The Fish Manifesto
 

Why does internet poker pay so well?

As a job it's not particularly highly skilled (not refering to high stakes here), unpleasant to do or have high barriers to entry. Neither does it create any wealth – for the players it's worse than zero sum. Yet ABC small stakes poker with basic effort will net you an hourly rate better than most ordinary jobs. Winning poker players must be in high demand. Recreational players want to play poker and will pay for that service.

Do they get a good deal for their money? They come for a bit of a gamble and enjoyment but get multitabling TAGs. Customer satisfaction is unlikely. The majority just aren't going to continue paying for this forever. Isn't this setup unavoidable? Well, no.

Those who complain about PT and HUDs miss the point. Multitablers would generally win without these tools. The volume of hands played gives them experience, an uncomplicated low tilt game, an awareness of core leaks and a long term view. Still, there is a great asymmetry of information. This makes winning poker more about finding bad players than about self improvement. Is this really a worthwhile use of your life? Is this something people should get paid for? In no other sport or game do professionals take pride in their ability to beat their weakest opponents. You want to pay NFL sides for beating a school football team by the largest margin? Would Kasparov play an occasional club player then mock his opponents play on an internet forum?

The best way to narrow an information gap is not to reduce information available to one side but to make it more freely available to everyone. The sites need to publicly rate the solid winning players. Take a top quantile of winrates (with a minimum number of hands) for each game type and limit and put a symbol by their name at the table when they're playing that game at that limit or lower (the limit is important to stop players blowing chips at microstakes to lower their rating). Then make 'shark free' games which exclude the best players. There could be more than one winner rating and more than two classes of games. People could still play the best if they wanted but would have the option not to.

Will this hurt the sites? If introduced unilaterally it may put off some high volume winners but this would make the games softer which would limit this loss. There will still be money to be made but less often pro rates for mediocre players. The long term effects would be positive for both sites and players. Also, introduction doesn't have to be unilateral.

It will still be a game of skill with room for learning and growth but also with room for fun. You do remember doing things just for fun, don't you?

The fish have nothing to lose but their losses. They have a hobby to win back.

FISH OF ALL ABILITIES, UNITE!

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

This sounds kinda good in theory, but I'm sure you see how it is impossible in practise.

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

If MT'ers are 'ruining' the game on a given site/network then it's up to the site/network to limit the no. of tables they can play or not provide HH or whatever surely?
They can usually be relied upon to act in their own best interests rather than those of the pro and semi-pros..

If the networks/sites aren't doing these things then that means, at least economically, that the MT'ers aren't 'ruining' the game..

Anyway we already have a format when luck usually wins out - it's called MTT's [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

A snickers bus for bad poker players,ive heard it all now.

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

[ QUOTE ]
If MT'ers are 'ruining' the game

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe but not really what I was saying. My main point was that recreational players would like and should be able to play a game for fun vs players closer to their own ability. The long term health of the games is a side effect.

[ QUOTE ]
site/network to limit the no. of tables they can play or not provide HH or whatever surely?

[/ QUOTE ]
Limiting tables limits rake. HHs are very tricky. The 'whatever' is the question. I was trying to provide one possible (hopefully less overtly confrontational) answer.
[ QUOTE ]

They can usually be relied upon to act in their own best interests rather than those of the pro and semi-pros..


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, as far as they are able. I think that sites, like players know that if they don't do all they can to make money now then someone else will step in and the effect on the games will be the same regardless. This may be a 'tragedy of the commons' or maybe not. It's a tough question but I'm not going to assume the sites know the answer just because it's in their interests.

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

sorry dude, I'm not entirely sold on the idea. Seems like it would be impossibe to monitor properly in order to make sure everyone is sticking to the rules.

Fish Safety Sites ? Not supported by the market, but there is variety
 

So, as an operator, could "relative safety" be institutionalized as the OP suggests ?

1. It does not need to be instituionalized, to the extent that poker is self-selective and ranked, roughly, by stakes levels. Fish are safer in the shallow waters of mocro-limits. If there was EVER a fish protective development in the industry, micro-limits was it.

