of new rec players they are counting on.

Personally, I don't think they will get (and keep) millions of new recreational players without significant changes, but what I think (and what Mr. Loveman thinks) is probably far apart. Of course, all this will be greatly affected by what the regulators decide. If the regulators formulate compliance rules that foster real competition, (with many operators getting licensed), changes may be more likely as the invisible hand of the marketplace will work its magic. If the regulators license only a few operators in each state, there likely won't be any "real" competition - especially on the rake.

There is one thing we as players (as well as the PPA) could do to foster and encourage a more balanced "player experience" for all these new recreational players. Once Caesar's and MGM begin running saturation television, radio, and print advertising promoting "legal" internet poker; the PPA could buy a full page ad in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal or a more appropriate wide circulation newspaper. The purpose of this full page ad would be to educate new players with respect to what they're up against. The real purpose of this "education" would be to try and force the operators to adopt more "player friendly" rules and a fairer rake structure. Would such an approach work? Heck, I don't know ... it's never been tried!

I had an email exchange with a poker buddy of mine on whether he thinks legal (regulated) internet poker in the United States will be successful? He expressed his doubts pointing out that with a potential market in the hundreds of millions (if not a billion) players in the entire ROW, why has Poker Stars only managed to attract a few hundred thousand? (And nearly half of those players are "play money" customers who aren't paying a penny of rake!) What computer program at Caesar's is telling Gary Loveman that he'll be able to attract (and keep) "millions" of new recreational players when Poker Stars has had a ten year head start and hasn't managed to attract half-a-million real money (rake generating) players?

If Gary Loveman truly believes he can entice "millions" of new recreational players to his site without instituting more "player friendly" rules and conditions, he may need to reprogram his computers.

Originally Posted by BigBritches
So you would cut the existing rake by 80%?

I'd like GM to cut the price of Cadillac Escalades by 80%, too. I'd buy one and I think a lot of REC drivers and newcomers (to driving) would, too. That would certainly be good for the driver economy.

Doubt it's gonna happen.

I'm only charged ~5% and that's all I really care about.

Not really. The decline is mostly due to shutting US players out of the market and REC/newcomer feelings about the integrity of the game.

It makes no difference. What I do know is that if I win a pot the house gets ~5%. So if it's a $20 pot, my focus is on the $19, not the $1. As long as I get a sufficient number of $19s, the $1s don't really bother me.

Amen to that!

Excellent point. That's why I believe having a few tables that resemble B&M poker as much as possible will attract those RECs. After a site tries (and promotes/advertises) them for awhile they will likely want to expand them.

It's the time-honored "Give 'em what they want and they'll...."

I feel exactly the same way! (Except my HUD's for roulette.)

You are unteachable (at least on this issue).

And also incapable of thinking about rake more than in connection with one pot that you win at a time.


I see why poker providers (and probably other companies too) feel they can charge so much.






EDIT:

And you don't do the math right in your pretty irrelevant example. Sites don't rake your profit in a pot, they rake the entire size of the pot. If you win a $20 pot and it was a HU pot and neither you nor the main opponent were in the blinds, then you probably put around $8 into the pot. You then win a $20 pot which means you won $12. The site then takes their $1 rake on the $20 pot. So on this one pot you profit $11 (not $19) and the site gets their $1 rake.

As I wrote before -- I don't do mazes. If you have something for me, address it to me and leave others out.

This does not appear to be happening. Many states are awarding 2 licenses. They are following the same approach they did with B&M casinos. You pay a big upfront license fee and then the states take a piece of the revenue. Some states without B&M casinos are combining the online license to the B&M license they are awarding.

With only a 2-3 online licenses per state, there is vey little chance you will see any change to the rake structure IMO. It could actually get worse. Operators may take the approach that they have a captive market and gouge the players even worse. And without the ability of larger scale international companies like PStars/FTP to compete, there is little price pressure to be exerted.

