I'm not blaming HUDs. I don't think you don't realize this.

Care to explain why? How, exactly did a site make money off of me when I made one 600 dollar deposit 6 years ago? Yeah, I don't get to keep everything I win, but the site still is simply losing less money from other people, not making money off of me. Without the depositors, the site gets no new cash and goes broke.

Since you're not actually making any argument, I'm kind of left guessing what your point is, and I think you're simply confusing cause and effect. Basically, you're forgetting that the site's rake is paid for by other people's money, not mine.

FWIW I'm far more than a marginal winner and didn't move because I have a decent casino nearby along with a wife and a home. It's been a major hit to my finances though.

i dunno, ur the one who brought my personal situation into this. it really has no relevance. ill be happy to discuss it but ive described in numerous times and its not all that interesting.

i was more into discussing how the sites make money, how to create and maintain a "healthy" economy and all that.

ikes already said it, and you were trending dangerously close, but i wasnt sure you stance. the notion that sites dont make money off of winning players and that winning takes away from the sites does not sit well with me. i didnt say wrong, bc i dont doubt there is a way to construct and frame a situation where it applies.

pretty much the rest but here

"While sites collect rake and this takes away from my winnings, they do not make money off of me. They only make money from people putting money on the site. Since I pull off far more than I put on, I'm not exactly valuable to them."

You've admitted that u mad, and you seem pretty passionate on it, just wondering why you gaf.

Like I said, there are a lot of variables at play, but basically, both the pros and casinos are dependent upon a constant supply of fish. The existence of the pros shortens the lifecycle of the fish, creates a more urgent (and therefore more expensive) need to constantly replace them, and creates a less enjoyable product for the fish (which both shortens the lifecycle and increases cost of acquisition due to word of mouth). But both the casinos and the pros are basically divvying up the revenue generated by the fish.

much of this makes sense, but i think we are disagreeing on the degrees and ability to control.

If I deposit 1000, withdraw 10000, and 'pay', with other people's money, 1000 in rake. What's my net value added to the poker site?

lol ike

things like SNE are short term good long term bad for a site, i imagine. but i'm sure it brought in decent money for stars to have a ton of games going during the day with a low # of fish - just pros grinding away on SNE.

Going for SNE turns many players from net drains on the site to net donators to the site because it encourages people to ALWAYS be playing. Even with 6 great pros at the table, one of them will be a fish at that moment.

ikes: the idea that players are 'net drains' or 'net donators' on any site is ridiculous.

did you guys know that ikes makes money playing poker?

i wouldn't be too sure about that

Why, exactly?

i mean, obv a superuser would be a "drain" and some 100/100 maniac wouold be a nice donator, but irl these sort of things are negligible.

you really dont understand?

you are correct that the site needs new deposits coming in or else they will rake away all the money and there won't be any games left.

however as long as new deposits are coming in at a rate greater than or equal the rake plus withdrawals, the site could give a **** who wins and who loses

Winning players make money off the losing players/worse winning players.

The site makes money off of everyone.

Kind of simple.

It's much more complicated than that.

for a ****ty site like bovada, yes.

for a legit site like stars, i don't see how.

That's an awfully big assertion. Again, if I deposit 1000, withdraw 10000, and 'pay', with other people's money, 1000 in rake. What's my net value added to the poker site? It'd be one thing if someone achieved this through pure luck. However, many pros do this basically all the time.

The conclusion you're going to be eventually make is that poker sites want regs, not massively winning pros. That's why pokerstars pushed SNE. That's why rewards programs push players to continue playing. Other sites, like bodog, have gone in the other direction by discouraging play to 'protect' fish. Frankly I don't think this is ideal because so many people will grind themselves into oblivion (see pokerstars), but bodog has other reasons like it's casino and sportsbetting for that policy.

It seems like I'm trying to be out nitted here, and I don't think either one of us really remembers how this discussion started, but I want legalization to happen, even if it sucks, so that more fish can deposit. More fish depositing is nothing but good for online pros. The reason why games have sucked so much lately is that the casual player is not willing to put money online, and for good reason.

Bolded is kind of the whole point. Sites are perfectly fine with pros as long as the bolded rate is large enough to their liking. The problem is that with the wider use of things like ptr and the increased difficulty of depositing, it's been much harder for new deposits to keep up. Once the net drains overwhelm the net sources the site is in trouble.

The question becomes what do you do when the bolded is no longer true? Sites have gone to limiting withdrawals to small amounts and making players completely anonymous. Both are essentially designed to severely discourage winning players from playing.

Now, hopefully a new poker economy won't face the same crunch, but that doesn't change the fact that large winning pros are anything but a drain on a site.

But that can't continue forever. So the casino is constantly reinvesting in new customer acquisition. But as the pool of potential new customers shrinks with each new acquisition, and the lifecycle also shrinks due to more money coming out of the ecosystem, and free acquisitions due to word of mouth shrivel up, then the cost of acquisition skyrockets. All of that is why the site gives a ****. Their true profit from the winners is much much less than their net rake received from them.

BTW, an analogous statement from loretta would be: the 5 lb weight around a runners ankle is not a net drag as long as the runner is moving forward. That obviously doesn't make sense. Sites make more money when there's less withdrawals and more rake.

large winners are inevitable though, there are always going to be players who are far better than the competition. in MTTs at least, even if every single player were of equal skill there would be lots of huge winners over, say, a sample size of a year.

i think the redepositing issue is a much bigger problem for cash games than in MTTs, where the huge money for the top spots deludes fish into continuing to give it a shot.

Has anyone here seen Justified?

It any good?