Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Sporting Events Discussion centered around sporting events.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-14-2012, 06:46 PM   #22651
ClarkNasty
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ClarkNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 10x the man Clarkmeister is
Posts: 35,385
Re: SE FAQ, Liveblog, and Forum Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karak View Post
As someone just IM'd me:

"tbh if they were smart
theyw ould cap the limits
at small-midstakes
and just kill everyone with rake"

Would the fish still play? I think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClarkNasty View Post
Yes, of course.
BTW, it's entirely possible in this scenario that its WAY better for the fish than the current world.
ClarkNasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 06:48 PM   #22652
ClarkNasty
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ClarkNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 10x the man Clarkmeister is
Posts: 35,385
Re: SE FAQ, Liveblog, and Forum Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalledDownLight View Post
honestly, I could see capping limits or increasing rake to a point where it makes the games tough to beat for the type of hourly rates that we saw in the not so distant past. Driving the online pros away might actually result in more players coming to a site because they wont see the same faces everytime they logon as would be the case for anyone who played above nl100. While newer players will play less volume on average, they may be able to make up for it by adding a much larger player base. The fish will be able to win more pots and bigger pots in a manner where there real winrate (or in reality, lossrate) improves despite a higher rake. I could see a situation where it isn't worth a pro's time to play on a site but would result in a huge amateur influx. This is probably the ideal scenario for casinos.
Which would then make it worth the pros time. Only without the rakeback and discounts. This has happened in real life B&M cardrooms.

However, I think it's very unlikely to happen that way in a regulated US environment. But its possible. In that scenario, the revenue stream for the pros shifts from a high % of rakeback, lower % of profit from fish to no rakeback, 100% profit from fish. Casinos would take some of the saved rakeback money and invest it in more customer acquisition marketing, which creates a larger fish pool for the pros, which partially offsets the lost rakeback.
ClarkNasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 06:51 PM   #22653
Karak
ELIte
 
Karak's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 62,729
Re: SE FAQ, Liveblog, and Forum Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClarkNasty View Post
Except that you're making up "their logic". Like I said, it's a strawman.
I mean, I'm not, but if you don't believe me, you don't believe me. There's not much else I can do.
Karak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 06:53 PM   #22654
CalledDownLight
Toonces the Posting Bot
 
CalledDownLight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: DUKE FOOTBALL<DUKE BASKETBALL
Posts: 88,404
Re: SE FAQ, Liveblog, and Forum Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClarkNasty View Post
Which would then make it worth the pros time. Only without the rakeback and discounts. This has happened in real life B&M cardrooms.

However, I think it's very unlikely to happen that way in a regulated US environment. But its possible. In that scenario, the revenue stream for the pros shifts from a high % of rakeback, lower % of profit from fish to no rakeback, 100% profit from fish. Casinos would take some of the saved rakeback money and invest it in more customer acquisition marketing, which creates a larger fish pool for the pros, which partially offsets the lost rakeback.
well not really. If you capped games at 1/2 (for the sake of argument), it is virtually impossible to imagine that guys who have made 5/10+ their home for the past couple years would ever even sign up for this site. Sure the 1/2 pros will still be there but the guys that have made a living playing higher would gravitate elsewhere regardless of how fishy the games are. Having a site that is known to have a lower concentration of pros could be wildly beneficial. It wont necessarily be, but I dont think its such a ridiculous thing to strvie for. Plus, capping the limits would stretch the fish's money longer and they would play more hand on average before going bust. At limits of 1/2+ where rake often gets capped this is very beneficial to the site.
CalledDownLight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 07:17 PM   #22655
schu_22
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
schu_22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: One yard
Posts: 38,448
Re: SE FAQ, Liveblog, and Forum Discussion

poker
schu_22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 07:20 PM   #22656
kevin21
SE Spokesman
 
kevin21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 62,022
Re: SE FAQ, Liveblog, and Forum Discussion

I can play online poker without any problems
kevin21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 07:22 PM   #22657
Triumph36
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Triumph36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Osi Ukin'-yora
Posts: 40,914
Re: SE FAQ, Liveblog, and Forum Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin21 View Post
I can play online poker without any problems
good show old chap
Triumph36 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 07:23 PM   #22658
Riverman
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Riverman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 73,137
Re: SE FAQ, Liveblog, and Forum Discussion

unfortunately your country is even broker than ours and everyone is smelly
Riverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 07:23 PM   #22659
Pudge714
Modding All Day
 
Pudge714's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Frazier >>>>> Chilly
Posts: 39,104
Re: SE FAQ, Liveblog, and Forum Discussion

I can play poker in a non-broke non-smelly country.

