[barongreenback]

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.