The initial structure for the market seems to be like the state lotteries. Each state will have one and will regulate it accordingly. Then they will morph into some regional/cooperative agreements. If Caesar's wins licenses in 6 states, they may combine the player pool and take advantages of the economies of scale on their expense side. But will do very little to change the rake and reduce revenue. And the state has no interest in reducing rake, and cut their piece of the pie.

I do not think you will see a national or international company competing in the United States in the near future. The federal inaction allowed the states to come in and fill the void. Lotteries have become a huge revenue generator that the states rely on. They don't want the Feds to kill their golden goose. Notice how we don't have a National Lottery? Why is that?

In many states they payout out about 50% of lottery revenue in prizes. The balance is kept to run/manage the lottery (10%) and the rest is kept by the state and then distributed to their cities and towns for local aid. They rely on this revenue for their budgets. With millions of dollars at stake, I don't think the states (through their elected reps in Congress) are going to allow a national or international company to compete.

Why would any Congressman in a state vote for a federal law that would allow a national or international to compete in his state. And drain tax revenue from his own consituents? Effecting tax dollars that pay for schools, police, and fire departments? The governor, state reps, local officials would be furious at the potential revenue loss. Also, there would be more regulatory jobs and pork to hand out at the state level for the connected few. We have state run lotteries and casinos. I think you have state run online poker.

Which is why they won't change

There were a number of quotes for context and then I wrote only one thing at the bottom. If that is a maze, it has to be one of the simplest mazes ever.


Here is what I wrote in post # 511 without it being in a quote so as to not make it too difficult for you:


"You are unteachable (at least on this issue).

And also incapable of thinking about rake more than in connection with one pot that you win at a time.


I see why poker providers (and probably other companies too) feel they can charge so much.




EDIT:

And you don't do the math right in your pretty irrelevant example. Sites don't rake your profit in a pot, they rake the entire size of the pot. If you win a $20 pot and it was a HU pot and neither you nor the main opponent were in the blinds, then you probably put around $8 into the pot. You then win a $20 pot which means you won $12. The site then takes their $1 rake on the $20 pot. So on this one pot you profit $11 (not $19) and the site gets their $1 rake."




For context see post number 511 at:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=511

1.) Checks and balances. How do you know if you have a good regulatory commission or a totally corrupt regulatory commission? The only way to know is to do your homework. Any regulatory commission who doesn't want someone checking up on them is likely corrupt.

2.) Only if they go to showdown just like most sites.

Ducy:

If your analysis is correct, then what we'll wind up with is "legal" internet poker with no real competition. (I suppose, in a last gasp desperate attempt, Poker Stars might file a civil lawsuit to try and force their way into the US market, but the chances of that succeeding are slim and none - and would cost PS a fortune as Caesar's makes sure the litigation drags on for a decade.)

Gary Loveman has publicly stated that he envisions "millions" of Americans flocking to legal internet poker. Unlike lottery tickets, which require very little thought and concentration other than paying the clerk and picking your numbers, poker requires some effort. It's not "easy." I just don't believe millions of Americans are going to flock to legal and regulated internet poker - especially overraked poker infested with HUDs, bumhunters, and cheaters. Oh sure, people will "try" internet poker, but once it starts sinking in that this is not fun, they'll quickly drop out and return to Zynga.

I'll be astounded if WSOP.com (real money) poker gets a million or more players. (I'll be amazed if they get 500,000.) But maybe that's good enough for Gary Loveman and Caesar's. Mr. Loveman says he expects to attract "millions" of new players. If they get (and keep) half-a-million, I suspect they'll be happy with that. After all, that will be nearly double Poker Stars ROW market share.

My roulette HUD was integrated into my Google Glasses and then NJ went and banned all Google Glasses from the casino


http://calvinayre.com/2013/06/06/cas...-city-casinos/

Your post, if it was to me, also included quotes from knircky and Howard Beale. I don't need context or your editorializing. Just shoot me the question, or whatever, and I'll do what I can to reply.

No, I'm a REC. And, as I have been saying, this is the way RECs view rake -- if they think about it at all. Your mathematical fantasies don't mean jack to a REC.