Last edited by Pudge714; 02-14-2012 at 07:24 PM. Reason: Sometimes the inter-tubes freeze tho.
Pudge714 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 07:24 PM   #22660
sethypooh21
Make or Miss League
 
sethypooh21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Nylon Calculus etc.
Posts: 47,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karak View Post
Read my big wall of text above.
your law school tuition wouldn't pay me enough to do that.
sethypooh21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 07:28 PM   #22661
sethypooh21
Make or Miss League
 
sethypooh21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Nylon Calculus etc.
Posts: 47,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karak View Post
I mean, I'm not, but if you don't believe me, you don't believe me. There's not much else I can do.
I'm gonna guess Clark has better insight into the minds of casino execs than Karak.
sethypooh21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 07:35 PM   #22662
kevin21
SE Spokesman
 
kevin21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 62,022
Re: SE FAQ, Liveblog, and Forum Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Triumph36 View Post
good show old chap
*tips hat

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
unfortunately your country is even broker than ours and everyone is smelly
Ah that's the free-staters, we aren't too bad up here.
kevin21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 07:47 PM   #22663
vin17
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,101
Re: SE FAQ, Liveblog, and Forum Discussion

Maybe, but a true Ulsterman wouldn't just have 'Ireland' in 'Location:'
vin17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 07:48 PM   #22664
JaredL
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
JaredL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 22,523
Re: SE FAQ, Liveblog, and Forum Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by sethypooh21 View Post
I'm gonna guess Clark has better insight into the minds of casino execs than Karak.
Karak has only hinted at his geysers of information but his statements would be in line with them being on the lobbying side. If you are trying to argue for the most beneficial regulations possible it makes sense to argue that it could hurt casinos even when their own logic implies otherwise.

Clark's examples of casinos investing big is a better signal than what people pushing an agenda say, even in private.
JaredL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 07:58 PM   #22665
ThaSaltCracka
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ThaSaltCracka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seatown
Posts: 66,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuq View Post
This may be the least baller thing I have ever read. At the very least it's a nominee.
Looool
ThaSaltCracka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 08:20 PM   #22666
kevin21
SE Spokesman
 
kevin21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 62,022
Re: SE FAQ, Liveblog, and Forum Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by vin17 View Post
Maybe, but a true Ulsterman wouldn't just have 'Ireland' in 'Location:'
Im a true Orchardman.

Are we really smelly over here?
kevin21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 08:26 PM   #22667
ClarkNasty
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ClarkNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 10x the man Clarkmeister is
Posts: 35,385
Re: SE FAQ, Liveblog, and Forum Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalledDownLight View Post
well not really. If you capped games at 1/2 (for the sake of argument), it is virtually impossible to imagine that guys who have made 5/10+ their home for the past couple years would ever even sign up for this site. Sure the 1/2 pros will still be there but the guys that have made a living playing higher would gravitate elsewhere regardless of how fishy the games are.

Having a site that is known to have a lower concentration of pros could be wildly beneficial. It wont necessarily be, but I dont think its such a ridiculous thing to strvie for. Plus, capping the limits would stretch the fish's money longer and they would play more hand on average before going bust. At limits of 1/2+ where rake often gets capped this is very beneficial to the site.
I think we basically agree. I think the capping limits is less critical (prob doesn't need to be that low a cap at least). The key is higher rake and no rakeback and targeting fish. Even with no rakeback and higher rake, if there are way fewer pros, that's better for the fish. Another thing could work in this environment be capping the number of tables a player can play at like 4.

