also, i dont see how this will entice new and recreational players. they will think there is a cap on how much they can win. the action gamblers that dont care about ev will def prefer to try to run it up at bj or craps. they will think, eff poker, cant run it up there, if i start winning the site will just make it tougher.

also, with all the ppl who think its rigged, this will make them even more skeptical. the concept of "action pots" has been around since the beginning. now players will def be more inclined to believe it.

it should make it so there are more winners

ghana have to show work on this. seems to me it leads to a single winner.

Those who acknowledge the issue but argue so vehemently for a different solution seem to implicitly understand that this is the perfect solution for the casino, and are desperately looking for a compromise that isn't such a complete and total casino win.

the issue? what is the issue? boohoo we arent making enough money. only 50-80%? profit margin.

Poker sites aren't making that kind of profit margin. Other than Stars, which has huge economies of scale, the rest of the poker business world is slowly dying off and in aggregate may well be below breakeven right now.

They wouldn't run that Powerade soccer commercial in the states.

wat

That's the exact opposite of what PP is trying to do here. See clark's posts.

how so? if the top 100 players all play each other will only one of them win over the (realistic) long run of a few hundred thousand hands? even at the top level there will be multiple winners and other levels will also produce winners.

2013 Essey's: I nominate SE for the best forum in SE

good. then this should finish off the purge and be a lesson to the currently misguided industry insiders like yourself who will unfortunately be entrusted with the future of american online poker.

the biggest issue, by far with online poker has been, and always will be, trust.

-will the site pay me
-can someone see my cards
-does the site rig wat cards come next

now, after being presented this recent development, do you think average joe american poker player will think the risks of those issues are higher or lower?

i mean, i am scared to play online myself after hearing about this. and will likewise be highly skeptical when it returns to america considering ppl like you will be implementing it.

I dont see how it would do anything but make more winners while decreasing the amount they win. Instead of having 10,000 players making $100k/yr on average they should have 100,000 players making $10k/yr on average in cash games (made up numbers).

Yes, that is part of the theory/goal

They use to do that, no idea if they still do. Years ago I had ~$60 sitting in a Party Poker account I never played. 6 months later I got an email saying they were taking an Inactive Account fee out of it. I didn't remember my password and didn't want to bother phoning them and proving the account was mine. Every month after that I got another email saying they were charging the fee until the account eventually ran dry.

you can play poker on the internet?

Yes, easy cash out is an obvious area that needs improvement.

Regulation in the US will ensure that the other two issues aren't issues, at least to the extent that the poker sites can prevent outsiders from finding a way to hack the sites.

i mean i think trying out skill matching isn't a horrible idea, but sites are just delaying the inevitable there. it's been a while since i've thought about this stuff, but i guess party poker is counting on 24 tablers still signing up to play against the other 24 tablers, where they can just all lose money to the house?

for the non-degenerate -what's the allure of online poker? you play against 4 pros at your computer. where's the fun in that? PP must think that they need the casual player (who is not very good, but is still a large-ish fish against regular pros) to return.

on the other hand, the winning player does guarantee the losing player a place to sit and a full table, always, but that is not particularly valuable to the site. regardless, this is one step above banning check raising.

EDIT: i always thought paradise poker's rule against playing their highest table without 4 buyins for it in your account was a decent one.

the average fish will never hear this story

ofc you are blatantly wrong

Ok, well obviously we all agree that what they're trying to do is take some portion of the money that is won by players and shift that to rake. So total won goes down and total rake goes up.

As far as the total number of winners I guess I'm not sure that that number will now increase.

Under the old system you'd have, say, 4-5 sharks and 1-2 suckers at a six-max table. The sharks were, at least in theory, +EV at the table due to the presence of the suckers, regardless of whether they were better than the other sharks at the table.

Under the new system, you'll have six evenly matched players. If those players are sufficiently evenly matched, NO ONE will be +EV, or least not +EV enough to stay ahead of the rake.

oh cmon. regulation will ensure that the american public trusts its online poker rooms? like, the american public trusts regulation and the goverment? legit smh. you are wanting hard.

Victor crushing a bit here

ok. tell me where my grandpa who put $100 on stars about 5 years ago would hear about something like this? is it gonna be in the local papers?

They are trying to extend the lifespan of the average player which will in turn result in more rake. I expect that they also hypothesize that extending the avg lifespan will result in larger aggregate deposits. I am sure this makes sense to you. I know that I got my start $50 at a time and each $50 lasted longer than the last before I went broke. After the 2nd to last one lasted 3 months and at one point became $2k I decided that I was only going back once more and if I couldnt make it work this time it wasn't my thing. If a fish loses his deposit in 2 hours every time they are less likely to redeposit than if it take 20 hours.

Americans play the lottery despite it raking ~50%, you're way overestimating the collective will of degens

also, player skill levels can never be drilled down to the point where no one has an advantage. more importantly, in closely matched player pools you may even get a player pool where 75-100% of players think theyre 0 to +EV.