Interesting.

1. Hours of play per week
Anyone averaging less than 12 hours per week is a rec, anyone who plays "full-time" hours (i.e. 40 per week) would be a reg. But in between gets murky. Tough for me to create a boundary.

2. Amount of experience
This is less relevant to me. Someone who just got into the game in this calendar year but now multi-tables for 30 hours per week is more of a "reg" than someone who made monthly visits to the local B&M cardroom in the 1990s then got in a few hours a week from the Planet Poker days through Black Friday. The latter would be a "rec," yet at this point he probably has more experience

3. Income derived from online play
Tough for me to set a numerical threshold, mostly because of what is mentioned above in re winning recs and losing regs. However, this is probably what truly differentiates a rec vs reg, so I'll attempt to make at least a qualitative definition. A player who looks to online poker as a means to supplement his income (even if it's a relatively small portion of it) is a regular; a player who looks to online poker as a means of entertainment (i.e. recreation) is a rec.

4. Knowledge of online tools
By "knowledge," I'm not sure if you mean "awareness" or "expertise," or if it doesn't matter. I'm sure there are recreational players who are fully aware of the many online tools and, among that crowd, those who attempt to use them (akin to a local beer-league softball player who spends time in the batting cages). For that matter, NVG has discussed ad nauseum about top professionals who do not use HUDs. But these are the exceptions, not the rules, for each archetype.

However, in general, this is probably more of an outcome, not a defining quality. Overall, regs use online tools and recs do not.

Anyway, if you're looking to simplify what we're talking about in this thread, I suppose you can narrow the definitions to the following profiles:

REG: A player who a) puts in at least 40 hours per week, b) uses poker at least as a secondary source of income and c) has a working understanding of online tools (e.g. HUDs, tracking sites) whether he/she uses them or not.

REC: A player who a) puts in fewer than 20 hours per week, b) uses poker primarily as a source of entertainment and c) has little understanding of online tools whether he/she knows about them or not.

I acknowledge these are not perfect definitions (since those probably don't exist), and a good number of players (myself included) do not fall into either category. But in terms of conducting what appears to be some form of market research, perhaps these profiles -- or variations of them -- will provide some substantial conclusions.

This is an interesting thread - and thanks for starting it OP.

As more states, (i.e. California, New Jersey, Florida, et al.), join Nevada in legalizing internet poker, we're going to see an interesting clash of marketing and advertising strategies. Gary Loveman has already publicly stated (on CNBC) that he believes "millions" of Americans would like to play poker from the comfort and convenience of their homes on a "legal" American site. (That is a very ambitious projection since I don't believe I ever saw more than a few hundred thousand players logged on to Stars or Full Tilt at any one time.) Mr. Loveman is a well known "numbers man" who believes in massive customer databases and rigorous statistical analysis. He has been quoted as saying that one of the sure ways to get fired at Caesar's is to run a promotion without having done a "test" in advance.

Caesar's is going to have competition for these "millions" of new customers. The WSOP.com web site will not be the only operator Nevada licenses for internet poker. There are (potentially) millions of new players in California - once their politicians get their act together and pass enabling legislation. If California, Nevada, and New Jersey eventually get around to combining their respective player pools into a compact, there will be sufficient liquidity. (If everything goes well, the [combined] American market could quickly rival all of the ROW.) With all this potential, you can bet that Mr. Loveman (as well as his counterparts at MGM and the other operators) will have their marketing consultants working overtime to answer the key question. The "key question" being: "What is the best strategy - in terms of player rules and site terms and conditions - for attracting (and keeping) the most new players?"

Different operators will try different strategies. Some will choose to adopt rules that are more favorable to recreational (casual) players - who may only play on the weekends - while other sites may choose to ape Poker Stars and go for hard core grinders. Some sites will be more diligent about cracking down on cheaters and colluders while other sites will adopt a de facto policy of benign neglect. Some sites may ban HUDS while other sites say HUDS are OK.

This is subjective on my part, but I have a feeling most of the "grinders" were already playing on Stars and Full Tilt prior to Black Friday while most of the "millions" of casual [American] players Mr. Loveman envisions weren't playing at all. (Many of these nonplaying folks may have chosen to avoid the tables due to knowledge of the cheating scandals and/or a general perception of internet poker being illegal.)

