Poker players - direct action

    • 8runo
      8runo
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.05.2015 Posts: 652
      Just curious what other members thoughts on here are with regards to the direct action poker players want to take to influence poker room behaviour - can it work? Specifically, I suppose I'm referring to the current pokerstars action and proposed "strike".

      The philosophy seems to be something like "get the high winning regs to cease playing on Pokerstars at certain times to demonstrate their value to pokerstars, and how much rake stars will miss out on without them". The thinking just seems so flawed to me (so if anyone wants to educate me on why my thinking is flawed, I'm happy to listen :) )

      The way I look at it is....
      You have recreational players who deposit into player funds.
      Pokerstars hold these player funds on trust.
      The player funds are then diminshed in one of two ways, by either paying rake to pokerstars or by losing it to regulars (who then withdraw their profits).

      Pokerstars and regulars are therefore competing against one another for their share of the player funds (deposits). If regulars cease playing, then pokerstars will earn a greater proportion of the deposits.

      I'm not saying the regulars dont offer anything to poker (I think the main things they offer are liquidity, not a real problem on pokerstars, and aspirational values), but, as people who withdraw from player funds and not deposit into them, I dont feel they pay pokerstars any rake or anything, rather they withdraw from pokerstars potential profit.....Therefore it seems to me that the strike is precisely what Pokerstars would want?
  • 3 replies
    • SPeedFANat1c
      SPeedFANat1c
      Gold
      Joined: 04.01.2009 Posts: 5,062
      Pokerstars and regulars are therefore competing against one another for their share of the player funds (deposits). If regulars cease playing, then pokerstars will earn a greater proportion of the deposits.
      that makes sense.
      But on the other hand - do they get rake fast enought just from fish? They will eventually get all their deposits. The question is $/hour.
      Fish will not star to multitable. So $ / hour will not be as high.

      Also - if fish does not loose, he might cashout and go to spend on another thing. So nor poker room, neither reg will see this money. Some bar or night club will see his money.

      But if regs win too fast, then games stop, because regs do not play when no fish. So part of time 0$ /hour, till the fish get salary again and are playing again.

      I think - poker room has to find some max ev line. Not reducing too much regs - too keep high volume. Not reducing too much fish - to keep regs making high volume. Probably its their GTO :)

      I guess they have to do smth like this:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_programming
    • 8runo
      8runo
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.05.2015 Posts: 652
      Originally posted by SPeedFANat1c
      But on the other hand - do they get rake fast enought just from fish? They will eventually get all their deposits. The question is $/hour.
      Fish will not star to multitable. So $ / hour will not be as high.
      I can see what you're saying, however, my gut feel is that the slower rate at which pokerstars will earn rake (in the short term) will more than be made up for in the longer term by more recreational players playing more in the longer term. A recreational player who is constantly depositing and being wiped out will play a lot less in the long term than a recreational player who isn't being insta wiped out every time he deposits.

      From pokerstars perspective, taking a long term view (and a view of the two extremes), I would expect 1 table running with 6 recreational players to be more profitable than 6 tables running, where each table has 1 recreational player and 5 regulars.
    • SPeedFANat1c
      SPeedFANat1c
      Gold
      Joined: 04.01.2009 Posts: 5,062
      by more recreational players playing more in the longer term.

      A recreational player who is constantly depositing and being wiped out will play a lot less in the long term than a recreational player who isn't being insta wiped out every time he deposits.
      I somehow doubt that. If the player like to gamble, I think he just plays even when he looses. Go to some sports bet shop or casino and just watch the players who bet on things which are not profitable, like dog racing , various games.

      They loose on dogs betting but still have fun and bet. THey even talk, laugh, even undersand that they loose, but still bet for fun. I myself sometimes go to see how they think in those betting shops :)

      What might leave the poker room - is those players who read strategy and still fail, like stay forever at NL5. They want to earn, or just do not waste time.