BTW, it's entirely possible in this scenario that its WAY better for the fish than the current world.

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.

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.

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.

poker

I can play online poker without any problems

good show old chap

unfortunately your country is even broker than ours and everyone is smelly

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

your law school tuition wouldn't pay me enough to do that.

I'm gonna guess Clark has better insight into the minds of casino execs than Karak.

*tips hat

Ah that's the free-staters, we aren't too bad up here.

Maybe, but a true Ulsterman wouldn't just have 'Ireland' in 'Location:'

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.

Looool

Im a true Orchardman.

Are we really smelly over here?

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.

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.

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.

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.

karak seems to have his finger in the pulse

whoa there my finger has never made it in anything. i stop at holding hands.

qfawesome