Anonimous tables/ future of online poker?

[Alnoble]

I can't say I like the idea of anonymous tables. I like to know who I'm playing.

I use PT3 to keep a track of my own game. Don't bother with the HUD as I find it distracting. I would be unhappy if sites stopped me recording my own hands for later review.

[kingmotan]

Pokerstars makes $ from rake. Grinders provide the rake, grinders need the hud so they can 24 table. (get it )
And stop with the data mining whining. You will still be the fish, even with anonymous tables and chit

[Assistanc3]

And stop with the data mining whining. You will still be the fish, even with anonymous tables and chit

lol at whining comment

anyway I'd be a whale, not fish but since I am a donkey

[kingmotan]

I wasn't taling about you in particular. My english is very bad. I want to say one thong and pipal understand the opposite

[scrawnybob]

hi

to say grinders provide the rake is a bit of a big over simplification IMVHO

its fair to say that has been the prevailing wisedom for along time that the value and profit for the poker rooms is the grinders and higher stakes players ... but its not

and they are all starting to realise that now - its a big balance of getting healthy mix of all types of players and the 90/10 rule will happen without help

without the fish and without the recreational depositors at the "bottom of the food chain" there wouldnt be any grinding to be done

thats why ultimately rakeback and other systems rewarding or helping just the "savvy" and winning players is a flawed promotional technique ...

much better to encourage the "fish" (thats 90% of us at the end of the day) and keep everyone happy and everyone getting a good slice of the promotional pie and not just giving more money to already winning players ... which is effectively a waste

finally sites are realising that the eco system of poker is alot more complicated than just trying to keep the "high rakers" happy with anything they can give back ... effectively they are giving more money to the winning 10% when infact its the perceived "lower value" 90% of players or unflatteringly called "fish" that they should be comping more

this is exactly why the sites have realised that HUD's and data mining are bad ... because it pushes the money to the top quicker than it naturally would do

and infact they will earn more rake keeping the rec and small time players going and the games softer instead of where the nitty HUD using multi-tablers just play safe and then take their monthly cheque which then goes out of the system.

so the eco system has winners (they're always will be winners) but it doesnt need to keep them more happy than simply paying them out their actual winnings or help them anymore to generate rake - that is done by the total system

in fairness the winners income would very very soon dry up if it wasnt for more fish at the bottom of the food chain ... otherwise after a while it would be sharks canabalising each other or grinding out against each other and the system would die ...

this effect has been seen to develop on some sites that have more focus on rakeback and more nitty games and multitabling as a result the games are not as soft

the last thing a healthy poker site needs is to give more advantage to marginally winning or winning players ... much more healthy to push promotional and marketing $'s to the marginally losing and new / recreational playing majority

grinding multitabling does not create more rake for the room over the longer term its far better for the money to get raked and re-raked repeatedly in the lower stakes and move through at a natural rate than race up the system quickly and cashed out sooner having been actually raked less.

cheers scrawnybob

[kingmotan]

While I agree with you on one side, it's really hard to convince me that basically fish rake in more than regs.
Of course on the long term they need infusion of fresh fish to donate to the regs and of course no table no table can start w/out at least one but I opened stars now and I couldn't believe it... there are more 1/2$ tables than 1/2cents ones. It's known that the majority of supernova elite grinders are there..
So I would need figures to convince me of what u're saying because a 24table SNE grinder will rake in about 60k in an year if I'm not mistaking ( I think it's more that that).
CAn you imagine how many fish need to play to get to that? I would say at least 4-500.
My point is that ofcourse they want to keep the grinders happy. It's a win-win. It's one thing to lose a fish who hears about ptr and is ashamed to play anymore and another thing to lose a SNE grinder.
I understand the whole eco system idea and I agree.

[scrawnybob]

hi Motan

your English is great as I forget it is your second language ;-)

yep your right in terms of actual rake numbers the higher stakes tables will rake more but you picked up on the main point of the healthy eco system thing ...

for winners to be winners and to rake at the higher games etc it relies on having alot alot more fish at the bottom raking not very much feeding into the higher games

sites are now realising that they have given too much credit to the wrong players if you like the success and health of a poker room to continue ...

bottom line the sharks / grinders will come to any room that has a decent amount of rec players to feed in at the bottom admittedly small amounts but 1000's of them

but they can only grind out the rake if they have the juice feeding into the system

I think over time some of the sites have realised that their eco system is potentially quite delicate ... its fine if its just left to naturally run but if you tinker with it or allow it to artificially create advantages (like HUD's, data mining and even the currently unhealthy rakeback setups) then it could start to go in an unhealthy direction

seeing more 1/2 games than 1/2 cent games could be unhealthy or just suggest that more players are graduating up in stakes generally spending and playing for more or it could suggest that there are fewer new low stakes depositing players or it could suggest there are more low mid depositing players ... thats vague but I agree lots of possible explainations

I think the main point I was getting at is that its not just the obvious high raking and profitable players who are contributing to the site - eventually without new blood or fresh deposits I guess a site could / would theoretically rake itself to zero

granted that loads of multitabling grinders will generate rake for the room quickly in a sense but if the distribution of the winnings ends up at the cashout players stage quicker then its potentially as broad as its long or more likely not been raked as much as it could have been without the optimal multitable grinding

it makes far far more sense for a room to allow the games to generate the maxmum churn and rake going up and around the system before it gets to the net winning players who take a monthly cheque out of the system

its not the multitabling thats the problem of itself - its the fact that using HUD's and HH mining allows or makes profitable players to squeeze out more profit out of more tables

many of whom will also be minimising their rake which translates as withdrawing money thats not technically been won but effectively an additional drain on others deposits getting sucked out which the room could have redistributed in a more useful way than allowing rakeback (hard to explain)

many games ultimately would have infact raked more (or kept more in the system) without the bias of HUD's etc - those players are cashing out their profits (no more rake or more importantly circulation around players - which would create at least the same if not more rake over time)

poker sites view earning their rake a bit like that classic poker player saying ...

you can only skin a cat once but you can shear a sheep forever

Ive not explained myself very well but at least there is food for thought ;-)

cheers scrawnybob