lowering rake won't help

No. So you just mean to say that games will get tougher in the long run so nothing will really help? Of course games will always get tougher no matter if rake decreases or not. I don't think anyone will argue that. A significant decrease in rake will still help the poker economy a shitload though.

I agree with everything Romm3l has said. His analysis is spot on and makes perfect sense. People arguing against fail to acknowledge drawing to a 1outer (rake free platform) or fail to grasp really basic economic concepts. Rake reduction incentivises regs to get better or at least stick around longer, fish don't care about rake so there isn't an increase in easy money into the pool.

+1 for Romm3l being basically correct. If the rough equilibrium right now is too unprofitable or unpleasant for you to find the fish, that means there are too many regs who are willing to stoop lower than you. This is the stable long-run state, or if it's unstable that's because it's getting worse (fish continue to get rarer). Anything that makes the games juicy enough for you to play again, whether it's a sudden rake decrease or a new one-shot influx of fish, can only have a temporary effect. The same forces that drove the games to the current equilibrium (there being a lot of regs with higher tolerance for pain/low income than you) will begin eating that surplus and driving it back to equilibrium again.

On the other hand ggplz's idea of limiting multi-tabling would reduce the leverage of the pool of pain-tolerating regs that fill the site now. But I agree with Romm3l that unless you are living in a very low cost of living place this probably won't help enough to matter to you.

It will pretty much never happen as PS would have to be near death for them to implement changes like I suggested. I know that and don't realistically expect that to happen ever. It would help the games a lot right now though as they are serious nit/rake fests and 0 fun to play Isn't it meant to be about fun, after all? I can see why the PS casino is a great idea now

I'd just tell regs to quit but every PS reg is fueled by greed and self interest. They would say, well, all the regs quit so it's super soft now with fish... gg. PS has you for eternity my friend, enjoy grinding with all the other greedy nits

On November 14 2014 22:37 ggplz wrote: It will pretty much never happen as PS would have to be near death for them to implement changes like I suggested. I know that and don't realistically expect that to happen ever. It would help the games a lot right now though as they are serious nit/rake fests and 0 fun to play Isn't it meant to be about fun, after all? I can see why the PS casino is a great idea now I'd just tell regs to quit but every PS reg is fueled by greed and self interest. They would say, well, all the regs quit so it's super soft now with fish... gg. PS has you for eternity my friend, enjoy grinding with all the other greedy nits

you're a good guy generally but you're not really adding anything of value to this discussion by making empty posts with smiley faces that include disparaging remarks about your peers. Also it's all about "having fun" for you now? That's quite a turnaround from just a few months ago when you were bemoaning some really nuanced small change in the way FPPs and T$ work in some specific type of tournament that no "playing for fun" player could possibly ever notice or care about.

edit: pls dont take my jostling the wrong way, as i said i like you

And? I don't care what you think of me, who are you BTW? I also didn't want to add anything else to the discussion or else I would have. Should I feel obligated to because you quoted me in the OP? I already said all I wanted to. Sorry to hear you find my use of smileys offensive or empty... wait, why does that matter again? I also don't consider the people grinding out PS as my "peers" either, thank you very much. I don't see why you're picking out my old posts about FPPs/T$ as if it contradicts my opinion that the game should be fun. It doesn't and that's probably another reason why they currently suck.

if you don't have anything else worthwhile to add then you don't have to post. remember this part of the forum is my blog, not the part called "main poker" or "general".

also it's not nice to say things like "greedy nits" and look down on their character or motivations for playing, and especially looks hypocritical after that was you for a long time only until recently.

You took that privilege away from yourself when you redirected a discussion away from the main forums to your blog. But sure, you can go ask a moderator to remove all my posts he deems inappropriate and see how that goes. Be sure to include the information about the smileys.

I don't care if it's nice, it perfectly describes them and it's a horrible way to live life. Maybe some of them will wake up and decide to go do something else. I'm not personally attacking anyone or singling them out, however, their actions (still playing stars low stakes) given the state of the games is an insane waste of time.

