Get lost with your deliberate miss-quoting of my posts to make it seem like I am saying what you want me to say. You know what we are debating here, whether the high volume players pay more in rake than low volume players. You say they don't and I say they do.

When you pay for something in life, lets say a new car, do you think of it as you paying for that car, or do you see it as your employer being the real payer of that car since they paid you your wages in the first place? Maybe it's not even your employer that paid for the car, perhaps it is the customers of your employer that paid your employer money, and then your employer handed some of that money over to you. I'm guessing it's the former version, and that you see it as you yourself paying for that car. Therefore apply that concept to future rake being paid out of someone's table winnings and then you will arrive at the correct conclusion.

You are a very good troll, I will give you that.

Okay it definitely doesn't help, I should word that part better.

That's not the why were going back and forth though, he's obviously incapable of admitting he's wrong

lol. That's very true.

Alright what pete said and this post made me realize something.

We may have been debating who pays the rake, you're right about that, and that was my mistake.

Who is actually handing the rake over to the site does not matter though.

What matters is the genesis of the actual dollars that go into the site's/winning players' accounts and are turned into profit.

Or you're incapable of admitting you're wrong.

Yep, that's possible. Unfortunately, for that to be the case, every other poster who has disagreed with you in this thread would also have to be wrong and incapable of admitting it, and that's highly unlikely.

In an isolated case, if a site was to lose one player tomorrow, then they would prefer it to be a recreational, low volume, net depositing player, than a regular, high volume, net withdrawing player.

When this concept is taken to the extreme however, then eventually the site would run out of players and go bust, so clearly there is a limit to it.

Can we agree on that?

Yes, we can agree on that, except for one part.

What you are saying would be an extreme is actually the everyday reality. Sites constantly lose players and 9 times out of 10 it's someone who was a net depositor, that is, a losing player.

@ Doofus Krondelly

Poker sites can't function without a large pool. of money. You seem to believe that all that matters is volume. Well that's only a small piece as it's a FACT that the more games that run the more a site makes. ( players also like having a lot of choice 24/7) I'm sure we can all agree on that.


Now, What does it take to run all these games? Money ( A lot of money!)


Now once everyone deposits ( winning players no longer need to add money as a winner can well go win more) So what is a winner to do? I know know take some money off the site for new shoes..

You may wonder how does one player win and another player lose? Well profit comes from the mistakes people make. The bigger the mistake the more another player can make. Aw the life of a winner.

Now, as a losing player once you lose all your money the only option you have if wish to keep playing is to add more money.


The breakdown:

Winners withdraw money
Losers Add new money.


I know what you're thinking well the site will just be full of winners. ( exactly!) No one is making mistakes anymore so the money slowly gets raked out of the games. Sooner or later winners quit the game as well because there is nothing to be won anymore. End result the site goes bust.

That's why recreational players that are willing to lose and continually reload are by far the most important asset for the sites and winning players alike.

Anything that keeps the games fun and enjoyable are in the end good for everyone.

Last spring 400/800 NL ran on FTP with forhayley, kanu, Ike, tightman but most importantly Malaceisa. Lets say the game generated 100k in rake.

Same time this year the game has generated zero rake. All of those 'valuable' players are still around with exception of Malaceisa. Don't you understand that he was the source / catalyst for ALL of that rake? Without him zero rake is generated from the game.

Doofus you sob... you made me actually be on the same side of a debate with BJ smith.

I'd just like to add there nothing wrong with being a losing player. That said even losing .players want and deserve something for their money. (A good time.)

All the solutions suggested will help "Recs" get more bang for the their buck. There-by helping to ensure the long-term health of the game.

This is true and I agree but the balance to ensure this should be on both players and the site. The facts are Pokerstars has slashed VIP benefits from the lowest level players all the way to the top players since the Amaya takeover. 10fpp prize pools have dropped significantly yet it's a fixed prize pool therefore Stars saves money.

The reality is Stars is doing in the winning player and the losing player on all fronts, This is the reality when a company no longer seeks to grow but wants to monetize the current player base.

For sure. In the one of two things Stars will go to far and they will wise up forcing them to readjust rake/reward plan, Or they won't and other sites will fill the void.

In fairness to the sites this really is a major shift in the way the industry goes about the business of poker. This is going to take time for the sites and players to get it right.

You are def. right that this is a major transitional shift in the approach to the business.
As a player though, I recommend going for the best deal out there and don't succumb to brand loyalty as the sites have none to you. 6 years of Supernova+ on Stars and I've decided to not pursue it and it being the last of the month it will be gone tomorrow. I have no regrets about giving it up as the cost to maintain it won't give back the rewards that it gives. If the cash games were in a better state perhaps I'd switch back and they could take my rake. Until then I'm much better off balancing my play on multiple sites.

I don't disagree with your general point, but I think this overstates it. Poker works on a winners welcome model. The idea that your fate is in your hands is why it is attractive to all players and why they can't get people to play blackjack even with the 40000 percent rakeback deal they had for it in February.