It likely won't happen due to competitive pressures etc etc, but it's a viable theory on paper. It'd be interesting to know how much money pro players take out of a site (winnings plus rakeback) vs. what the sites take home in bottom-line profit before taxes. I'm guessing the players make more than the casinos, maybe by a 2-1 or greater margin.

Last edited by ClarkNasty; 02-14-2012 at 08:38 PM.
ClarkNasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 08:48 PM   #22668
Victor
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Victor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,794
Re: SE FAQ, Liveblog, and Forum Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClarkNasty View Post
It'd be interesting to know how much money pro players take out of a site (winnings plus rakeback) vs. what the sites take home in bottom-line profit before taxes. I'm guessing the players make more than the casinos, maybe by a 2-1 or greater margin.
but would this change if you removed a certain top % of the winners? wouldnt the other winners make more, and some of the previous losers become winners?
Victor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 09:02 PM   #22669
Triumph36
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Triumph36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Osi Ukin'-yora
Posts: 40,914
Re: SE FAQ, Liveblog, and Forum Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor View Post
but would this change if you removed a certain top % of the winners? wouldnt the other winners make more, and some of the previous losers become winners?
well not if the rake is higher. i don't think clark is quite right, though - it assumes that all fish go broke. this is definitely closer to true in an 80% pro 20% fish environment, but in an 100% fish environment, guys are going to be winners and take money out, and there will be way fewer games running.
Triumph36 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 09:16 PM   #22670
Karak
ELIte
 
Karak's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 62,729
Re: SE FAQ, Liveblog, and Forum Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by JaredL View Post
Karak has only hinted at his geysers of information but his statements would be in line with them being on the lobbying side. If you are trying to argue for the most beneficial regulations possible it makes sense to argue that it could hurt casinos even when their own logic implies otherwise.

Clark's examples of casinos investing big is a better signal than what people pushing an agenda say, even in private.
I was going to make nearly this exact post, but I see you've done it for me. Clark is speaking from knowing the individuals on the business side. I'm speaking from interactions with people on the lobbying side. It is quite possible that the lobbyists representing an aggregate of casinos (or even representing singular casino interests) in DC would go different avenues or say different things than singular businessmen at the head of any given casino. It's also possible my info is a little dated. I dunno.

Last edited by Karak; 02-14-2012 at 09:23 PM.
Karak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 09:24 PM   #22671
Victor
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Victor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,794
Re: SE FAQ, Liveblog, and Forum Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Triumph36 View Post
well not if the rake is higher. i don't think clark is quite right, though - it assumes that all fish go broke. this is definitely closer to true in an 80% pro 20% fish environment, but in an 100% fish environment, guys are going to be winners and take money out, and there will be way fewer games running.
clarks post is confusing to me. i must be misinterpreting or misconstruing but its almost like he is implying that less winners is better for the sites bc their profits would now go to the sites. that doesnt make sense to me at all bc there will always be discrepancies in ability so now the fish will prey on the uberfish and win as much as the previous winners.

and, as you are saying, that would create fewer games and reduce the rake made by the site. so it would actually be a lot worse.
Victor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 09:30 PM   #22672
BASaint
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
BASaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: round headed buffoon
Posts: 14,826
Re: SE FAQ, Liveblog, and Forum Discussion

karak seems to have his finger in the pulse
BASaint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 09:33 PM   #22673
Karak
ELIte
 
Karak's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 62,729
Re: SE FAQ, Liveblog, and Forum Discussion

whoa there my finger has never made it in anything. i stop at holding hands.
Karak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 09:41 PM   #22674
thedeezy
My name is Carlos
 
thedeezy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: POGBA
Posts: 26,243
Re: SE FAQ, Liveblog, and Forum Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Needle77 View Post
qfawesome
thedeezy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 11:04 PM   #22675
Needle77
No Longer Protecting
 
Needle77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Kutztown is in the Hall of Fame
Posts: 43,170
Re: SE FAQ, Liveblog, and Forum Discussion

Needle77 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive