The Fish Manifesto

[ChoicestHops]

[ 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.

[thepizzlefosho]

[ 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.

[Umakemerich]

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

[Cry Me A River]

[ 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.

[PNXRMX]

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.

[Umakemerich]

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

[excession]

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...

[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.

[Backspin20]

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.

[ChipFerFree]

[ 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...