[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


That's not the point. The point is that the reason you gave for NL drying up IS WRONG. You said it's too easy for the good players to wipe out the bad players, so therefore the bad players would not play any more and only good players would be playing each other and hardly anyone would make any money. That's WRONG.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, no, it's precisely what happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you actually reading, or just knee-jerk reacting after having picked sides? It's WHAT happened, it's not WHY it happened. If Mason's reasons were correct, there would also not be any NL thriving today. The gap between good and bad players should still manifest itself more in NL than limit today, should it not? How exactly did NL make a comeback if the good players kept the bad players tapped out?

The lull in NL was related to popularity of the game, not some fictional fixed "bankroll" of a pool of weak players.

The vast majority of poker players are recreational, not professional or professional wannabe. That means they don't have a "bankroll", and they can't get "wiped out". They lose money playing poker in Las Vegas, (or perhaps even win, playing at a table full of other bad players). They go back to work, and return in 6 months for another trip with $800 more to lose (or perhaps win).

Maybe 5 or 10 or 20 years from now, NL or even Texas Holdem for that matter will have fallen out of favor. But it certainly won't be because bad players lost all their money 5 or 10 or 20 years prior. It will simply be because the players prefer to lose their money playing something else.

Mason either doesn't understand why bad players play and where the money comes from, or he understands but won't admit his ideas are wrong. I can't figure out which makes him less credible.