Joined: Feb '11
Location: Greece
Age: 58 (M)
Posts: 66
Posted by takingdrugs: remember that this is effecting cashgames only (possibly sngs in the future) but dosnt change a thing for the mtt grinders not a cash game player myself (exept when im tilting) so it doesnt make a difference to me but to be fair it was probably the only way for the sites to go in the end, if you look at heads up tables the same good players avoid playing each other and are targeting the weaker players, new players will soon learn to stay away from online poker the good players will continue to aviod each other and online poker would not grow in the future, there just letting the weaker players gain some experience and learn to win before they get thrown in the deep end once there good enough to play with the big boys.
Let me repeat myself in showing what is faulty with this way of viewing things. If someone feels he needs protection he can play FR NL2 and be comparably safe. If he goes playing HU NL50 then apparently he feels he doesn't need any kind of protection. Online poker has many kinds of games and some of them are more safe for the new player than others. So the new player does have a choice. If he chooses to swim in the deep then everyone is responsible for their actions. That's why there is an age limit to be allowed to play this game.
------------
Posted by magatt966: where the hell a pokerroom finds the money to cover withdrawals?
You seem to forget that poker sites ought to keep players' money in a different bank account. So there is no need for them to find some way to cover withdrawals, the money should already be there in that account in order for someone to be able to play with real money. So the only reason for a site to have a problem covering withdrawals is if he doesn't have different accounts for the site's money and the players' money, which is, errr, illegal (remember Full Tilt?).
Joined: Jan '09
Location: Italy
Age: 53 (M)
Posts: 3871
@Phoenix2104
This image shold explain better what I meant. I copied it from wellknown a pokerforum I can't mention not to break brm forum rules.
Don't reason in terms of bank accounts but have a look at the whole circuit.
A pokerroom, in a very simplified way, is an economic system where money enter with deposits and leaves trough either rake (towards pokerroom itself) and cashouts (towards winning players).
Every single dollars that a pokerroom earn in rake or a player cashout was deposited by some player
This is the first golden rule.
Pokerrooms, in a long term view of their business, have to reason on the relationship between:
a) deposits b) cashouts + rake.
Particularly deposits in the long run have at least to cover cashout+rake.
Easy to say but not so easy to achieve.
Starting form here there is a lot to talk and reason about.
Concluding the move of Partypoker is directed to protect "depositing" players to assure the survival and the growth of the pokerroom itself.
Joined: Feb '11
Location: Greece
Age: 58 (M)
Posts: 66
The cycle you mention doesn't start at the players playing at the tables. It starts with all the players depositing money in order to be allowed to play. So the amount needed for winnings+rake is already in the system. e.g. a site has 10 players. Each of them deposits $10 to be allowed to play. When play is finished the site gets $10 rake, 5 players get $18 each and 5 are broke. The 5 players that won decide to cash out. The money they cash out are already in the system from the time they deposited. So even if no one else deposits ever again in that site, that money can still be paid to the winners. So it's not a matter of liquidity, but of course the sites need to find new customers to keep their business running.
This image shold explain better what I meant. I copied it from wellknown a pokerforum I can't mention not to break brm forum rules.
Don't reason in terms of bank accounts but have a look at the whole circuit.
A pokerroom, in a very simplified way, is an economic system where money enter with deposits and leaves trough either rake (towards pokerroom itself) and cashouts (towards winning players).
Every single dollars that a pokerroom earn in rake or a player cashout was deposited by some player
This is the first golden rule.
Pokerrooms, in a long term view of their business, have to reason on the relationship between:
a) deposits b) cashouts + rake.
Particularly deposits in the long run have at least to cover cashout+rake.
Easy to say but not so easy to achieve.
Starting form here there is a lot to talk and reason about.
Concluding the move of Partypoker is directed to protect "depositing" players to assure the survival and the growth of the pokerroom itself.
It is more logical to assume that the move is lower the win rate by players. The win rate for all players will go down when players are segregated.
Consider the pool of top players. Some players that were winning players will now become losing players and even the players that are still winning have to work harder and longer for their winnings since the supply of fish have dried up.
Now consider the lower level players. The worst players will still lose money but at a slower rate. Meanwhile some players that used to be losing players will become winning players, at least they will initially. Eventually this players will end up transferred to a better pool of players and become losing players.
The money still moves from poor players to better players but at a slower rate. The result is that a larger portion of deposits end up as rake and not as winnings. Gicven the complete lack of transparency in which this move was made the poker site is well aware of this and don't want the poker community to remain ignorant of what they have done
Conclusion, This is a blatant attempt to milk more money out of players deposits which is going to result in the games becoming less desirable for the players.
Joined: Jan '09
Location: Italy
Age: 53 (M)
Posts: 3871
Posted by Zen1004: It is more logical to assume that the move is lower the win rate by players. The win rate for all players will go down when players are segregated.
This is the only option I would surely say a strong no.
The remaining two are: - increase deposits - decrease rake.
I'd not play in a room where I can't hope for consistent winnings: winnings are my main purpose in the pokerroom choice.
I guess they have to find a way to mix the other two mentioned option with a preference for the first one: increase deposits; as every deposit add value to the system and, in the end, will turn itself either in more winnings and more rake.
Posted by Zen1004: It is more logical to assume that the move is lower the win rate by players. The win rate for all players will go down when players are segregated.
