Should poker have a welfare system? - Page 2 - Poker News

Two Plus Two Forums Poker News & Discussion News, Views, and Gossip

Should poker have a welfare system?

Closed Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 2

1 2

Page 2 of 2

1 2

12-19-2011 , 08:56 PM

#26

BlackStar9

banned

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 783

^ wat?

12-19-2011 , 08:57 PM

#27

caseycjc

banned

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 4,728

Quote:

Originally Posted by fightingcoward

if anything low limit games should be eliminated so people can't practice and train for years for mid and high stakes

I didn't think I'd see a worse post than the OP, but then!

12-19-2011 , 09:04 PM

#28

DarkMagus

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 8,391

Quote:

Originally Posted by fightingcoward

if anything low limit games should be eliminated so people can't practice and train for years for mid and high stakes

i think they should eliminate high stakes so people can't lose their money as fast

12-19-2011 , 09:05 PM

#29

DarkMagus

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 8,391

also fish should be forced to play at least 4 tables to give more sharks a better chance to win their money when they "bink a big tourney score".

12-19-2011 , 09:07 PM

#30

pelicanpoker

World's Best Dad

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 21,377

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7824124751

i'm thinking something like the whole income tax + welfare system that most societies have but instead have it contained within the online poker world.

a progressive tax on winnings + rakeback which would be distribiuted to smaller winners, those breaking even and losers.

imo, it could have great benefits for the poker economy as a whole. it would definitely resulted in increased traffic/play on sites and therefore produce more rake for the sites.

e.g a nl10 grinder with an $800 BR has a big computer problem that will cost $700 to fix. the bigger winners could be forced to pay for this repair and therefore keep smaller winners in action.

this is not set in stone and i am open to other tweaks and suggestions. perhaps overall losers get 0% money back and more goes to small winners.

doesn't it seem unfair when some donk binks a big tourney score which was collected through thousands of players' entry fees and then loses it at a high stakes cash table to 1 or very few players who already have enough?

12-19-2011 , 09:10 PM

#31

BlackStar9

banned

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 783

^WP

12-19-2011 , 09:10 PM

#32

berya

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,370

Huh?

12-19-2011 , 09:15 PM

#33

Cineas IV

newbie

Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 33

"the bigger winners could be forced to pay for this repair"
Seriously? Here's a tip: next time you have a brilliant idea like this while you're high, just write the idea down, and then look at it the next day when you've come down. Then you'll realize that drugs, while sometimes fun, are not really "mind expanding".

12-19-2011 , 09:27 PM

#34

HellRoxYa

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,201

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7824124751

e.g a nl10 grinder with an $800 BR has a big computer problem that will cost $700 to fix. the bigger winners could be forced to pay for this repair and therefore keep smaller winners in action.

Amazing.

12-19-2011 , 09:37 PM

#35

bennymacca

grinder

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 644

Hope you find the money to get your computer fixed OP

12-19-2011 , 09:37 PM

#36

iluvtheflush

centurion

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 120

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7824124751

doesn't it seem unfair when some donk binks a big tourney score which was collected through thousands of players' entry fees and then loses it at a high stakes cash table to 1 or very few players who already have enough?

what do you think is "enough". Is there a set dollar amount where someone has enough money. Also who is it unfair to? The guy who lost the bink money? You for never being lucky enough to win a big tourny?