2. Selling an environment as "safer" for fish because it does not support poker aids or limits multi-tabling would be extremely tough ..... Fish are unaware of these and do not see themselves as needing protection.

3. Rather, it may be possible to educate sharks, like here, that a site does provide for better fishing, without dynamite or grenades allowed, provided the shark has skills apart from PokerTracker or other similar tools.

4. This is not the Tragedy of the Commons, the oceans here are privately owned. TruePoker owns a small pond which allows 4 tabling, provides for "fishfinder" lists and notes, offers a generous VIP program for rewarding volume play, but does not support poker tracker or similar programs.

5. We DO allow sharks, and anyone else, to change their player names. (This is suprisingly ineffective to hide from other sharks however. It seems to take about an hour before other sharks catch on.)

6. Fish may swim in relative safety in Truepoker's pond, but we would not adopt a "shark identifier" as the OP suggests. We welcome sharks, but our software simply does not support all the tools they might otherwise use elsewhere. A shark who can feed without the tools should do well with us, what we need is to maintain a supply of fish.

Does the balance work ? We have been running for 6 years, but have not had the player numbers to support an ocean of sharks. We hope to rememdy that this fall by expanding our network's mix of skins players.

For what it is worth, some sites have offered "beginners tables" for new players for alimited time frame.

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

You are suggesting that sites publicly display the winning players to the fish.. Let's punish the players who have taken the time to find the forums, poker tracker, and etc to improve their game. Not to mention these players make up 80%+ of the site's rake. It's not like 2+2 is such a hidden facet on the internet. Anyone with a few hours and the motivation to actually make money can find this site and all the assets we use to make money. Your idea is so LOL I don't know what to say really.

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

This smacks of socialism.

It would actually be a disservice to let bad players huddle together. Some of those bad players will figure out how to be good players by playing against a stronger field. In essence if you keep all the fish in a tank, they have very little chance of escaping that tank.

Further, the Pro Vs Amateur aspect of Poker is what makes it great. In what other sport can a donkey climb into a Live Televised Tourny and compete with real professionals? This possibility is what drives people to play -- they could be great one day.

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

AND -- they can already get an idea of how good a player is if they simply use some of the tools that are available PUBLICLY like Shark etc.

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

[ QUOTE ]

AND -- they can already get an idea of how good a player is if they simply use some of the tools that are available PUBLICLY like Shark etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much it. It's their own fault the fish are bad. They dont take the time to get better. Most of us here have. Why give slackers any more help? It's absurd.

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe but not really what I was saying. My main point was that recreational players would like and should be able to play a game for fun vs players closer to their own ability.

[/ QUOTE ]

they have this. It's called play money. If you suck and are upset at how fast you are losing to good players I suggest you get better, or go the play money route.

And unfortunately the only part of the economy that your suggestions help are the Poker sites themselves. They really want players to lose slowly over long periods of time so that they have the greatest chance to bleed them dry via rake.

a better solution would be to do a better job to advertise rakeback to the fish, so that they got a portion of their losses back to keep feeding the tables. Also it is hard to kick that addiction if you get an email 12 days later saying that the rakeback company just deposited a couple hundred bucks in your account. That is when the fish get excited and the gambooling takes over.

basically this is a really stupid idea.

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

relax, most of you donkeys make nothing as it is.

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe but not really what I was saying. My main point was that recreational players would like and should be able to play a game for fun vs players closer to their own ability. The long term health of the games is a side effect.


[/ QUOTE ]

Move down in stakes.

Problem solved.

Why the assumption that players at a certain level should all be "bad". Or that the level of play should be "dumbed down" to the lowest common denominator (Read Kurt Vonnegut much?).

I really, really want to play in the NBA. Does that mean the NBA should replace all their players with pudgy, middle-aged white guys just so I have a shot?

Poker is a capitalist market with perfect equilibrium. The best players move up, the worst go busto or they move down to a level that's more suited to their abilities.

Nobody is "entitled" to play $200NL against a table full of players who are as terrible as they are. If that's what they want, they need to suck up their pride and stop fooling themselves that they can play against good players and drop down to $10NL or something.