If this is a correct perception, then the bulk of this potential new market may be (probably is) recreational players. This is my subjective opinion, (subject of course to being totally wrong), but I don't believe you attract (and keep) non-grinder "recreational" players by presenting them with a site which adopts Wild West "anything goes" terms and conditions and (implicitly) declares: "Cheaters and colluders welcome here!"

The market will decide which operator has figured out the best strategy. I think a successful site will have to adopt a more "recreational player friendly" set of rules, (and not necessarily a "grinder friendly" set of rules), but I'm not Gary Loveman, so what do I know?

If you are a recreational player and want to play against players of your same skill level then go play roulette. Poker is a skill game and that is why there are different levels of play. If you are a beginner and jump on the $1000 buyin table then you are an idiot and deserve to lose your money. If you want to play similar kind of competition join the $2.00 tables. That is the appeal of poker and why it is so popular because you can move up throughout the stakes as you work harder at the game. By playing against similar competition you essentially won't improve as much because you can't learn off of better players and you don't have much incentive to move up since your win rate is going to be the same regardless.

I don't think any sites would be willing to sacrifice the revenue but I'd like to see an online card room set aside a section that operates as close to B&M poker as possible.

You're given a new session name/number/combo tied to your account on login - makes HUDs, Sharkscope, hand histories, data mining, etc., worthless (I suppose having hand histories for the game one is presently playing would be ok. Everyone would have them so the playing field would be level.)

No multi-tabling allowed - period

Random seat assignments but table/seat changes allowed - just like in a casino

Did I leave anything out?

I agree this is how it should work. Trouble is that online today this no longer happens.

The low stakes tables are no longer a nursery ground but the hunting ground for a bunch of regs who use lots of extra software and data (some legal, some illegal) to target those rec players.

Most rec player will play at stakes they consider affordable but meaningful. Some will never go as low as 1c/2c even if it costs them as they want to have the game have some meaning to them in cash terms. Irrelevant stakes are the same as play games really.

This means that any new player with the potential to deposit a regular sum towards the poker economy will be playing at moderate stakes which today are the worst pit, full of table scanning, bum hunting, multi table grinding, slow playing, TAG regs. No limping, no multiway pots, lots of pre flop aggression, no chat, no elaborate bluffs just grinding. It ain't fun even winning (or at least getting VIP points) that way and far far worse for the rec player not distracted by multiple tables but instead waiting on the reg to act.

You could put this description on a "Wanted" poster along with my picture and hang it in the post office. It's me.

And, you're right. These are the customers to get.

My definitions:

REC - goes to the casino once or twice a month, wins some, loses some, enjoys playing regardless

REG - is in the casino more than the dealers, plays to win which may or may not happen

Online? I couldn't care less.

Because like playing slot machines no one can win anymore ( 90% losers vs 10% winners) .

All your solution avoid the actual core problem (described above).

The solution is simple: don't distort the game. Which means there must be around 50% winners.

You are talking about regulars, fish, recreational players etc. What for?
It simply does not matter what you are. The amount of winners and losers is determined by the game and changes dynamically. If 10 pros play together 5 of them become fish. So distinguish between them is a bit pointless.

The problem is that the game does not work anymore. (ratio of winners vs losers is destroyed making it a -EV game for everyone)

That is the problem you need to fix. None of your solutions really touch on that (I believe because the problem is not understood or mis-understood).

I do thank you for contributing to this most important discussion around poker. I am truly trying to contribute and not flame you.

To solve the problem I have proposed several solutions but they all come down to one thing:

- Do not distort the game.

In reality that means fixing the rake. If you play PLO and you are a rockstar and win 15bb but the rake is 20bb you now lose 5bb, which means the game does not work anymore.

I know 200nl pros who pay 6bb in rake and win 3bb. These are hardcore pro's that do nothing but to study, teach and play poker every day. if a pro can only keep 30% if what they win, how do you think a normal guy entering the game is going to fare.

the reason why everyone is leaving the game is simple: everyone (but a few pros) is losing thus it makes not sense to stay. Everyone thinks they are playing a skill game, but the poker table has become a slot machine.
Thus the ratio of players that stick around and new players thus becomes negative.

