this is pretty lol bad analysis.

rakeback (or reduced overall rake) is by far the best element for health of the games. bad players and fish pay more rake than tighter players and are just as eligible for rakeback. arguing to put more money in the site's pockets and out of the pockets of all (good and bad) players is just not a good look.

and the only reason bovada has "decimated their competition in the U.S." is bc the other sites got shut down and only bovada is wiling to flout the law. also they most certainly do not "continue to OWN the poker market." stars still crushes and pokerscout has bovada at 6.

the impact max 4 tables, hiding tables, and anonymous play has on the health of the games and the bottom line of the operator is debatable (fwiw i happen to much prefer those elements) but the idea that it is somehow advantageous for the site to keep large amounts of money from the player pool is just absurd. a lower rake (in the form of rakeback or some sort of reward system or just a small traditonal take) is the one thing that players should vocally and consistently fight for.

okay, ill try there. I asked here to find out the skill level at these stakes on bovada specifically and not on other sites. Thanks, anyway.

Solid points and agree with mostly everything here. The concern is this 'flout the law' theory. Is this really a means of concern for the U.S market?

serious question: did you just come out of a 2-year+ comma?
-afa Bovada's competition I was only including networks like Merge, Revolution, etc... NOT PS, FTP, or CEREUS.

Also, did you ever take/pass at least econ 101? Ever study 'Tax Incidence' and elasticity?

Genuine advise: instead of spending so much time in the forums showing those who have a clue how ignorant and uneducated you are, go and get some schooling son!

Why would someone who is following the rules need to tell himself something to help himself sleep at night?

No, you decided to accuse people of cheating when they're not. And then you couldn't just let it go when that was pointed out to you, and now you're calling him the troll?

People get even more defensive about being called cheaters when they're not. The one who seems more likely to be raging (although I doubt you are) is the person who calls people cheaters when they aren't, and then when called on it, names the person who has the temerity to do so a troll, defensive, and a poor speller.

I've always felt that people who dislike HUDs have some good points. Why some of you have the need to leave your logical arguments behind and go out of your way to make things up about those who use HUDs is beyond me - it doesn't bolster your argument, it makes you look like a fool.

Regardless, we've had this argument in hundreds of threads already, and there are threads devoted to the topic, so take your anti-HUD trolling elsewhere.

Oh, and just in case you think I've got some self-interest here, I haven't played online for a few months, and I haven't played with a HUD for a few years.

figured you would make a cryptic and condescending response misapplying an idea.

I've never been trolled by a blue mod before

ya there is always risk but it seems ppl think bovada is quite reputable and competent so you should feel ok.

anyone here play in the 30/60 limit o8 games much?

only plo8, why?

It may be cryptic, but only in a sense as ABCs may be cryptic to an illiterate...

why not make a deposit, and find out firsthand for yourself?

well, its quite clear you have no intention of any sort of reasonable discussion. instead youre only here to attempt to boost your self esteem by insulting others. hey, hope ya feel better now.

but ya, keep arguing that taking money from the players is good for the players. def makes sense bruh.

just wondering, never played in such an aggro preflop game

I keep seeing people say it's not illegal, but in reality, even if it is legal, that doesn't mean it can't be changed as the government sees fit. Or they can just shut it down because they feel like it. I wish I knew for sure.

I agree with the points you made as well.

How can I have a reasonable discussion with someone who is at best a level 1 thinker trying to "theorize" about level 3+ concepts? Besides, your previous responses to my posts clearly demonstrate that you are completely out of touch with factual data that's readily available on what's going on in the world of online poker for the past 2 years.

Ok, I'll do my best to simplify it as if I am talking to a 5 year-old:

You not getting rb is NOT equivalent to the site taking away money from players. Rake is what you pay for the service that the site provides. It's a voluntary arrangement, and by you choosing to play on Bovada you accept their terms of service. I am perfectly happy paying a higher effective rake or price in return for higher quality service. For me this higher quality of service means, greater liquidity and a weaker on ave. skill level of my opposition. Not to mention reliable and fast payouts...

As I said before, if you have issues with Bovada, go lose your money on Revolution, Merge, or "Winning" network, etc. There is plenty of liquidity on Bovada, and your $$$ contribution to our economy is a drop in the ocean.

rakeback, or lower rake, is good for everyone. it keeps the fish in the game longer. it esp keeps the lower limits flourishing allowing for fish and regs to move up to higher stakes.

if the higher rake does, indeed, ensure that the payouts are fast and our money is safer then, of course, it is preferable. but you have far from proven that, let alone even provided an argument.

and i think you meant "lose." "loose" doesnt seem to make sense there. tho perhaps you are on level 5 with that grammar, iunno.

not necessarily.
take ps for example- rakeback out the ass, for years on rake not actually paid (lol dealt method) if you were teathered to your computer 24/7.a bunch of hud bots 24 tabling was in no way shape or form good for fish.

in live games there are some casinos with low rake filled w regs and other casinos w higher rake with great games.paying a few dollars an hour extra in rake is worth it for fish if it makes the games funner and they lose less than the rake increase to other players.

its more of a purpleish blue.

ok, this is my last response to you. Every time I read one of your posts I feel like I am becoming dumber. If I am going to lose brain cells, I'd much prefer to lose them to mind-altering substances.

I'll just make one last point: keeping the incumbent fish in the games a little longer, at the cost of not attracting new fish or new business is simply moronic. Fish by definition are going to lose, just a matter of time. I am much more concerned about the environment that consistently and perpetually ensures a flow of new $$$ into the poker ecosystem. You really need to study up on recent real-world examples where companies who followed "your logic" have ensured their own demise. In fact Bodog itself was no major player while doing what other losers in the industry were doing. It's only when they completely overhauled their business model, by getting rid of RB and switching to anonymous tables that their poker business took off and continues to destroy all other U.S. based online poker competition. Obv I am only discussing competition that is offshore and caters to most of the states in the U.S., unlike the regulated companies in NV, NJ, or DE.

sooooo.... did they take player notes out or is my client bugged...?

you still have not made the connection between higher rake and more fish. nor lower rake and less fish.

i do like how you conflate lower rake with anonymous tables and less tables. i do like how you ignore the most significant change in the poker landscape so that you can somehow attribute higher rake to bovada taking over. just amazing logic.

For the record I can spell you donk's. I was typing on my Iphone at work. Like I said in my post, If you want a hud, get a hud.

and guy with 40 posts, If you don't understand that there is some value in a HUD at cash game tables then I hope I run into you there. Cheers!

Which are the softer cash games? 6max or full-ring?

No one knows.

Its hard to quantify something like that.

Play the game at which you are best would be my suggestion.

Good luck.

try playing
if one was real soft and the other was really difficult why would anyone in their right mind post it?

the general trend I found was full ring games tend to be a bit more tight passive than 6max