Quote:
Originally Posted by Doofus Krondelly
Lol, no not at all.
Current winning players are very important to sites. They stop the current 'almost winners' from making a profit.
If there are 1,000 players on a site, and the best 50 are winners, with the next 50 being around breakeven, the next 50 being slight losers etc.
Now the site according to you does not like winners, so it kicks those 50 winners off the site.
Now what happens is the 50 breakeven players are now winners, the 50 below them are breakeven now, and so on, only there are now only 950 players in the pool, less hands get played and there is less rake for the site.
So the site removed winning players and ended up losing money. Brilliant idea from them.
Winning regs are only important up to a point in that they create enough consistent traffic to attract players. Think of a live poker room as a microcosm for an online site - the regs are needed to get tables started but it's the rec players that are attracted to a busy room that keep it going in the long run. A room of all regs with no new money will eventually eat itself to death.
To take your 1,000 player example, let's assume that the site has the choose of removing either the 50 biggest winners or 50 biggest losers.
If they remove the 50 biggest winners the games will be softer for the remaining players and it's highly probable that this soft reputation will attract new players and in time replace the 50 who were removed.
If they remove the 50 biggest losers then the opposite happens - no new players want to join such tough games, the remaining losing players start losing quicker and quit and the traffic will inevitably die.
No-one in the history of poker has ever said "I want to play in the room/site with the highest % of winning regs".