HUD or not is not the problem. The problem is that with a HUD most players play more tables and their win rate goes down. Now they have become fish. And now everyone is a fish and the house takes all the profit. The problem is not the HUD! Its that the house can take all the profit. Take HUDs away and the problem will arise again in some other form.

So again you need to fix the actual problem.

I don't think most people on 2p2 really get the general public perception of Internet poker. Folks on this forum view online poker as a legal activity and can effectively state that case. But there's a large contingent of people who perceive it as shady at best, if not downright illegal.

There are plenty of fish down at my local room who are regulars...they lose significant amounts on a weekly or even daily basis.

When online poker returns to the US in a fully regulated and EXPLICITLY legal way, and all the marketing and ad folks get involved, we'll see a HUGE poker boom. A lot more folks play poker for play money on Facebook than on real money sites from the US.

I think this whole discussion is just nibbling around the edges at a lot of stuff that doesn't really matter either way in the end. The number of multi-tabling grinders will not increase at anywhere close to the influx of new recreational players in an explicitly legal and marketed environment.

Just my $0.02, no slight intended to those who are passionately arguing the points.

Your premise is flawed. You're basically putting out the NVG-non-poker-player party line of why bad players don't play. You have presumed your conclusion. Mason put quite a lot of thought into talking about the relationship of poker pros to the cardrooms in his Poker Essays books. It is one of the best discussions of why winning players are good for cardrooms I've seen. Your assumption is that winning players are in opposition to rooms, which I believe is clearly wrong. Who starts the games? Who makes sure there are games available when people want to play? Most casual players don't like starting new games, so making a casual only poker room tends to be a failboat.

You know it isn't a debate if you explain why the person responding to you isn't argining right. He had a number of good points about why your suggestions are bad. Rather than addressing those points you demanded he respond the way you want. See where that gets us?

As others have said, you are essentially removing the skill aspect from the game. By guaranteeing that everyone plays opponents who are about as good as they are themselves, you are forcing everyone to lose to the rake. If you ever successfully bin players by skill, only short term luck will rule. Maybe your bins flex as luck makes a player runs better or worse. Assuming a player runs well, he'll be moved up to games with better players who will beat him. If he runs poorly, he'll get some EV edge.

Basically, if you believe poker is a skill game where a person can improve and become a favorite to win, this idea is repulsive. If you like giving ribbons to all the kids on the field, I guess you like it. The sites will love it b/c there will be many fewer players winning to withdraw.

No idea about segregating by limit. What do you mean? The games are already separated -- you get to choose which limit you play.

Most rec players don't have a clue about HUDs and HH.

Most rec players wont be searching everyone at the table to see they are mass tabling.

Have no clue why you'd want real names, and think as many rec players would be against this than for it, if not more.

OP, how many different accounts do you have? How many of these threads have you started under different names?

Op I think the last thing a true recreational player wants is to be babied. Wouldn't you agree that by definition most rec players play poker in there free time, as an escape. If they had more time for playing, and the skills to play profitably, perhaps they might consider it as a profession. But for the most part, rec players play for entertainment, or to hone skills for bigger games or tournaments on occassion.

Your entire premise of arguments is built around growing a base of rec players for a poker ecology to survive.

You get a good player base of regs by giving people choices. Choices like how many tables am i capable of playing. Or learning new concepts and skills with tools like huds and note takers.

Do you think rec players want to get dumped in with a bunch of losing players after running bad for awhile or splashing around for fun at lower stakes to vent steam. Personally i would feel insulted.

Play under my real name in my private time in the privacy of my home. Oh well thats really sweet for thieves and robbers to come knocking on my door when my lights go out after binking a sunday major.

Last thing on my mind is, where are the recs who are calling for these changes? You arent really speaking for anybody imo. Most of the recs on 2+2 are bitching about more tourneys, better structures, bad beats and variance. Or looking for advice to improve how they play.

Im done. Im a rec till i can get to vegas. You dont speak for me. Quit trying to depersonalize the game i njoy.

I'll take a look at the state of games after I have access to a sizable American player pool and then I'll decide whether or not to worry about any of this.

Would fast tables, where you could only play up to 4 tables work. As a rec player I hate the slow play.

