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!

[wtfsvi]

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

[excession]

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]

[5thStreetHog]

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

[barongreenback]

[ 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.

[ILuvRiver]

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.

[TruePoker CEO]

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.

[ChoicestHops]

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.

[ChipFerFree]

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.

[ChipFerFree]

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.