The Fish Manifesto

[barongreenback]

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!