I won a live MTT this week (small field, small buy-in, small 1st prize), had a beer while I was waiting for the nightbus, played off some promotional chips I had and walked away a winner. The guy who came second lost his whole prize on roulette within 30 minutes - and more, as he handed over his last 5 euros his friend said "you need that for a taxi." Now, is this guy better for this casino, or is it me, getting photographed behind my pile of chips holding my K2 and sharing it on facebook where my students and other facebook acquaintances can see my being out and proud as a winning poker player and decide to have a go themselves? Ok - maybe the other guy is better for the casino as a big net loser but its not just a straight financial calculation.

I actually think the difference between poker and online slots is that poker genuinely needs both kinds of players - the winners attracts the others. But that's why there needs to be equal treatment for al players. No lobby bots, bumhunting, asymmetrical rakeback, third party huds, team play etc.

You are talking about a past era when PokerStars model was to grow volume and worry about profitability once they were the dominant market player. They have now done that, nobody else comes close in terms of liquidity and marketing clout.

Now they don't need to chase or reward volume. Back in 2004 there was a relative abundance of new inexperienced players and relatively few experienced high volume players.That gave us the various VIP and rakeback schems. Now there is a surplus of high volume players and a dearth of casual losing recs - that is what has given us Spin and Gos and will give us a different marketing approach where the rewards go to the depositors, the losers, not those withdrawing, the winners.

You may not like that - it may indeed push you from profitability to loss making as you lose the rewards but the sites don't care as what is needed is more new players and a longer period of retention of those players not you.

Good, so we can agree that the site would rather that a historical net depositor low volume player quits tomorrow and a historical net withdrawer high volume player remains.

Now with that net depositor gone, it could mean now that a historical withdrawer is now a future depositor because he now can't beat the games without that depositor there.

So essentially in the future any player can become a net depositor because a player has to play hands, pay rake and lose money to opponents for a bit before he realises that he now can't beat the games and so quits. And during that 'period of realisation' that ex-winning player was actually a big donator to the games during that last stretch of volume, (both in terms of rake paid and money lost to other players). If a player wins $300,000 at poker from January 2008 to December 2012, but then he plays during 2013 and hands back $50,000 of his winnings and decides to quit the game at the end of 2013 before he loses more money. That high volume player has donated more money to the games in 2013 than most low volume recreational players would.

So a winner or a loser is a historical label only, and has no bearing on the future, (and therefore is of little use to the sites), because all players just before they quit the game are depositors during their last spell, (with the exception of top winners that might decide to retire at the top as big winners still). So all a site can really do is use volume to judge the importance of players to the site, since the identity of depositors and withdrawers is not fixed.

No, this is completely and utterly wrong.

It's actually easy to check:

If ALL Depositing Recs quit, ALL Withdrawing Regs would also quit since the edges would be too small because of rake (you said that earlier); therefore, no one would play; therefore, the Raking Poker Sites would close.

If ALL Withdrawing Regs quit, Depositing Recs would still play something - maybe not all the games Withdrawing Regs help start, but they would play something; therefore, Raking Poker Sites would make some money; therefore, they would not close.

It seems that the Raking Poker Sites would prefer that the Withdrawing Regs quit, after all.

No, you are wrong, because if all the withdrawing regs quit, then some of the previous depositers are now top winners in the remaining pool, so not all withdrawers have quit have they, and so the site still has the same 'problem', (if you can even call it that because I don't believe poker sites dislike winning players), only there is now a much smaller player pool than there was before any players had quit.

Great - you agreed with me: if ALL Withdrawing Regs quit, the games go on, and if ALL Depositing Recs quit, games stop.

Now if you could also agree that the Raking Poker Sites prefer that their business continues, rather than stops...

No, because you're talking about silly things that aren't anything to do with what was being discussed.

What if no players quit, but the site decides to quit, what happens to the games then? Oh that's right, the games die, therefore that proves that poker is dead.

See how easy that is for me to make silly scenarios up and then try and make it seem like they were relevant.

Is it fun trying to convince yourself that you're right when you are very clearly wrong - and have been told so by at least 15 posters ITT?

You know there is nothing wrong with admitting that you were incorrect about something and just dropping it, right? No one here can possibly think any less of you at this point...

I just can't understand why you are still posting about this. Regardless of what you think, we all agree on an idea that is in direct contradiction to yours, and obviously either your idea isn't scientifically or factually strong enough to convince us otherwise, or you are too poor at conveying it to convince us otherwise.

So what's the point? Are you so delusional that you think that by posting the exact same fallacious argument over and over and over that we will forget about the criticisms we made of it and just agree with you?

Is it that you're so emotionally dependent on the idea that you are valuable/wanted by poker sites that your subconscious isn't letting you go of what would otherwise be an obviously incorrect argument?

I'm really truly confused here.

No one can think any less of me at this point? So you admit I have nothing to lose then.

Look, no one has definitively proved their point either way, so we'll just have to leave it as 'undetermined' for now and go back to discussing the original topic. I'm sure you've got some good points to add about removing table selection.