That it's hard to take you seriously on a topic on which your ability to be objective is very much in question.

But I have a few questions for you, if you'll indulge me.

You've suggested that stables should basically be completely wiped off the face of the earth. I'm wondering, what does this look like for you? Isn't a stable simply a collection of players being staked? IE, if I start staking players, once I'm staking a few, aren't I now running a stable? And if that's the case, doesn't this mean you're against staking entirely, or at the very least, against anyone staking more than one person at a time? Or is there a threshold for you where it becomes a problem, and if so, what is that?

This isn't meant to be some kind of rapid-fire "gotcha" list of questions. I'm just wondering if you've thought this through, and if so, what you're suggesting.

I assume you mean my ability to be "objective", I think I have proven my ability to be subjective.

And yes I do think stables should be destroyed. I myself have at certain occasions bought and sold action so it's not like I am completely against the concept of reducing your exposure. There certainly is also a grey area for me, and I would have a more difficult time of finding my position, but in the case of these mass stables the following points are the issue for me:

1) They allow either winning or breakeven players, and even slight losers sometimes, to enter games they normally wouldn't and in volumes that overwhelm the player pool. Even if they are -3% in a donkament I play, I can't profit from them after rake or my return is drastically reduced.

2) They can use, and often do (look at Pads, who doesn't shy away from saying it) share databases and effectively get huge samples on regs that for me is unethical at best. When you have people dedicated to find population leaks using samples of a 30+ grind farm my disadvantage starts to pile up as a competitive player.

3) They have huge opportunities for ghosting. The reason I said that post was so bad is because even if it stagnates the progress of one single horse, a SM final table is such a rare occasion he probably never plays that spot again his equity is dramatically reduced by getting backup. They can actively analyze hands while you play, they can advice you in spots they have studied, they can look up data from those actual players (using that amassed database), lots of things they can do to increase your equity that a single player just cannot do simultaneously.

4) It's just no fun to play against nitfarms that basically use stable generated charts all the time. This is entirely subjective, but I think it matters for recs (which I am). Since it is objective, don't argue me on this one.

5) Depending on format, they can share hole cards at their discretion.

Could name a few other points but basically these things only happen when you have stables. There are obviously smaller ways in which players can benefit from each other via equity sharing or discussing strategy, but when it happens in factory style it just bums me out. Also some of the issues I brought up are not possible when 1 on1 staking is done.

Now what would happen if I had a button that would blast all stables in a thermonuclear explosion (a button I would instantly press)? Well ABIs and player numbers would drop, that's almost for sure. More players would go broke or out of action or would be forced to drop down on their own so yeah, that happens. Poker sites would lose out on rake. In the end I think the reg/rec balance would be better though and even if online poker would be a smaller market, games would be more fun, fair and profitable.

Thanks for the well-thought out response, Kelvis. And LOL @ me - yes, I meant objective.

Some fair points in there, but I'd disagree with the idea of banning stables outright simply because the opportunity to cheat is more readily available than it is for individuals - especially given that the people who really are using the opportunity to cheat could and likely would still do so; they'd just do it less publicly.

When it comes to the health of the games, I see it in a similar way to how I see software, coaching, and even books. They all begin to level the playing fields as they become more prevalent, but I don't think banning their existence/use is all that realistic. Police the rules you can realistically enforce (and maybe some thought needs to be given to rules around stables), and try to adjust the games and promotions where possible to encourage more interesting and less "solved" poker variants.

Edit to add: I'm sure most who care already know this, but if it isn't clear to some, I sell advertising for 2+2, so of course I view things through this lens where some of these companies' existence makes us money. I don't think that makes my points less valid, but I understand that there will be some who disagree. But I appreciate discussions like this, because there are times when we need to consider whether we will take certain companies' advertising because, believe it or not, we do turn some away.

Would you mind sharing how big part of 2+2 advertising profit makes staking stables buying threads ect.?
I understand if it something you would not want to share, just wondering how much 2+2 is dependant from stables money.

I addressed the point they made about letting players play under pressure and I said it can't be disputed. It wasn't the core point or the only point in my post.

I addressed the fact that even if they only ghost at big final tables it is still a massive risk. In this case, had they ghosted they might have lost the entire score and had the core accounts of the stable shut down. How big an edge can ghosting provide vs this risk?

What if they get away with ghosting but a disgruntled horse leaves the stable and decides to blackmail them and / or submit Skype logs to Pokerstars?

Stars may or may not miss out on the majority of shady stuff going down on their site, but the risk is there and it's real. There have been plenty of stables shut down in the last few months as shown in NVG.

Less than 5%. Quite a bit less, I believe.

Perusing this thread, I'm convinced: players who go deep in tournaments and display inconsistent betting patterns should have their winnings confiscated and redistributed to those who played consistently. There are no grey areas here and no one ever adjusts their play (and certainly not drastically).

The defining line should be whether someone is mad about it on 2p2.