The states will regulate, that's for sure. But, if Caesars Entertainment thought they would never have a market larger than Nevada would they even be interested in getting into online poker?

Caesars has properties in 20+ states and I suspect that Loveman anticipates having online players from at least that many states -- and probably a whole lot more.

Funny. I don't ask for hand histories when I play at Bellagio. How do I know the regulators aren't corrupt?

[QUOTE=Alan C. Lawhon;38838929]Ducy:

Yes. IMO you will have little competition. Look at the states that legalized casino gambling. They license a few destination casinos and slot parlors. Compare the rake. Its higher than NJ NV where you have numerous competitors. When you have a 2-3 competitors they will compete on factors other than price. I don't see anyway that anyone can force their way into a market that is state regulated. Caesars couldn't just go into Connecticut because they want to. Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun made their deals.

Here is a way he could reach millions. I think his team agrees with the approach that the key market is the REC not the grinder. That is where the money is. I also don't see him touching the rake. Compete on game integrity, customer service, and making it as close to a B&M experience as you can. Now, he has to increase his player pool by moving into other states.

He is in a good position, has a great brand, tie ins, and he is one of the first to have a footprint. WSOP and UP are the first movers right now. They have a huge advantage. But, they have to move fast and then hope other states do as well. They can expand into other states alone or with agreements with existing B&Ms. They will have the software, the network, and the expertise to apply for a license in every state alone or with partners. The player pool grow. PStars/FTP and other online sites are on the outside looking in. They have better software ATM, but their reputations are unsavory. They'll be locked out.

True. But think of the market that he is going to capture if he does it right. 30-60 year olds with lots of disposable income. An advertisers dream. How many states does he need to get into? How many trips to Caeasar's, vacations, hotels, timeshares, WSOP tournament packages, and other promotions can he leverage off that demographic?

Bingo!

Yes. I think the REGs and grinders on this site are failing to grasp something here. Many companies may not want them or their business at the expense of a far more lucrative market. It’s the same in a casino. Does Gary Loveman want 5 rounders at everyone of his tables taking down his tourists?

It included quotes from them because they were involved in the conversation with you that I was commenting on. I didn't ask you a question.


Most "RECs" who don't think about or understand this stuff (rake) don't have multiple people explaining it to them. You do. I think most "RECs" in your position would have a better understanding by this point in this thread.


I don't know why you add the word "fantasies" there except to try to cast doubt on the ability to use math in calculating the rake or the accuracy of such math ... which makes you look stupid.




Also, for just one last time: It doesn't matter if they ("RECs") don't care about the rake or understand the math. If the rake were lowered they would win more, lose less, or possibly go from losing a bit to winning a bit. Most of them should be able to notice that and like it even if they don't know why it really happened. (And even if they don't notice it, they will still have more money on their poker accounts.) This would be good for them. Your seeming inability to comeprehend this confounds me.


Now, to go further, if more players could understand this and make known a desire for lower rake and give providers with lower rake their business, then it might actually help (in combination with competition among providers) in getting rake lowered across the board ... which would benefit all players.

I don't want to get involved with this, but his easiest response to you would be:

"How do you?"

for which I presume you don't really have much of an answer.




And of course, one difference is that you can see the physical cards at the Bellagio and can see the shuffle. Online you can't as it uses an RNG. (Unless of course the Bellagio uses a shuffle machine .... which is somewhere in between.)




Also, it is impossible to get hand histories at the Bellagio. It is not impossible to do so online. Don't see why we shouldn't do something online just because it is not possible to do it live.

But, it isn't happening.

1- The REC doesn't care or notice
2- The providers apparently don't care about the REGs and grinders or what they want.
3- With less competition the providers aren't going to decrease rake. They may feel okay to increase it.
4- If the rake is so out of line, then why weren't at least some online sites trying to aggressively capture the market by reducing rake?

If it is a heads up $20 pot, then the casino is raking your winnings for 10%. This is how it would be measured in any other table game. If it's three way to the river you are still paying 7.5% rake. At the end of a year, a winning player will likely find that his pre-rake winnings have been reduced by something around 2/3's by rake.