lol BPC defo seems dodgy - love the way all new people have gotta shutup and follow orders

for someone who is a winning player it just seems like a "scam" or atleast false advertising. That doesn't obv matter its illegal or even bad. Only reason this company is successful imo is that private coaching is very expensive. BPC is pretty much freerolling: first they take a one time deposit to lower their risk close to zero (i imagine most of the programs are premade) and then only thing they need is that some ppl stay in long enough to be a profitable micro/low stakes bumhunter and then they take half of their profits. Joining rio essential for 10 bucks a month and getting private coaching from someone decent is way better in the long run if someone wants to take poker seriously.

sure, but is your claim that you "created" fish - ie. made people lose more (over time) than they would have otherwise based on anything?

And the spoken truth is that serious players get lots of value out of them, while fish will lose slower, mostly to the rake, as a result of learning to play a little better.

I'm still unclear how not helping the vast majority of average players (or apparently anybody at all) improve is equivalent to creating more fish. Are training sites more of an entry point for new players than seems likely?

I don't see the stuff you listed at my room too often so who knows maybe you are right. I'm running at $60/hr for 31 hours so let's hope it stays that way.

Yes, rakeback/site-sign-up data (you could get a free subscription to DC by signing up for rakeback, we could see their time to chrun), talking to 100s of subscribers, customer surveys, etc.

That's interesting, I didn't know that. How does that system work? Does the 'student' give BPC all their online screen names & BPC monitors the student via some cash player results site?

It's very similar how the blackjack-boom of the late 90s/early-2000s in Vegas was created by the books about counting cards. In the end, there are very few sharps and more "fish" are created trying to become sharps.

i know only about the small stakes 6max program dunno how it is called exactly, but u need to make a 500€ deposit and ur endgoal is to make 60k€ which will be split 50/50 between u and BPC. Dunno how they exactly track results, but there are different ways that work so thats not really important. It seemed like a really bad deal so i didnt research it any further.

there's no logical connection there though. you don't know what they would have lost had they not signed up. you don't know that they didn't quit because they subscribed, learned why the pros have an edge, realized how hard it is to get good, and then just quit forever.

had they never signed up, they may have continued to think they were amazing because how else could they go on sick heaters all the time? but they're down because lol that idiot pro stayed in to hit that ace on the river what a dumbass but if the cards just broke even they'd be up sooooooo much.

i know i played video poker when i was like 12 with the little change i had because i didn't understand how horribly the odds were stacked against me. as soon as i understood the odds i lost all interest.

you don't know that you prolonged their poker "careers", you don't know that you made them deposit more than they would have otherwise, and you certainly don't know that they ended up contributing more to the games in the long run. but we do know that the smaller the skill differentials, the larger the chunk that goes to the rake rather than the winning players.

this might actually be a pretty good analogy. in both cases the result has been more money going to the casino and an increase in efforts to get rid of winning players.

It's not a good analogy at all and I explained why earlier in the post. Moneymaker winning the main event and poker getting lots of mainstream coverage is a good analogy with the blackjack rush he's talking about. Poker training sites are the exact opposite of that.

i was being sarcastic if that wasn't clear

True, and it's coming back to me in waves (as it's been years) but comparing our results to others in the industry, like PokerStrategy, who went from a short-stacking-strategy to a full on video poker training site (because they could get more out of their customers), I have made some assumptions.

It was a pretty poor explanation and comparing MM+new platform (online poker) to the Blackjack boom is even worse. What you explained was market maturation, yes the casinos adjusted, and guess what, the fish still play. They dont even know what 6:5 means.

Poker decline is really one thing, the lack of the US market, period. Legislation has stalled, and the players have moved one (see DFS.)

I wonder if expert chess players sit around complaining about how people got better at chess thanks to computer programs. And don't forget those damn Sunday newspaper columns making everyone pros!

Or maybe chess players are just necessarily more mature because their game doesn't contain a large helping of luck and thus doesn't attract a bunch of donating gamblers.

It's a game: who cares if people improve at it? Who cares if people help people improve? That's just the nature of a world where information is easily shared. I've never understood all this moaning about training sites and videos, as if it's not completely inevitable and unremarkable that people would share information and, as a whole, improve at something.

Same goes for golf, or eSports-twitch channels, or even public education. It's not like everyone is suddenly Bill Gates because they are now educated. Public education was created to sustain the economic system, and you could say, to create fish who aren't a destructive part of the society.

Isn't that just marketing patter though?

My question is why anyone would pay a training site when the collective free content they all put out is so massive that you can never get through it all.

There's a lot of vids in the 10$ per month RiO that are really good content too (amoungst the mediocre ones)

None of the content is "really good". Customers mainly seem to want live play videos, which isn't nearly as good as other things would be, but the pro's are happy to give them that if that's what they want.

Yep, but for non of the aforementioned you pay 10k/month rake to the operator for some reason...

Probably because you only play, play money poker.

hhaha exactly. money in poker doesn't come from slightly losing players no matter how good people think they are.

it's not just the lack of the us market at all.it the software,bots, mass multitabling destroying the games. games aren't fun anymore for casual players and there is 0 action.You seem pretty reasonable, but a lot of people on here just act like fish fall from the sky and have to exist when they don't.

Some BJ fish don't know what 6:5 means (unfortunately they play this crap)as long as they're treated well,have constant action (which they do) and win some of the time (which the math ensures they do far more often than playing with 5 nl pros in a 6 max game) Compare that to the cesspool of online poker.

Casinos have figured out ways to increase their edge- poker player have done the exact opposite.

In poker you keep score with money.Chess you basically play if you enjoy it and for pride. It doesn't cost me money to suck at chess.What's the best chess player in the world make from chess? What's the 100th best player make? How much does it cost for a ****ty chess player to play every day?

Same with golf or whatever. People don't open golf courses/driving ranges, treat their customers like dirt, make their experience unejoyable and suck the fun out of the game (personally i think it's boring as hell but that doesn't matter) the way they do with poker.Golf is just as fun (or unfun) for people now as it was 10 years ago. You can't say the same for online poker. And yes people will bet on golf- but they aren't going to bet even money with someone they know they have no chance of beating.

Online poker was always destined to go to absolute **** for a lot of reasons-training sites helped speed it up.