Maybe you should have called me out earlier then you would have a point and I'd probably be an even better person for it.

By the ridiculous logic in the OP, sites should just raise rake to 50%, 100%, even 200%.

You cannot just make assertions like this in a vacuum, it doesn't satisfy, logic, math, economics, rational thinking or reality.

If you don't intend to suggest rake could be 100%, then what is the ideal rake%?

On November 17 2014 10:29 diggerflopboat wrote: By the ridiculous logic in the OP, sites should just raise rake to 50%, 100%, even 200%. You cannot just make assertions like this in a vacuum, it doesn't satisfy, logic, math, economics, rational thinking or reality. If you don't intend to suggest rake could be 100%, then what is the ideal rake%?

not sure what you're talking about.. in the OP all i've said is competition gets tougher when there's more money to be made so the individual experience of any single player is not necessarily dramatically improved by lower rake even if the overall pool of players benefit, due to dilution from new entrants+more effort being made. not only is this a standard conclusion from elementary textbook economic theory (perfect competition model) but it is also consistent with simple common sense.

i have (not in the op but in subsequent posts) said I believe AYA would be leaving money on the table by lowering rake, but to take this statement and do extreme extrapolation (in the wrong direction) is nonsensical chatter on your part. If a banana seller was selling bunches of bananas for $1 and I said he would be making less money if he cut prices to 50c, would you jump in and say that my logic indicates he should be selling for a million dollars per banana?

in that context what your argument has been is basically something like this

in front of a supermarket and bunch of other stores and also other fruit vendors there are a couple of people selling bananas at various prices, one guy is well known named bananastars and he sells 90% of the bananas and right now he has the lowest prices for bananas except recently he raised the price of heads up bananas and spin and bananas.

now what you're saying is twofold, first that it would not benefit mr. bananastars to lower the price of his bananas, which is probably true, he has brand and a huge market share already, so the people who eat bananas every day shouldn't expect it. which is fair enough

but second that it would not be good for the actual banana customers if the price of bananas went down. which is false, cheaper bananas means you can get more bananas, period, it doesn't matter if in some arbitrary long run future (that you have no model to predict mathematically if or when that equilibrium happens) there are no bananas left because eastern europeans and mildly autistic people keep selling bananas to each other for almost no profit. cheaper bananas means easier or more bananas

if the banana tax or banana prices decrease that is good for people who buy bananas full stop. most people who eat bananas also don't eat bananas their whole life, eventually they move on to other fruits which are more satisfying and don't make you constipated all the time, like citrus fruits

i guess appealing to reason/common sense is futile so im just going to leave this by saying you are denying a process that has literally happened before your eyes over the past few years. in 2006 i made $500/hr by barely knowing more than how to appear a bit LAG on early streets so i can make people stack off when i make sets. the rake didn't go anywhere since then but my poker skills and profitability both did (up, and down respectively)

On November 17 2014 10:47 Romm3l wrote: Show nested quote + On November 17 2014 10:29 diggerflopboat wrote: By the ridiculous logic in the OP, sites should just raise rake to 50%, 100%, even 200%. You cannot just make assertions like this in a vacuum, it doesn't satisfy, logic, math, economics, rational thinking or reality. If you don't intend to suggest rake could be 100%, then what is the ideal rake%? not sure what you're talking about.. in the OP all i've said is competition gets tougher when there's more money to be made so the individual experience of any single player is not necessarily dramatically improved by lower rake even if the overall pool of players benefit, due to dilution from new entrants+more effort being made. not only is this a standard conclusion from elementary textbook economic theory (perfect competition model) but it is also consistent with simple common sense. i have (not in the op but in subsequent posts) said I believe AYA would be leaving money on the table by lowering rake, but to take this statement and do extreme extrapolation (in the wrong direction) is nonsensical chatter on your part. If a banana seller was selling bunches of bananas for $1 and I said he would be making less money if he cut prices to 50c, would you jump in and say that my logic indicates he should be selling for a million dollars per banana?

You are making an argument about economics, with clear indication you know nothing about it.

