Is it OK to ban winners from Online Poker?

[Tommy R]

I read with great interest the responses about recent banning at PP. As a past professional blackjack player I have had a great deal of experience with this very issue. The general vibe of many responses seemed to be that an online poker site seemingly could do what they want when it comes to banning and that would be ok as it is their right. My question is does this extend to banning winning players as well as is the case in blackjack? It certainly raises some moral and legal issues.

Tommy R
http://www.onlinepokerreview.com
manager

[Daithi]

For the most part I think people should be allowed to run their businesses as they see fit as long as they are doing so legally. With that said, I also believe that in games of skill it should be illegal for gaming operators to not allow skilled people to participate. After all, only select businesses can get permission from the government to run a card room or casino. It doesn't seem right to allow them to then say, "Only stupid people will be allowed to play."

I also think it would it be flat out stupid for an Online Poker room to ban good players. After all, these are the same players who move to higher limits.

[Tommy R]

You make some good points, but I don't think it would be “flat out stupid to ban winning players”. After all it is the good players that kill off the fish in all limits, which decreases the rake potential in the long run. It would depend if revenue from good players taken in rake outweighs loss of revenue when fish are killed by these same players.

You make this point “It doesn't seem right to allow them to then say, Only stupid people will be allowed to play." When referring to online casinos. Yes this does not seem right but it is what casinos all over the world to in blackjack another game of skill.

Tommy R
http://www.onlinepokerreview.com

[roGER]

Tommy,

With respect you are missing a VERY important point. The winning players make up a large percentage (the majority?) of a card room's regular players.

These regular players come day after day after day and are the foundation around which the games are built. Its very hard to start and maintain games unless there is a hardcore of regular players. By the way, these players contribute (via the rake) massively to any cardroom's revenue, simply because they spend so much time playing. Also, few of them are really big winners - its hard to win more than 1 sb per hour in most games, and many regulars actually break even or lose a little money, although not much.

There's nothing you can do to help the fish (except keep the rake as low as possible) but there is plenty you can do to make their gambling experience enjoyable. Among the things you can do is ban obnoxious jerks. People come to poker rooms (both real and on-line) to play poker. They don't come to listen to ranting morons with a sense of entitlement and a persecution complex.

The reason our recent hero got banned wasn't for winning, it was for being an obnoxious jerk. If he'd behaved that way in a "real" cardroom, he'd have been ejected head first through the fire-doors and into the alley.

So, please, look after your best customers; your winning players, because you won't be able to keep your games going without them...

- roGER

[Jimbo]

roGER,

You have got to be kidding when you say "The winning players make up a large percentage (the majority?) of a card room's regular players." Try this one on for size! I believe Mason has said less than 2% of the players are long term winners. I will give him potential for being off by 100 or 200% but not by a factor of 25!!!! Look at it like this, you are saying less than 50% of the players are supporting the majority of the players as well as the rake.

This line of reasoning is simply flawed. You are confusing regulars with winners.


Jimbo

[CreamPuff]

Part of the attraction to blackjack & poker alike,
is that it is common knowledge that both can be beat.
If a casino (online or B&M) ever started banning it's
most successful players, word of mouth would eventually
destroy them...Not only would the sharks be banned, but
many regulars would have their dreams shattered and
go elsewhere.

Another point is that there are many Class B players online.
If you banned all the Class A players, class B would
just fill right in..(Although it might take them a little
longer to win the $)

You may expect something like this from a third class site like ProPoker,
but it'll never happen at the top 5........NEVER.

[crazy canuck]

The 2% figure of winning players (in the long run) is for B&M. It should be significantly higher for on-line because of the lower rake. I have no clue what the figure is tho exactly.
Actually, I'll makea post in the general theory forum.

[BaaadBeet]

"if a casino (online or B&M) ever started banning it's
most successful players, word of mouth would eventually
destroy them..."

Incorrect. As the original thread contributer rightly pointed out, winning blackjack players are ROUTINELY BANNED from casinos all the time, simply because they are winning players employing winning strategies. Does it stop most players from playing blackjack, or stop casinos from profiting from blackjack? No.

