There are many such poker operations which generally are app-based but that is not a requirement. Some operations and agents are straight-forward, honestly run, some are clearly not. Search thru 2+2 for discussions ?

this is so utterly comical. i dont know if i want to cry or laugh

You're missing my point and talking about something different.

Compare a poker game to any sports game, let's say tennis. Winning points and then winning the match by winning more points is part of the design of the game, it's the objective of the game. If you take that away it's no longer a tennis match. That's what I was talking about.

What you're talking about is what the process of playing means to you. Which of course is personal and means different things to different people.

And even if some just enjoy playing and don't care about winning that doesn't have anything to do with the design of the game.

Claim that you can remove winning players while preserving the game of poker is incorrect. Let's just follow the logic of your own statement:

a) Poker is a game where there is 'an opportunity to make money'

b) Because of that there are winners

c) Take away the winners by taking away 'an opportunity to make money'

d) It's no longer a game of poker since there is no 'opportunity to make money'

e) Game of poker needs winners because without them there is no game of poker as we know it

As far as hating winners for their character traits it's your own personal prerogative. (which of course all winners have same personalities and character traits thus lumping them all into a type is totally ok)

You're assuming that everyone plays poker to try to make money; again, you're looking at this from the eyes of a pro.

There is a huge segment of casual poker players who play solely for enjoyment. This is evident by the success of the Zynga freemium model of selling play chips for real money. Stars adopted this years later, and before NJ, selling play chips was their only revenue stream from US customers.

The "game of poker" has different meaning to different people. To you, it's a money-making endeavour, and you likely getting enjoy the pursuit of getting better and winning, but you have to acknowledge that not everyone who plays the game does so for the same reasons as you.

Majority of players that play for enjoyment wouldn't enjoy the game if it was unbeatable. What's different for them is not the objective of the game but their expectation.

There's a reason why it was poker and not lets say roulette that had a major boom. It had that boom because unlike in other forms of gambling there is a much greater skill factor that is rewarded.

Sure you can take the edge out of poker and there would still be people that play it but it would be a much narrower demographic.

And most of those players on Zynga play for play chips to control risk, not because they don't play to win. They bought play chips so they can WIN more play chips and post about their win. Just because the results are counted in play chips doesn't mean that objective of their game is not to win.

The following Tweet by Patrick Leonard is in reference to Fedor's Poker Life Podcast conversation from earlier this week.

Video here. [20:28-28:20]

Dissenting NVG contributor view here.

Jesus just stop it Pads. Stop it...........

And he wants to form a union for poker players with higher rake ?

Seriously GTFO

Maybe they could create a better product if didn’t waste money on shills like you?

does anyone have a decent guess at the % of overall mtt winnings that are won by the top 3-4 stables?

Higher rake always sounds great when the poker site says they'll invest in finding more casuals, but the reality is almost always different, at least over the last 20 years. Probably a couple of exceptions here or there, but those are pretty rare. It usually just means higher margins per player and those in charge bank more.

It sorta reminds me of the arguments for trickle down economics, which is mostly recognized as a fallacy/marketing line at this point. "Good players, just pay more rake, and then we'll create an environment with worse players for you, trust us, we know better how to make you money than you do."

Disgusting

these days you're right as online poker has become about small edges and big volume.
in the other days sites like pacific had higher rake and better games.
people would ***** about the rake on here but my increased win rate more than made up for it. same with bodog even after the bottomless bonuses finally ended.

obviously if the rake was just absurdly high this wouldn't be the case.

even live LA has way higher rake but way better games than Vegas especially above 1/2 nl. i guarantee the 5/10 commece pros make a lot more than 5/10 bellagio pros despite the higher rake.

With all of that said this Patrick Leanard guy is a complete worthless parasite who drastically harms the games with his stables so to hear him talk about the good of the poker ecosystem is a joke.

Patrick Leonard is the new DNegs but more obnoxious

And less buff

That's pretty damn tough to say. It's probably not high because there's so many tournaments being played.

On some sites it could be massive number, for example Party. Some tournaments probably have 10-20 players from the same table. 100-300 entrants. Yes, it's a lot when you think about certain tournaments. They change the environment themselves.

It's definitely massive. Like 20-30% I would guess. The big stables have more then 1000 players combined for sure, and if you like at the current prize pool in 100$+ you will see way lower entrants numbers.

And then there are tournaments like the Sunday million, which even for the "worst" players in the stables is massive +ev, so in the sm I guess every stable has every player in it. Meaning from a 20k player pool I would guess 1000-2500 players are from the stables these days.

Could be wrong but I am pretty sure not.

The stables are just an extreme problem, but u can't forbid it, so there no solution.

And everyone can guess for them selves, that when a horse of these stables reaches let's say top30 in the sm, what happends? Right the ultra skilled stable owners with all their skill and additional database information takes over via Skype, phone or with a pigeon delivering the orders what to do.

That's the reality, and pads is part of it, at the same timing talking about saving the game. Guy is one of the biggest douches in the industry imo.

That's the main reason I can't bring myself to put much volume on Party. Between the serious question marks raised on 2+2 over the last few years, and the open connection of Leonard and Yong/Party, I just don't have a positive perception of the site.

Personal opinion, no site should have a symbiotic relationship with a stable. And, for whatever 'justification' they feel they may have for doing so, then those players associated with said stable should be clearly denoted as belonging to them.

I've played a few $109 MTT's the last couple of months, whilst playing them I fire a few £11/22/55 $T builders to try and build a roll. I'm quite confident that they are still dumping a fair % of players into the games there, especially when approaching an overlay.

Also this, and he's been known as one for years. He got called out years ago for merging huge databases to work out population tendencies.

This isn't the thing that I worry about the most as I just accept it is probably happening. What worries me more is how low are morals. Card sharing during a tournament when at the same tables for example?

I gave up on these a few months ago for the same reason. Too many have just cleared the guarantee player wise to make it not look like stables with an agenda to hit the guarantee.

I'm the same, stopped around end of May. I just can't abide by that kind of conflict of interest arrangement. As an example in a $109 that may have say 200 runners you could be looking at 10-20% of the field being stable maybe more.

And in the $T builders, those I am sure are approaching 50% stable, you get the first wave of regs from them, then as the late-reg approaches a load more reg, and just start flipping it in from charts. And they think this is a strategy that won't deter serious rec's.

If they had to highlight every SN with an icon showing the stable affiliation, I would imagine that would be the final nail in the coffin for their rec traffic.

How are the games online atm (party and stars)?. Will be surprised if they're good considering everyone and on Robin Hood or Crypto now.

Doug Lee finally has some genuine competition.

+1, spot on

I think pokerstars will have to consider anticipating WCOOP to compete with gg this year, because I think there can be a serious drawdown in september after WSOP on online poker tournament series.

It's also interesting how people say that mtt's is much more gentle with recreational players, and are less predatory than cash games, with all the poker stables at micros from south america and euros. All the reentries and huge teams of players there are even at lowstakes.