You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Making And Keeping the Poker "Ecosystem" Good For All Players
So I came across this video on youtube posted by the poker pro Doug Polk and featuring Daniel Negreanu looking at certain changes that have happened on another Poker site and may be something which other sites emulate if they believe it to be in their interest.
I'll post the link so everybody can watch the video and understand the context (but understand that this is not an endorsement video for the site in discussion - quite the opposite in fact).
https://youtu.be/7euHrSaXlpw
If for some reason the link doesn't work then head to youtube and search for Doug Polk Poker and the video headlined "Daniel Negreanu says that more rake is better?!....
So anyway, you can watch the video for yourselves and see what you think but the general underlying subject seems to be that Daniel Negreanu thinks that increasing the rake and removing priority is good because it puts off pro-players or better players from the game and makes it better for all the others.
I completely disagree with this statement. Although it may be true that there would be fewer pro players on a higher-rake site, the fact is that these pro-players tend to play at higher stake levels anyway which for the most part amateur players and losing, breaking even would not likely be playing at. So, in reality all that happens is that the rake is increased for everybody and everybody loses out with the site becoming less attractive to all players across the board.
The other thing is the idea of getting rid of priority rewards/rake-back for grinding and top players. What a stupid idea! The reason why people play poker (like Doug states in the video) is that they believe they can win and "make-it". If you remove the rewards and benefits, then make it ten million times harder for anybody to play the game then how is that good for anybody?
So to cap it off, my view is that the idea poker ecosystem is one which rewards everybody - less rake to bring in more players (regardless of their skill level) equals more competition and more fun. Better rewards, not less to make it worth people's while and stay playing. More rakeback, more priority tournaments, more everything whilst still giving the website a good share for its profits.
What do you guys and girls think?
Comments
Whilst I've probably gone up from recreational to amateur level now I still feel pretty new to Poker and yet all these things are on my radar so I imagine they must be a consideration for at least a good portion of newbies/amateurs as well as simply quite a lot of people have the common sense as to see where they are putting their money before entering their bank details (notice I say "quite a lot" - well aware that some just don't seem to give a care for whatever bizarre reason!
I don't rant often and try to be a generally positive person (rant incoming)...
I am not sure what infuriates me the most, the astonishingly bad business plan or the fact DN thinks people are so thoroughly stupid that they will eat up the horse**** he is serving.
This boils down to greed, pure and simple greed. Basically the money that floats around on a poker site (that the site makes a fair percentage return on), well, said site wants more, much more, in fact they just want it all. I understand that sites have to make money, I really do. But please don't try and tell the public that you are trying to improve poker to hide your utter greed.
As Doug Polk says, SNE players on said site made that site a LOT of money in rake. And, it is true, players who make a lot of money cash out money and there is less in the 'poker ecosystem', this is fair though. Said site made plenty money in rake too, the grinders helped facilitate this and many people play in the hope of improving and one day being able to also make a little wedge of cash. Need convinving? Look at Chris Moneymaker... His WSOP win started a poker 'gold rush' that seen the amount of players rocket to completely unprecendented levels! This was the biggest thing to happen to poker in X number of years!
Need more convinving? Think about DN himself, how many players got into the game because they seen him playing and winning $$'s and wanted to give it a try? I would bet decent money that it would be quite a few players. Or maybe closer to home, people watching the late Devilfish (David Ulliot) or even closer to home Mr Channing winning some cash and thought they would give poker a try and see if they could one day do the same.
If you want to increase the rake and make it so the money stays in the system then said money is raked over and over again until the well runs dry and you have basically told your players who used to put the largest amount of volume in on your site to [insert expletive of your choice here].
Any decent business plan would recognise these points and appreciate that all player demographics are important, grinder, recreational players, middle of the road players, males, females etc etc. These are worrying strategic business moves being taken by the leading site (in terms of volume) which on the contrary to DN's musings, could be terrible for poker in the long term.
I have seen this with my own eyes. I used to grind the PLO8 SNG's and made a reasonable amount doing so via them directly and the weekly leaderboards. Then the games were replaced with hyper turbos, tiny starting stacks, the leaderboard was scrapped and edges reduced to a pittance. I now put in under 5% of the volume I used to and almost every reg quite playing there. So was it great for the recreationals? Yes! The new hyper turbos filled faster than you could imagine and stars must have made a pretty penny! This is all great if you neglect the fact that now, some time down the road, the games are pretty much destroyed. The regular PLO8 SNG's hardly fill and the new shiny hyper turbos now start at a pathetic trickle (I would guess under 5% of the initial rate they used to start). Said site simply cashed in for a quick buck and stiffed themselves and the grinders in the process.
