[OldLearner]

[ QUOTE ]
try to think like a site operator for a moment.
your business model is tied to rake generating chairs.

how motivated will you be to spend money to stop those
rake generating chairs?

hmmm ...
spend money to increase rake generating chairs
... or
spend money to decrease rake generating chairs

if you as a player generate x amount of rake per day and
a pro botter generates 10 times that much at the same limit
then i can assure you that what the pro botter wants is 10
times more important than what you want. especially since
the pro botter has almost zero support cost because they
dont ever complain.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok Ray. Let's use your own argument. Let's think like a site operator:

"I am an intelligent site operator". I make money from rake. This money comes from the winners and from the losers.

The losers cause me no concern, they simply lose. My only concern with the losers is that they will eventually lose all they can and I will not be able to rake from them.

The winners, on the other hand, although paying the same percentage of individual rake as the loser, are in direct competion with me. The winner is removing money from the poker economy. Because I can no longer rake that money, it costs me money. This is, for the most part, a loss in the long term, but nonetheless a loss.

I could assume that the fish population is limitless, but I am an intelligent site operator and I know this is not true. The fish population is finite.

I cannot ban winning players or change the playing field so that losers have a better chance to last longer (I am an ethical site operator as well).

But if the winners are not actually people, rather computerized bots that can play endlessly, faultlessly and can replicate themselves, then this represents a real danger to my business. These bots can remove money from the poker economy that will have a crippling effect on my business. At some point, the fish will all be gone, the bots will leave, my site will be empty and my business will cease."

Think not?

Many B&M rooms in my area would not run higher limit games because the fish would lose all their money in one session (instead of 10) and they would make 6 hours worth of rake instead of 60.

Party has recently reduced the number of tables from 12 (?) to 6. They want to limit the devastation the multi-tablers have on their finite fish population even though they could collect twice as much rake from the 12-tablers. Think not?

Your argument that because the security loopholes exist, you must take advantage of them or you will be taken advantage of is a classic that is, unfortunately, difficult to argue against. At present, you are right. In the current internet world, we can only police ourselves.

That is why it is SO IMPORTANT that, when a cheater like yourself is caught, that the site bring down the hammer of the law and punish you to the fullest.

If this means confiscating your balance, whether they keep it or give it back to the poker economy in freerolls or whatever, so be it.

That is why the ZJ debacle was so important. When proactive policing is difficult, harsh, reactive penalties must be used to fill that gap.