Originally Posted by KyddDynamite
1. No, I've got mostly good feedback except for from grinders.
In no place in the world that I can think of are people less confrontational/do they express their discontent more in private than in the poker world. Poker players are just soft in general (see them always getting scammed and nothing ever happening to the scammer), so there is a pretty good chance imo that the feedback you have gotten >>> the actual feelings people have about the article/stable.
And the "grinders" are your peers. Even if you think a lot of them are socially inept/you don't like them personally or whatever, do you not feel you owe them anything wrt equal opportunities to earn by not poaching? Do you not feel like you owe them anything wrt not artificially improving the player pool? Do you yourself (grinders aside) see no long-term issues with artificially improving the player pool?
2. I can't remember the context of how their names were written in the article, but I wasn't calling them whales. I just mentioned in a conversation with the poker room manager that they don't like having their picture taken and being bother when they're trying to play, so a frosted glass around the high stakes area would be a good idea. Neither one of them cares if people know they play poker. Like most celebrities, they don't want harassed while they play.
Most celebrities I've played with (plenty) like privacy all around. They don't want any publicity wrt their hobby/losses/whatever. <-- is why many of them won't play in casinos, frosted glass or not.
And while you may not have called them "whales", that was the way they were presented in the article. And you may have a few outlier examples of players who embrace the "whale" tag, but the norm is that no one wants to be hunted/no one wants to be the sucker (unless maybe they get to play with a celeb poker player or whatever). Once it's written in bold letters on the wall that they are the sucker amongst grinders, they start to play much tighter/smaller/better, or they just stop playing. Guy Laliberte...
3. In my experience, rec players enjoy the challenge of getting better. They're smart people - like I mentioned earlier - and if you pretend they're something they aren't, they know. It's actually something I've been told by some players is very annoying away from the table. That said, everyone is different and should be treated differently. I don't rub anything in anyone's face, and I don't know any rec player who hasn't thought this article was cool. Like I mentioned before, I had one guy throw his number at me, tell me he was a whale, and asked to play in a private game.
There is a huge difference between subtly downplaying the skill gap constantly/AMAP and being a complete cheeseball and saying obvious, insincere **** like, "Nothing you can do man, that was a cooler... everything is 50/50" or whatever pros with no social game say these days.
While I'm with you that the latter is garbage (I also agree fish =/= idiot whatsoever), I think the former is much smarter/better for the game than bringing any unnecessary attention to the skill gap- or that pros are paying their bills/maybe even getting rich from the whales' losses or whatever.
Wrt profitability, poker as a competition <<<<<< poker as a fun, social game where the skill gap is not ever present. It can work as a competition for a while (if there are bad enough players), but it has no future/games inevitably turn into variance festivals or they die (because bad players quit or get better/play harder).
4. They play at the same table a decent bit I'd assume. It isn't something I keep track of. Not with me.
If the whole staking/stable thing is as transparent as it appears, I can't imagine 2+ horses at the same table not severely heightening awareness/paranoia in the card room. It's bad for business (for everyone imo) and I'm shocked the card rooms out there allow it.
edit: I'm actually not shocked at all. Card rooms are generally some of the worst run businesses going. The money is just too easy for them- even if they could make a ton more of it with just a little effort/common business sense.
5. Don't know/don't care. At MDLive there was a big fuss when I would organize $25/$50 games with all non pros.
I'm guessing that's the attitude of most poker capitalists (backers, coaches, training site owners/video makers, home game runners, high-rake tournament directors, etc). Every man for himself (well aside from the people working below you), gouge this game for all you can until the money is all gone. It is def your/their prerogative to take that approach obv, I just can't imagine it satisfies the soul all that much.
More importantly, I don't think capitalism works in poker long term. Poker is too much of a zero sum game. When the "few" making real money--> "very, very few" making real money--> there are less and less people to start/prop up games---> poker just dies (the "very, very few" making real money becomes "none" making real money).
Even if ^^^ is just overly righteous/bleeding heart/idealistic spew, as a long time poker professional (who has won/continues to win heaps just playing vs whoever sits), I feel like I owe it to my peers (even though I like very few of them personally tbh) to take zero short cuts/just play the game on a level playing field and let skill and variance decide who gets the money. <-- is the only way poker survives imo. Any other approach (seat hopping, fish poaching, team building, etc) just results in a race to the bottom.
Thanks for disagreeing in a respectful manner. To me, the days of being young and playing big while pretending not to be a professional have been dead for a while. High stakes poker is on a serious decline, and that's why I've put a lot of focus on private games - so rec players can book winnings sessions and enjoy the game more without having to deal with the speechless grinding robot - and also on staking - because LLSNL will never die imo.
It's ironic, a handful of regs have chastised me for the article and how bad it is for them game. Meanwhile, many rec players are telling me the reason they don't play more is because they don't enjoy playing with X player - the same guy trying to tell me an article is bad for the game.
No problem. I hope this post came off respectful too. While we def disagree on most things poker, neither of us is right or wrong until the discussion is had and a consensus is formed. Either way, adult conversations are just so much better/more productive/less taxing than the alternative.
While I don't look/talk/act/sometimes play (lol) anything like a poker pro (and I certainly never publicly advertise the fact that I am), I don't hate the guys who do- as long as they "get it" at the table and aren't toxic in anyway. And I agree there is some room in poker for a healthy pro vs rec competition vibe... However, there is no doubt in my mind that high stakes games are on a steep decline (I agree 100% with your assessment on that) because the recs/fish/whales just feel too outclassed/hunted... And ofc they don't get anywhere near the entertainment/social value they need to justify losing heaps over and over.
) has gone to poker players. That's the silver lining!
.