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

If they want to play for fun, then they should be playing SnGs or MTTs where action is forced. Leave cash at it is, there is already an action-promoting format.

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

90% of people at middle limits are losing players anyway. stakes aren't indicative of skill.

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

But not 90% of the players you meet as the winning ones are usually 4-8 tabling..and the drunken weekend player only one (often).

And of course stakes are broadly indicative of skill...

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

Thanks for all the replies.
[ QUOTE ]
to the extent that poker is self-selective and ranked, roughly, by stakes levels. Fish are safer in the shallow waters of micro-limits. If there was EVER a fish protective development in the industry, micro-limits was it.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is the obvious argument and it's a good one. On the major sites even a limit like $25NL will have a large number of players who are only in it for the money. You might say that is their right but I don't see how they add value to the world or poker by earning a decent wage this way. The median wage in the US for all occupations was $14.61 (2006). It really isn't difficult to make this even at lower limits when MT'ing. There's an imbalance here. It should correct of it's own accord but only when fun players have left. Poker is a great game and I don't want this to happen.

Some sites are trying to tackle these issues in different ways some of which Truepoker CEO gives examples. Some sites may be fine with existing measures. Lee Jones wrote in a recent article that he favoured COMPLETE anonymity for players and that he thought that this would come in. It would be better for all if it didn't come to that.

[ QUOTE ]
It's absurd

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
ive heard it all now.

[/ QUOTE ]
Many of these concepts will be alien to the winners poker world which is centered on money and profit but look at it form other hobbies where enjoyment is key and you may see how poker's way of doing things seems odd.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone with a few hours and the motivation to actually make money can find this site and all the assets we use to make money.

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
they can already get an idea of how good a player is if they simply use some of the tools that are available PUBLICLY like Shark etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's punish the players who have taken the time to find the forums, poker tracker, and etc to improve their game.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's reasonable that someone who plays a few hours a week may not want to pay money for tools or even spend time using them. The idea of studying a forum, doing EV calcs etc misses the point of playing for fun. You assume this means they are lazy but have you considered that they have already spent the day working in a real job. They want to enjoy their hobby. Why is your right to absorb the wealth they created just because you spent time working on your 3 bet frequencies. When you talk about justice you have to realise how subjective your view is.

[ QUOTE ]
It would actually be a disservice to let bad players huddle together. Some of those bad players will figure out how to be good players by playing against a stronger field. In essence if you keep all the fish in a tank, they have very little chance of escaping that tank.


[/ QUOTE ]
Once a player wins consistently in a 'fun' game his rating will improve and he'll have to move to a stronger game. Bad players will still lose but at a lower rate. A lot of players would still choose to play tougher games. Those who don't play for their egos will benefit most. The motivation for players to improve their game will be reduced and this is clearly a downside but the effect needn't be great.

[ QUOTE ]
Seems like it would be impossibe to monitor properly in order to make sure everyone is sticking to the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]
The rules aren't voluntary. The sites know your win rate and control access to the games.

[ QUOTE ]
go the play money route

[/ QUOTE ]
Play money as it is now isn't real poker and you know it. Like it or not the game plays best when the stakes matter. This doesn't mean the stakes have to be money...

[ QUOTE ]
And unfortunately the only part of the economy that your suggestions help are the Poker sites themselves. They really want players to lose slowly over long periods of time so that they have the greatest chance to bleed them dry via rake.

[/ QUOTE ]
The sites make money when poker is successful. Since it's zero sum player profit motives only go so far - enjoyment of the game is essential to it's health. It'd be interesting to know how many on this site would play the hours they did if they didn't make money. That's why disciplined winners will never connect with these arguments and why this post is, indeed aimed at the sites (losing players have got better things to do than read it).

[ QUOTE ]
advertise rakeback to the fish

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm all for reducing rake. This would have been more likely to have happened by now if co-operation was a greater part of the poker world. That's the nature of the game, though. I believe the sites can afford to cut rake by quite a bit but they do at least provide a platform for playing the game so deserve some profit.

