Quote:
Originally Posted by spamz
Don't give yourself a headache... Seriously, calling it a zero sum game trying to sound smart and not even thinking it through is ridiculous. Let's give an extreme example (in an easy structure):
2 -25% roi fish deposit $1k and play $100 hu sng's. In the current structure they are broke within 40 games on average, and stars can rake $172.40. The reg(s) that win them get $1827.60 profit and cashes it out.
Remove all the regs, these 2 fish now sit one another. They're both equally bad so on average they will go broke in roughly 232 games PURELY to rake. Stars gets ALL the money.
So yes, do tell me, how is this zero sum? Sure this scenario may pop up nowadays too, when 2 regs are battling one another. Oh wait nevermind, that almost never happens. Hundreds of regs just waiting for fish in almost any format. Pure reg battles with only people of similar (higher) skill are scarce.
Yes, removing all winning players will probably turn those -5% roi fish into winners because now they are the best (let's say 5% winner). And yes they may cashout just as much as the current regs. However by cutting all winning players, instead of a [15%,-25%] spread on expected roi (for a 95% confidence interval, numbers pulled out of my behind just as example), you now have those bottom [-1%,-25%] of only losing players. So the difference in skill between players is now smaller, and those losing players will evolve into something like a [5%,-15%] spread. How does this help stars? 2 ways:
-One I've already given with the previous extreme example: if 2 players are closer in skill between one another, money is going to move back and forth a lot more, which means stars can rake more.
-Another reason is the one you mentioned. Right now a bad player at -25% roi is almost solely meeting regs and he'll lose money in no time. If you'd remove them, he'd go up to (let's say) -15% roi and actually have a fairer shot at winning now and then, ergo enjoying the game more, ergo possibly depositing more. Yes, fish DO notice the difference between 9/10 losing sessions and 7/10 losing sessions. They may not be the best at poker but that doesn't make them idiots irl.
Really all professional poker players do for stars is keep all possible game structures running 24/7, more specifically the bigger field structures. Unless you want to argue that winning regs battle each other every day without the pressence of fish, which would be funny given the looks of most lobbies.
Spot on
With the slowdown in the growth in poker, its become a battle between the poker sites and regs to capture the recreational players money.
the introduction of higher rake, lower edge, higher variance games is a victory for the poker sites. The closer they can make the games to casino games the more money the site will make.
In HUSNG's good reg's are either "happy" to or forced to battle other regs as there are not enough recreational players to go around. This is a win for the poker sites as the edge reg vs reg is small, so more money will go in rake than in player winnings/withdrawals compared to reg vs fish.
Even if you have an edge at the Spin n Go's at the start you still need play an insane amount of games to even out the high variance. This pretty much ensures that regs who play these will need to continue play these long after the rec pool has dried up. So you will end up playing other regs who are also playing for the long run.
.