I see where you're coming from but lock and party are setting some very scary precedents that we have to watch what the sites are doing very carefully... if the sites are showing that they are siding more and more against grinders the grinders have to take notice and throw their input.

Because there is MILLIONS of them!

It would be interesting to see the split:

Yearly Rake generated by accounts playing < 5k hands per week
Vs
Yearly rake generated by accounts who plays > 5k per week

I would put my house on the < 5k accounts generating take due to the % of rec:reg players. Although it would be interesting to see by how
Much.

It feels like the majority of regs posting believe the sites make more money from them than rec players. I don't have the numbers but that feels almost impossible.

For what it's worth, every time someone comes in to tell the OP his ideas are poor or his premise is flawed, it supports the very purpose of this thread. Based on the inside information ProfessionalPoker has provided AND the "play devil's advocate and argue a position that you may not agree with" instructions, it's apparent that the OP has employed the old Debate Club technique of attempting to argue the opposing view to help strengthen his own.

Come to think of it, I'm now wondering if the OP isn't in fact a ProfessionalPoker alter ego?

Anyway, in my previous wall-of-text post, I realize I failed to address the actual topic at hand. OP, I am (or was, prior to BF) what would generally be considered a "recreational" player. I might not be the stereotype you're looking for (the fact that I'm a 2+2 member would reveal that to some degree).

So here goes with my personal stance on each subject, if I were looking out for me and me alone. I recognize fully that the opinions below will not always match those of my fellow 2+2 brethren.

1- Ban on all HUDs and any software while playing: Against. I didn't use a HUD, mostly because I played at stakes too small to warrant the expense. But I did like using sites like Sharkscope and OPR to get a general idea for the strength/experience of the other players. Even in the B&M world, I find myself chit-chatting with other players to profile how experienced/skill they might be because I miss being able to look that up.

2- A 4 table limit per player per session: For. I almost never played more than four tables at a time, and I definitely got annoyed by the lag mass-multitabling caused at my games. So four would be right in the wheelhouse for a preferred maximum.

This said, I would not actually want to see this happen at an existing site, because why would I impose my preferences on everyone else? But if a site were to come about that had such a max, I'd be all over it. Apologies (and props) to those who mass-multitable, I'm just being honest here.

3- Random seat assignments: Against. Even before I played a hand of real-money poker, I had read a little bit of strategy stuff, such as Phil Gordon's book. [wait for laughter] So I was aware of the "Jesus seat" before I even knew what it was. Even when I'm toodling around on play-chip games like on Facebook [again, more laughter], I always put a little thought into what seat I take.

4- Restrictions on access to HH- only to investigate issues of cheating with a formalized investigatory process. Not for the purposes of studying opponents, analyzing play, or datamining.: Against. From the first time I ever played poker, I had "IWTSTH syndrome." I still have it. If I play live and make an accidental value bet or something, I always have to swallow the desire to see just what the hell called me. I'll never asked to see the mucked hand in live poker, purely out of etiquette. But online, it was one of the first features that I thought was really cool, and I still enjoy it for reasons that having nothing to do with analyzing play.

5- Segregating players by win rate and stakes: Against, very against. This goes back to #1 and #3, but I've been big on opponent/game selection since before I ever played for real money. The idea that I couldn't target softer games and weaker players would have been bizarre from Day 1, and it would remain that way now.

6- Play under real name, IP verification, no VPNs: I honestly have no idea. I enjoy the relative anonymity of online poker, perhaps because I know I'm not a great player (in more than four years of microstakes on all the various sites, I only finished about $2K in the black). So I wouldn't want to be forced into playing under my real name. As for IP verification or VPN restrictions, I don't know enough about what it would achieve to have an opinion about it [wait for laughter].

OP, I hope that helps. You wanted people to think from the point of view of a recreational player. Well, I AM a recreational player.

4 table cap does nothing for speed if there are enough sites/liquidity. 16 tablers will play 4 tables on 4 sites.

Sites don't make any money from net withdrawing players.

i dont think it's the same. During multitabling robots fall in trance: the same picture, same buttons location,sizes etc.
That's why so many themes: where i can download PS theme for FT.
Discomfort.