This is the only option I would surely say a strong no.
The remaining two are: - increase deposits - decrease rake.
I'd not play in a room where I can't hope for consistent winnings: winnings are my main purpose in the pokerroom choice.
I guess they have to find a way to mix the other two mentioned option with a preference for the first one: increase deposits; as every deposit add value to the system and, in the end, will turn itself either in more winnings and more rake.
Then please explain how segregating players does either. I have explained my reasoning but your reasoning seems to consist of:
poker rooms want to increase player deposits. Party poker is a poker room. Party poker is segregating players. Therefore segregating players increase deposits by players.
Joined: Jan '09
Location: Italy
Age: 53 (M)
Posts: 3871
What I said and will say is just my opnionion and I could be completely wrong.
That being said,
you are right about the fact segregating players reduce their winrate but it's a result of the policy aimed at attracting new players and new deposits.
If recreational players lose all their money too quickly (because of sharks pointing them) they probably would not find funny playing poker anymore and they probably would not deposit anymore after having their accounts empty as soon as they sit at tables. We agree on the fact that segregating players according to their winrate ensure a longer lasting stay of recreational/depositing players (or donks or fishes or whatever we want to call them) and increase the probability they keep on enjoying online poker.
But this would be only one aspect of the whole thing: the pokerroom should also find ways to attract always new players (new deposits) imho with recreational-targeted promotions. They should sacrify some of their gains in launching promotions, investing part of the rake going in their pockets and making their room attractive.
A good percentage of recreational players in the pool would of course attract sharks (the ones who turn deposits into rake more than other kind of players) that would bring more gains/rake into pokerroom pockets... the pokerroom would grow this way ensuring itself a longer life.
Instead if the segregating players thing is a way to milk more money from deposits as you think (and you could be right about it) it would be a shortsighed approach to business from pokercompany: I don't think it's a smart move if designed in that directions.
Joined: Mar '11
Location: Germany
Age: 55 (M)
Posts: 1242
Posted by Phoenix2104: The cycle you mention doesn't start at the players playing at the tables. It starts with all the players depositing money in order to be allowed to play. So the amount needed for winnings+rake is already in the system. e.g. a site has 10 players. Each of them deposits $10 to be allowed to play. When play is finished the site gets $10 rake, 5 players get $18 each and 5 are broke. The 5 players that won decide to cash out. The money they cash out are already in the system from the time they deposited. So even if no one else deposits ever again in that site, that money can still be paid to the winners. So it's not a matter of liquidity, but of course the sites need to find new customers to keep their business running.
Well, I guess it would be nearly this way, if rooms wouldn´t give players free money in form of bonusses and frerolls etc. to attract more players. These money "created" by the rooms itsself has also be taken into account.
Joined: Feb '11
Location: Greece
Age: 58 (M)
Posts: 66
Posted by MIGO14:
Posted by Phoenix2104: The cycle you mention doesn't start at the players playing at the tables. It starts with all the players depositing money in order to be allowed to play. So the amount needed for winnings+rake is already in the system. e.g. a site has 10 players. Each of them deposits $10 to be allowed to play. When play is finished the site gets $10 rake, 5 players get $18 each and 5 are broke. The 5 players that won decide to cash out. The money they cash out are already in the system from the time they deposited. So even if no one else deposits ever again in that site, that money can still be paid to the winners. So it's not a matter of liquidity, but of course the sites need to find new customers to keep their business running.
Well, I guess it would be nearly this way, if rooms wouldn't give players free money in form of bonusses and frerolls etc. to attract more players. These money "created" by the rooms itsself has also be taken into account.
I sure hope this money comes from the rake the site collects, because if it comes from players' deposits it would certainly be illegal (remember Full Tilt?).
Posted by magatt966: What I said and will say is just my opnionion and I could be completely wrong.
That being said,
you are right about the fact segregating players reduce their winrate but it's a result of the policy aimed at attracting new players and new deposits.
If recreational players lose all their money too quickly (because of sharks pointing them) they probably would not find funny playing poker anymore and they probably would not deposit anymore after having their accounts empty as soon as they sit at tables. We agree on the fact that segregating players according to their winrate ensure a longer lasting stay of recreational/depositing players (or donks or fishes or whatever we want to call them) and increase the probability they keep on enjoying online poker.
But this would be only one aspect of the whole thing: the pokerroom should also find ways to attract always new players (new deposits) imho with recreational-targeted promotions. They should sacrify some of their gains in launching promotions, investing part of the rake going in their pockets and making their room attractive.
A good percentage of recreational players in the pool would of course attract sharks (the ones who turn deposits into rake more than other kind of players) that would bring more gains/rake into pokerroom pockets... the pokerroom would grow this way ensuring itself a longer life.
Instead if the segregating players thing is a way to milk more money from deposits as you think (and you could be right about it) it would be a shortsighed approach to business from pokercompany: I don't think it's a smart move if designed in that directions.
Most people don't pick poker sites on the basis that they won't lose their money as quickly as on other sites. When they are placing their money with a site they are thinking about winning not losing.
The very worst players will lose money more slowly the very best players will win money more slowly and everyone else will cycle between winning and losing as they cycle between different pools with an overall long term losing trend. In that situation I would expect players to leave the site and go somewhere else. Exactly the opposite of what you are claiming is going to happen.