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

I think a lot of what keeps poker going is that in general poor players think they are OK and decent players think they are great and that keeps them coming back. If you put a "sucks" label on the poor player he just might throw in the towel. Ignorance is bliss, in this case.

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of what keeps poker going is that in general poor players think they are OK and decent players think they are great and that keeps them coming back. If you put a "sucks" label on the poor player he just might throw in the towel. Ignorance is bliss, in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

For Sure True -- I think I'm great and I'm not! Seriously -- this game is all about ego for EVERYONE. It just so happens that I like many like to associate my ego level according to my current bankroll... If it's up I'm invincible. If I start losing -- my God I feel like I'll never win again. Those that can balance those feelings are generally the best players -- which is why I'm NOT...

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

I think you are wrong about the losing players not having fun - if a partner in law firm (intelligent but not a great player) who charges $800/hr wants to spend a couple of hours playing 1 table of 5/10 it's going to cost him (let's assume a 'healthy' losing rate of 10PTBB/100 and that he gets 80 hands/hr) 1.6x10x20 or about $320. Of course if he chosses to play $100 instead is will cost him peanuts..

He does this once a week or so on Friday night instead of going out for a meal or a show or whatever. It costs him a little bit more than other entertainment. It isn't going to ruin him and he doesn't care that PwnURAss69 is on 12 tables as he only sees one - what he wants is some action - at least the new breed of 8 tablers are more like 20/15 than 10/3 nut peddlers - they will give him the action and andrenalin he's after...

The people to worry about are the desperate gamblers playing above their stakes and having a go - ofetn these are the college kids moving up too fast to be honest- but folks like that are going busto anyway - to be honest often the sooner the better - for the wannabee pros is a salutary lesson in BR management, for the problem gambler it's a sign to get some help.

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

I think you have a valid point -- but I still think most people do have visions of potential greatness that wouldn't be assuaged by swimmin' in a kiddy pool.

One posted did say there where a couple Online sites that had 'beginner only' areas. I think that is fine, but that's about as far as I'd go with this concept. For that other guy with money to lose -- he wants to play with the pros -- he's not interested in training wheels I'm pretty sure...

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

What the OP is asking for is actually very simple.

Now:

bottom level---fish/recreational players

medium level---OP

top level---regular winning players

His idea:

medium level---fish/recreational players

top level---him

other level----seperate shark tables away from him

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

What makes you think that the fish will inevitably leave? They're paying for entertainment. So long as they're getting action they're happy. And most of them delude themselves anyways by saying they aren't horrible they are just horribly unlucky.

[ QUOTE ]

Many of these concepts will be alien to the winners poker world which is centered on money and profit but look at it form other hobbies where enjoyment is key and you may see how poker's way of doing things seems odd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is different as the enjoyment comes from the rush of winning/losing at stakes that have meaning to you as well as the mental challenge of the game. Forcing fish to play with fish takes away the mental challenge and forcing them to play certain stakes may mean they are no longer playing for stakes that have meaning to them.

[ QUOTE ]
It's reasonable that someone who plays a few hours a week may not want to pay money for tools or even spend time using them. The idea of studying a forum, doing EV calcs etc misses the point of playing for fun. You assume this means they are lazy but have you considered that they have already spent the day working in a real job. They want to enjoy their hobby. Why is your right to absorb the wealth they created just because you spent time working on your 3 bet frequencies. When you talk about justice you have to realise how subjective your view is.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a skill game man. The way score is kept is in money. Money has real world value. The best players will learn and get better at winning money. The only way to stop this without destroying the integrity and soul of the game is to get people to play for something without real world value.

Re: Fish Safety Sites ? Not supported by the market, but there is variety
 

These posts make me laugh because people don't get it. If you want to have fish, then you have to have sharks. Period. End of story.

The following generalizations obviously do not apply to everyone, but they apply to most of the people that play online.

1. Fish play because they want to become sharks. While they grind to the $10, they dream of the $25, and so on.

2. Fish don't just go to two tables because they are bored, but because they want to play 4, and then they want to get a second monitor and get to 8.