Like I said if you claim the extreme is not what you intend to suggest...tell me...what is "ideal"?

On November 17 2014 13:50 Romm3l wrote: i guess appealing to reason/common sense is futile so im just going to leave this by saying you are denying a process that has literally happened before your eyes over the past few years. in 2006 i made $500/hr by barely knowing more than how to appear a bit LAG on early streets so i can make people stack off when i make sets. the rake didn't go anywhere since then but my poker skills and profitability both did (up, and down respectively)

no, you have a horrible understanding of "variance".

Variance is an actual formula, and economics is a branch of academics (science etc.).

Your argument does not stand to reason, you just have not had someone walk you through it.

lol.. better not engage with trolls and fringe lunatics

On November 17 2014 14:24 Romm3l wrote: lol.. better not engage with trolls and fringe lunatics

Is calling people lunatics your support and evidence to your conclusion
?
I am simply saying if you follow your line a few steps it becomes clear it's illogical...

what is the ideal rake? If the general player pool will adjust away small changes in rake...what then is the ideal?

And laughing off with dismissive response doesn't do much justice for your "opinion"

That's what I thought.

Poker is the game, knowledge is (was) the scarcity, and profit comes from having priveledged knowledge at the game.

If everyone has easy access to unlimited amount of gold for cheap, the amount of money you can make by trading gold becomes significantly less to almost non existant. The same applies to poker and everything else that is perceived through an economic pov.

Romm is correct.

On November 17 2014 21:11 uiCk wrote: Poker is the game, knowledge is (was) the scarcity, and profit comes from having priveledged knowledge at the game. If everyone has easy access to unlimited amount of gold for cheap, the amount of money you can make by trading gold becomes significantly less to almost non existant. The same applies to poker and everything else that is perceived through an economic pov. Romm is correct.

You mean to say poker is a zero sum game or "economy", but you are only analyzing the world in a vacuum:

When one studies what are called ”cooperative games", which in economic terms include mergers and acquisitions or cartel formation, it is found to be appropriate and is standard to form two basic classifications: (1): Games with transferable utility. (and) (2): Games without transferable utility (or “NTU" games). In the world of practical realities it is money which typically causes the existence of a game of type (1) rather than of type (2); money is the “lubrication" which enables the efficient “transfer of utility". And generally if games can be transformed from type (2) to type (1) there is a gain, on average, to all the players in terms of whatever might be expected to be the outcome.

What does it mean that ALL players gain? And how is this possible.

You all do not know what you are talking about...and before you argue me, you need to admit the truth, you haven't studied the economics, you are giving your opinions, and I am explaining to you that they are wrong.

Like I pointed out twice already...tell us...what is the ideal rake then, and how does one come up with the formula?

Think a few steps beyond your assertions and watch your arguments fall apart...

then maybe we can discuss the truth of the game. 90% of the players simply drowning out the top 10%.

Romm3l is right. It is essentially a zero-sum game between the Fish, AYA and the Regs. Fish deposit, regs win money off them and pay the rake. In fact, because the fish are the ones who bring in the money, they are the ones who are effectively paying the rake.

If you change the rake, how it will affect Fish/AYA/Regs? OP argues that
less rake -> larger profit margin for regs -> more regs -> profit margin per regs decreasing to (almost) the initial level. So the decreased rake will not make an individual reg win more in the long run, it will just increase the number of regs who win at the rate which is almost equal to the rate before rake increase.

So if the amount the fish deposit is inelastic to rake at current rake level, decreasing rake means less money for AYA, more regs, almost same winrate for individual reg. Or, more regs will win at the same hourly rate as before, at the expense of AYA. This is the long-term effect, after the market equilibriates.

I think OP's assumption about the fish caring little about rake at current rake level must be correct. Fish don't care much about the rake unless its really too high. Someone said "according to your logic they should increase the rake to 90%" - no, because at this point it would negatively affect the amount of money the Fish are willing to deposit. At this point the deposit amount would be very elastic, and it would pay to decrease the rake.