If the casinos allowed a fair blacjack game and didn't ban/use countermeasures against winning players, a lot of us would be making our living playing that game. It is easily beatable if you can get a fair game where you won't get banned or cheated. That' s why casinos won't allow winning blackjack players to continue playing, once they determine they are expert card counters and know expert or even basic strategy, coupled with counting. The casinos either cheat them out of the game, or ban them. This is common knowledge and well documented. Get a few books on blackjack, or talk to anyone who is a winning player. Inquire how long they'll be allowed to play a winning game in any given casino before they are politely (or inpolitely), shown the door, and/or cheated.

Now unlike blackjack, poker is not played against the house. Nevertheless, if the house perceives that winning players are hurting their bottom line by destroying too many "rake producing" fish, I have NO DOUBT WHATEVER, that the potential exists that they will be utilizing tactics that will greatly frustrate the winning player. Redistribution of their chips for example via extraordinarily high numbers of bad beats.

If highly regulated licensed Vegas casinos can get away with denying a fair game to expert blackjack players for decades on end now, under the noses of the Gaming Comission, what is to stop offshore, unregulated, unacountable, unaudited, unasnwerable, anonamous sites from doing WHATEVER they please, to take chips from winning players and give them to losing players, in order to maximize their rake by keeping more games going?

Anyone who thinks these sites will always be straight up for the good of mankind and all that, is greatly deluding themselves. Those that say the sites will always be fair because it is in their best "business interest" to do so, havn't learned anything from history or a study of the blackjack analogy with casinos. Offshore sites are likley to consider their "best interest" to be whatever increases their rake to the maximum amount. If that includes juicing the deck, creating more suckouts, bigger pots, redistribution of chips via bad beats, or any of many other tactics, you'd be wise to consider the potential that such site tactics are a definite possibility.

[Jimbo]

that 48% of the losers in a B&M casino lose because of the rake? I don't think so, plus Mason was describing Mid-Limit holdem where the rake is not a factor in whether or not you win but how much you win. Lower rake aside in online card rooms over 90% of them are losers, certainly not less than 50%.


Jimbo

[crazy canuck]

Jimbo i agree with you ...I meant that if 2% of people win in B&M with that rake, I could imagine 6% of people winning on-line.
I think Mason is wrong by saying that rake only determines how much you win...i might be wrong tho. /forums/images/icons/cool.gif
I posted the question in general theory...we'll see what the smartypants have to say about it.

[crazy canuck]

Baaadbeat,where can I get more info about cheating by the house in BJ?
I agree with you on the fair game blackjack issue
in Vegas. I can count cards, I played in approximately 10 casinos and was never denied a game. Nonetheless, I've had way too many seconds being dealt, and saw lots of peaking etc. I have absolutely no clue what the gaming comission is doing.

[lorinda]

The point was well made before, whenever you ban the 10% best players in your cardroom, there will immediately be a new top 10%......with only one result.....oops

You say: "As the original thread contributer rightly pointed out, winning blackjack players are ROUTINELY BANNED from casinos all the time"

This is not the truth. Casino's don't ban winning players just because they are winning, they ban winning players that use infair tactics such as counting cards etc. You make it like if you go into a casino and win 5k most casinos will throw you out? You have to remember that most casinos in the U.S are operated by large publicly traded companies. Any action as you describe would be a form of discrimination and they could be sued.

The casino HAS the right to throw out a player because they count cards but not just because they are winning!

==joe

[lorinda]

In England the casino has the right to throw you out because they dont want you in the building, no explanation is required and I even know of a high stakes roulette player who was banned because they didnt want the fluctuations!!!!!

Well honey I dont live in England. And the U.S broke away from the facist English rule long ago. This is one of the reaosns I would never live in a country where the food is so horrible and the taxes so high.

[Tom D]

What if your card room has 90 fairly equally bad players who, playing among themselves, just push chips back and forth across the table ad infinitum, with very little bleeding off, and 10 very good players who rip them up regularly. If you get rid of those top ten, there will be a new top 10, but they can’t play a lick compared to the former top 10.