This is the direction said site wants to send their entire game offerings into.
I used to really like DN but I thought he handled himself poorly with regards to Howard Lederer (Howard was an azz for sure but DN lacked class IMO). DN's latest musing have evaporated any credibility I felt he had left, he just looks like another sellout now.
I am grateful this site does not appear to have the same agenda and I hope the people working in marketting realise that said site is no longer a shining example to be emulated (which it was for a long time).
All these pros are essentially just slaves to rakeback. And as we can see, sites can get rid of that rakeback very quickly. Then where do you go from there? You basically don't have a job anymore.
Also these players can only play in the setup that exists. If sites took slightly less rake and done away with rakeback (not necessarily saying they should) then the players would have profits that reflect what they are just now anyway with the profit and rakeback combined. I also don't doubt that if rakeback was scrapped that many of these players would adapt to whatever the new setup was.
Unless you are talking about removing rakeback, promos etc and not replacing them with anything else (the site taking a bigger slice as DN was advocating). That is the point of the thread though... I.E. would this be good for the ecosystem? I would say no, definitely no. I don't think making poker tougher to beat is in anyones interests for the points I made above, including the sites.
If so many regs need to count rakeback as part of their win rate, it shows what a terrible state the games must be in. 10 years ago, regs had double digit win rates BEFORE rakeback!!!
'I also don't doubt that if rakeback was scrapped that many of these players would adapt to whatever the new setup was.' I think you answered your own point regarding ecosystem quality - players will adapt and keep playing.
Unless you have masses of money to lose, playing any kind of volume that equates to a sizeable rakeback return means you are able to play masses of games and stay profitable. This most definitely reflects ability.
Regarding the "10 years ago regs had double digit win rate before rakeback!!!" and the "terrible state the games are in"... Why have you come to this conclusion? Do you think regs are just cr@p now? Do you think players have gotten worse?
P.S. I can assure you there are plenty regs with double digit win rates before rakeback.
The last figures I saw showed that 27% of players on Sky were profitable (not doing too bad IMO). For 'said site" it was 21% of players who were profitable.
Regarding the talk of games being better back in the day
From time to time you will get excessive profits in an industry, the market will then correct itself. Some players were lucky enough to find themselves in a situation where they could earn excessive profits. This was never going to be a long term thing.
Sometimes people are lucky enough to find themselves in the right place at the right time but it was never going to last. Two things happen, the depositors dry up and you get an influx of players tempted by the profits available. This means players profits go down to a sensible level
In terms of winning via rakeback or games, players will do what makes them the most money. If a site puts on a promo then they will assess whether its worth them going for it and often they will make less per game but win more overall.
If rakeback was lower players would play less tables and make more per table. Players will just be looking at hourly. There is an ability in being able to play a large number of tables and in low margin games this is pretty important.
Aerionz, good to see Timmy getting some viewers of the diary. From your posts you seem to be keeping a keen interest in it.
No, you're completely misunderstanding. I said terrible STATE of games, not terrible regs. Terrible state of games = games filled with nitty 20 tabling grinders and (almost) no fish.
Double digit win rates are basically impossible in current day games, unless you adopt some form of extreme table selection where you only ever play huge fish. Top 6max cash regs are clearing 3 or 4bb/100 over large samples. Top SNG regs are achieving at most 3-5% ROI over large samples. And these are the very top regs, not just the middle tier average ones (the bracket which most regs fall into). By the way, these are pre-rakeback win rates. I've never come across anyone who quotes win rates after rakeback.
Back to the main issue: I think said site are right to cut rakeback. Re-distribute the promotions to new and depositing players. After all, losing players are the lifeblood for any poker site. No depositors = no games run and sites/regs make no money. My only problem is said site might just pocket the money, rather than re-distribute it. But at the end of the day, they are well within their right to do that. Just as you are well within your right not to give them business anymore.
Now this will be my last reply to you. It is clear you have an opinion on this subject which won't change. No point arguing with someone who can't see things from the other point of view.
There are tons of players with double digit win rates. Unless you are excluding certain sites or games to suit your own agenda.
Yes raising rake deters grinders, yes the site is within their right to do this and even keep the profits. Why not make rake 100% then? See how many play on the sites. The point is that there is an ideal level and whether measures taken by said site or measures proposed by DN reflect an ideal level. I would argue they do not for the reasons I have mentioned, feel free to argue whichever point you like, it is your opinion which you are obviously entitled to.
I will just get back to reflecting on my myopic viewpoint which clearly lacks any semblance of empathy towards other peoples POV.