If you doubt this just spend 15 minutes reading the chat of any low buy-in table. They are full of up and coming Phil Ivey's and Durrr's, and a few dedicated ones will actually make it.

The fact that players make tons of money playing 8 or more tables is not bad for the poker economy, it's good. If players were not, then people would say you know what, this is rigged!

Also, these posts are disguised form of whining. Gee if I knew he was 8 tabling I wouldn't have tried to bluff him! So let me get this str8, you wouldn't have tried to bluff a good player but you would have tried to bluff a fish? Does not compute...you can alter this for any part of the game if the bluff example doesn't jive.

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

I understand the OP's intentions, and I'll agree with him that it is in poker's best interest to let the recreational player play with other recreational players but at stakes that have some meaning to them. However I think his suggestion is just ridiculous and would cause more problems than it solves.

My solution is amazingly simple, and I have to say that I'm shocked it hasn't been mentioned yet: Create certain tables at each stakes that can only be played by people not multitabling.

Re: Fish Safety Sites ? Not supported by the market, but there is variety
 

[ QUOTE ]
These posts make me laugh because people don't get it. If you want to have fish, then you have to have sharks. Period. End of story.

The following generalizations obviously do not apply to everyone, but they apply to most of the people that play online.

1. Fish play because they want to become sharks. While they grind to the $10, they dream of the $25, and so on.

2. Fish don't just go to two tables because they are bored, but because they want to play 4, and then they want to get a second monitor and get to 8.

If you doubt this just spend 15 minutes reading the chat of any low buy-in table. They are full of up and coming Phil Ivey's and Durrr's, and a few dedicated ones will actually make it.

The fact that players make tons of money playing 8 or more tables is not bad for the poker economy, it's good. If players were not, then people would say you know what, this is rigged!

Also, these posts are disguised form of whining. Gee if I knew he was 8 tabling I wouldn't have tried to bluff him! So let me get this str8, you wouldn't have tried to bluff a good player but you would have tried to bluff a fish? Does not compute...you can alter this for any part of the game if the bluff example doesn't jive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you 100% missed OP's point. He was in no way talking about fish who want to become sharks. He was talking about fish who are happy being fish.

There are many people out there that view poker as a game to play with their buddies over a few beers. They play for the fellowship and good times. They love retelling stories of their "crazy hands", which would probably just seem commonplace to us who play 1000+ hands per day.

These people don't have a place to play online anymore.

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

[ QUOTE ]
My solution is amazingly simple, and I have to say that I'm shocked it hasn't been mentioned yet: Create certain tables at each stakes that can only be played by people not multitabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I WANT to play with multi tablers. They cannot focus on each game the way I will. PLEASE PLEASE play at my table...

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

That's not to say I don't multi myself occasionally [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My solution is amazingly simple, and I have to say that I'm shocked it hasn't been mentioned yet: Create certain tables at each stakes that can only be played by people not multitabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I WANT to play with multi tablers. They cannot focus on each game the way I will. PLEASE PLEASE play at my table...

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok...then you wouldn't play at any of these special tables. These special tables would be designed to give one group what they want without negatively affecting any other group.

Re: Fish Safety Sites ? Not supported by the market, but there is variety
 

[ QUOTE ]
think you 100% missed OP's point. He was in no way talking about fish who want to become sharks. He was talking about fish who are happy being fish.

There are many people out there that view poker as a game to play with their buddies over a few beers. They play for the fellowship and good times. They love retelling stories of their "crazy hands", which would probably just seem commonplace to us who play 1000+ hands per day.

These people don't have a place to play online anymore.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well I said it doesn't apply to everyone, but the percentage of players you are referring to is <1%

and I am referring to these players: "He was talking about fish who are happy being fish"

These people generally do not exist.

My point was: TruePoker is as fish friendly as the market tolerates
 

Fish can and do get shelter from PT and HUDs at Truepoker, but that is not a marketing strategy to exploit, because Fish are not so self-aware. Yes, probably many fish want to be sharks, but NOT all. (Example, sports bettors who are playing poker as recreation are not looking to become Phil Ivey.)