That's what Mr. Loveman (the numbers man who runs Caesar's Entertainment) believes. He actually said (on CNBC) that there are "millions" of Americans who would enjoy playing poker on the internet (in their homes) on a "legal, licensed and regulated" site. Since Gary Loveman is a strong advocate of spreadsheet and database analysis, (and making business decisions based on such analysis), one suspects he is aware of the millions of [play money] players playing every day on Facebook/Zynga. I don't know the exact numbers, but I recall reading an estimate that as many as 40 million people have played poker [for nothing] on Zynga. Those are the kind of numbers that make a green eyeshade accountant's pencil hard.

The $64,000 question (the great unsolved mystery) is how many of these Zynga "recreational players" will convert over to real money play - and continue playing (and depositing) after they convert? There's no way in the world 100 percent of these folks will convert and actually deposit real money, but I suppose Mr. Loveman is thinking "If we can entice just five to ten percent of the Zynga crowd, that's between TWO and FOUR MILLION rake generating new players!" I suppose Caesar's and WSOP.com can entice a few million new customers with sign on bonuses and heavy advertising, but the real test will be the retention rate - how many of these "new customers" stay on the site (and continue playing and depositing) once they've worked off their sign up bonuses? Without terms and conditions that are more friendly to recreational non-grinding players, Caesar's will be lucky if they attract (and keep) just one percent of the Zynga crowd - but even that low percentage would be close to half-a-million new players. Somehow I get the feeling that Gary Loveman won't be satisfied with a 1 percent conversion and retention rate - he's looking for "millions" of new players.

This is another case where "old Alan" could be wrong, but I have this eerie feeling that a majority of these Zynga folks will not continue playing on a real money site once they begin to feel "something is not right here" and "why do I never win?" These folks are (admittedly) not "sophisticated" poker players, but they'll start comparing notes and exchanging emails among themselves. Unless site rules are modified in such a way that these folks feel they are on a level playing field, they simply won't play long term. That's my theory, but what do I know?

If you're between the ages of 18-23 your opinion really holds no water.

I'm a rec player. I played on Party in 2003-2004, Stars in 2004-2010, Full Tilt in 2006-2010, UB off and on, and of course at a casino and an illegal card room (which was raided and shut down by the gov't). I took down a 5k score on Party in a tourney. I placed 11th in a Sunday Million on Stars. I played in a $750 satty to the 2006 WSOP and won a seat (awesome experience, btw). I loved the $22 180 man SNG's on Stars (and you nerds stopped playing them). Yes, I'm rec. A winning rec, but REC nonetheless.

Now, why did I stop playing online? Because it sucked. Nothing but a bunch of 20 tabling, mom basement dorks who won't give you any action at all. I'd rather be dead. Remember in 2005 when you got called for your big bet on the river? Most of you don't because you're all 20 years old.

Online poker was fun back then. Now, it's a chore. It's a math problem...nothing more. No thought required, either. Skill game my @ss. The only thing you HUD users think about is if you're going to have Totino's pizza rolls for dinner or Ramen.

Tell me I'm wrong. I dare you.

I have played for "real money" on an internet poker site, but I have never played for "play chips" on a site like Zynga. I have a buddy who has done both, so I sent the following to him. (I'm curious as to what he thinks.)

I directed him to my latest post in this thread.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...5&postcount=73

Salutation:

I know you have played on “play money” (as well as real money) sites, so I’m curious what you think. I have my doubts as to how many of the folks who play “just for fun” will actually give real money poker a try. To me, playing “play money” poker is not real poker – it’s kind of like the difference between playing touch football and putting on the pads, taking a hit, and getting roughed up. Folks that play on Zynga are playing touch football – they don’t want to “take a hit” and get roughed up by losing real money. They’re primarily “social” players who are playing for fun. If they risk (and start losing) their own real money, that takes the “fun” out of playing poker. I just have a feeling the vast majority of these “play money” players will not play for real money. That’s a bridge too far for most of them. Unless site rules (and site “Terms and Conditions”) are greatly modified to level the playing field for these folks, I don’t think very many of them will play for real money.

What do you think?

I don't think men would have a problem with depositing $50-$100 a week if they knew the site wasn't a shady mess like they all are now. They didn't have a problem back in the good old days (2005-2006). I still think women would be apprehensive. My fiancee' plays facebook poker. I doubt she'd play for real money, though.