This is why "moral poker" is important. I know I just toss it out their like its one persons random perspective, but truly its not even my perspective...I stole it from Nash, Adam Smith, and FA Hayek. Each has defining literature in the field of economics most of which hasn't surfaced to "accepted" academics yet.
If we don't define the player types correctly the math won't show the true issues and the "customer" is then left without a voice. Sadly it seems every single "pro" player in the world, if they are studied at all in economics and game theory, subscribes to this old school thinking and are oblivious to Austrian/Nashian economics.
BlondeFish;382854 wroteI agree with Hobbes, Tcarnage, and with whatever Startles' "derail" was. :wink: It turns the skill that you used to win the game into 100%-luck Lotto 6/49.
Spanish Players Protest PokerStars' "Spin & Go"
Pokerfuse has explained before that the “industry standard” of 7% rake for a hyperturbo is virtuablly unbeatable, which is what PokerStars' $1 Spin & Go charges. Just like with the horrible bad beat jackpot, flipaments, and other luck-based poker mutations, if it attracts enough bad gamboolers, some skilled players may join in hoping for more :fish:.
Spanish players seem smarter on the whole ;)
Rake as a % is really smoke and mirrors, and its easy to see if we compare equal tournaments both with 7% on stars vs party. Which are you more likely to win at?
The real factors, are very well hidden, especially to the collective consciousness of the player pool.
PokerStars has previously warned that a drop in other game formats can be expected: A 15% cannibalization of other formats has been observed when rolled out in dot-country markets. A noticeable drop-off in heads-up SNG and single-table tournament traffic may be expected. :-\
This is what is acceptable under old school thinking. Stars feeds it to the players no different than governments feeding inflation targeting to the peoples, under the guise of creating "stability". Where the truth is each the sites and governments are doing it purely for "profit", with no regard to the long term sustainability of the "game".
trigs;382860 wrotei'm no blinds structure/rake pro, but imho these are not equivalent to "flip" SNGs. there is some play here and there is some skill involved.
It might be true, but its tough to suggest that there is as much skill as the other games. And so what happens is the site profits more...and if sites are profiting more, it means the player pool has less money to spread around for the winning distributions.
Everyone wins less.
BlondeFish;382864 wroteCorrect, if the rake is not high, then it's possible to have enough skills edge against the competition in both online and live hyperturbos (e.g., WPT Fallsview, CNE Casino) to beat them.
So I defined "rake" as a %, and "effective rake", where players should not be concerned very much at all with rake as a %, but rather the effective rake of the game. That is to say the actual raked monies sites take in over time. Once the general player pool wakes up to that, we'll have our game back.
trigs;382866 wroteyeah, i can see that as being an issue. you could play thousands of these and never hit a big multiplier, whereas the next guy who sits down and plays one can hit the 1000x.
Yes, so this shows up in "variance", high variance games take away skill edge and so the actual rake as a %, should be lower for such games.
For example imagine a game where the variance is so high you have to play 1 million games to get a TRUE roi established. If one cannot play anywhere near that many games in a lifetime, how can it be said to be a game of skill?
I want to be clear though, for someone like say Trigs, who is a teacher (last I remember), games like this make perfect sense. And that doesn't at all imply they are a "fish'. In fact I don't believe in the term "fish". For players that play primarily for entertainment, games like this make complete sense especially if they normally play similar games. If you aren't going to play a ton of games all year, might as well put some extra lottery in them. Even if Trigs is a skilled player that wants to win based on skill...it sill makes sense to play them.
However if we take a proper view on the overall economy of the game, its not just the liquid aspect of it that is bad (and it is really bad). Taking this route with poker messes with every aspect of the economy of the game, forums, coaching sites, promotion affiliates, regulations, public image, media, etc. My understanding from all this is Poker Stars has been liquidating the economy of the game in every way they can, in an accelerating fashion. These seemingly small changes actually have the most dramatic effect, far more than an increase in rake % would I think.
I can't understand how they can be so short sited at a time when they need the players support badly for their new "deal", especially when so many new options are opening up to the players. But I have to feel that Amaya has no interest in poker and is absolutely going to be concentrating on other "casino" style card game variants and sports style betting games.
It just makes me wonder if they weren't buying the image, or the player pool, what did they need to buy to enter the states? I wonder if Calvin Ayre or JonTm might have an idea to that.
Its just too hard for me to believe that Amaya bought such a well oiled machine and is intent on running it into the ground but they couldn't have handled things worse since announcing the deal. For any line they are taking and any reason they are taking it, all I can see them doing is wiping themselves out over the 12 months.