Rather, we need to also market our fishiness to sharks who can win without PT or HUDs. They have the pond to themselves in that our site is not as friendly as others to sharks dependent upon such aids. The extreme analogy is perhaps flyfishing versus dynamite fishing.

We appreciate the role of regular players, winning or losing, in the poker world. We offer them a VIP program which rewards volume play just for that reason.

TruePoker CEO

Fish psychology is not one dimensional
 

There are 'fish" and also decent players who are happy playing for recreation.

Schoonmaker's Psychology of Poker is a pretty good place to read about what motivates people to play poker, aside from wanting to be a shark. (... and yes, it is sold on 2+2).

Re: Fish Safety Sites ? Not supported by the market, but there is variety
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
think you 100% missed OP's point. He was in no way talking about fish who want to become sharks. He was talking about fish who are happy being fish.

There are many people out there that view poker as a game to play with their buddies over a few beers. They play for the fellowship and good times. They love retelling stories of their "crazy hands", which would probably just seem commonplace to us who play 1000+ hands per day.

These people don't have a place to play online anymore.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well I said it doesn't apply to everyone, but the percentage of players you are referring to is <1%

and I am referring to these players: "He was talking about fish who are happy being fish"

These people generally do not exist.


[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree completely. You're biased because you mainly interact with 2p2ers or people you see at a casino. My family regularly has a game....a few decent players but most are absolutely horrible and nobody cares...literally 99% of the time everyone will see a flop and 50% of people will call down to the river. I've also played in a game like this with friends. Its much more common than you think.

Re: Fish Safety Sites ? Not supported by the market, but there is vari
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
think you 100% missed OP's point. He was in no way talking about fish who want to become sharks. He was talking about fish who are happy being fish.

There are many people out there that view poker as a game to play with their buddies over a few beers. They play for the fellowship and good times. They love retelling stories of their "crazy hands", which would probably just seem commonplace to us who play 1000+ hands per day.

These people don't have a place to play online anymore.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well I said it doesn't apply to everyone, but the percentage of players you are referring to is <1%

and I am referring to these players: "He was talking about fish who are happy being fish"

These people generally do not exist.


[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree completely. You're biased because you mainly interact with 2p2ers or people you see at a casino. My family regularly has a game....a few decent players but most are absolutely horrible and nobody cares...literally 99% of the time everyone will see a flop and 50% of people will call down to the river. I've also played in a game like this with friends. Its much more common than you think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kitchen table home game =/= internet.

Also, Lol at OP. The rule is, you put your money on the table and you take the risk. Saying "hey, he's too good" after you lose is irresponsible whining.

To quote color of money

"I didn't deserve that"

"Yes, you did"

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

ayep

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

This would most likely chase the fish away, not because you are displaying the sharks good stats, but rather because you would be displaying their poor stats. The big losers would not be able to claim they are "about break even", and would be embarrassed that the fact they lose is being displayed for everyone to see. This is a bad idea.

Re: Fish Safety Sites ? Not supported by the market, but there is vari
 

I like Assani's idea. Would even benefit players like me because sometimes I only feel like 1-tabling anyway. Those tables would be guaranteed to be softer than the average table.

OP's idea is ridiculous on a ton of levels, many of which have been pointed out in this thread already. Not to mention the fact that it's impossible to give a poker player a rating based on results unless you're doing it over an extremely large sample size. Not to mention the fact that the skills required to play poker at a high level are extremely varied. In OP's scenario, the player who practices very good table and seat selection also gets slotted at a skill level far above what he actually is. This is also not fair.

My favorite point that has been made in this thread, Cry Me a River said "Nobody is entitled to play NL$200 with a bunch of players who suck just as bad as they do"


This idea was ridiculous and stupid from the first second I read it, and every second I think about it, the more ridiculous it gets. I think of more and more points against it every moment. I'm not going to waste my time writing any more in this post, I think everyone agrees/gets the point

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

jealous much?

Re: The Fish Manifesto
 

you do realize that if you get rid of the sharks, then the least fishy of the fishies just becomes the shark. So uh, basically this whole idea is dumb