At the least, it’s easy to see that the new top 10 would not be the same caliber as the former.

Tom D

[Jimbo]

Joe,

It is not illegal to count cards in Nevada. The casino is throwing you out because you are winning. If you were counting cards in BJ and LOSING do you think they would throw you out? Give us all a break here.....

Jimbo

[Tom D]

Are you kidding? What would a casino do if they knew a player was counting--badly, and losing?

Tom D

[CORed]

I'm curious: Why do you consider couning cards unfair? A card counter is using information available to all players to make better betting and playing decisions. He isn't peeking at hole cards or next cards, or bribing the dealer to deal seconds in his favor. He is simply using his brain to shift the advantage to his side of the table. IMO, counting cards in blackjack is no more unfair than watching whether your outs are live in a 7 card stud game. Personally, I think the casino has a right to refuse to deal to a card counter, the same as I have a right to leave a poker table if my opponents are skilled enough to make the game a losing proposition for me. However, I don't feel that the better poker player or the card counter is doing anything unfair or dishonest.

[whiskeytown]

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.09/vegas.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=

This is a recent article in wired.com about an MIT team that went and counted cards in Vegas for YEARS before they got caught. (Vegas can spot a counter, but not a team of counters...they weren't expecting that kind of sophisication.)

and for the record...card counting is NOT ILLEGAL per se (as in you can go to jail for it like marking cards) but it is BANNED - a casino WILL ban you if they catch you doing it and taking money from them.

Read the article...it's good.

RB

[CreamPuff]

"if a casino (online or B&M) ever started banning it's
most successful players, word of mouth would eventually
destroy them..."


I was referring to it's more successful poker players in
this particular sentence.

As with many poker players, I am well versed in the theories
of blackjack. In fact CreamPuff published a BJ simulator
that sold at GBC, Conjelco for many years until I discontinued it.
Banning counters when millions are at stake for them
is more understandable...Similiar to them not wanting
to take BIG action from the wiseguys at the book.

[GrannyMae]

until I discontinued it

how come CP?

[Tommy R]

I have been banned from many Casinos for card counting. The interesting point is you do not have to be winning on that particular day to be banned. I remember one time at MGM in Las Vegas I was thrown out and was down $10,000. The reason was that advanced software used by the casino detected that I was counting cards beyond a resonable doubt. It did not matter that I was down this money to them because they knew I would be winning in the long run. Similarly a casino would never ban a player that was not counting cards because they will lose in the long run regardless if they were winning for that particular day. One exception might be a huge gambler who bets in the millions becuase they do not want the fluctuations.

[CreamPuff]

It was a dinasour IMO...Peter Ruchman at Gambler's Book
Club loved it, but I just didn't think it was fair
to charge $89.95 for an MS-DOS program on a 3.5 inch
floppy anymore. And it wasn't worth my time to convert
it to windows/cd.
If you want a copy, give me your email and I'll send you
one via an attachment. Functionality wise, it works quite
well.

[roGER]

Hello Jimbo,

No, I'm not kidding! There was a brilliant post on RGP years ago by Nolan Dalla on this very subject which (typically) I can't find...

His analysis went something like this:

A small percentage of players (say 2-5%) are big winners (2 bb per hour or more)

10% or so are medium winners (say 1 bb per hour)

20% or so are small winners (fractions of bb per hour)

40% are small losers or break even players (-fractions of bb per hour)

The lowest 25% are the fish who subsidise everyone else. They play very badly and lose at a great rate.

All these percentages are (of course) very approximate.

I believe they are actually much closer to reality than a blanket statement like 90% of poker players are all losers.

If you look at the players in your local cardroom, I think you'll find the above figures make sense. Most of the regulars don't play that badly - sure, they don't play remotely well, but their general tightness and experience keeps them out of too much trouble.

The above stuff refers to the low limit games I play. I can't speak with any authority about the higher limit games.

I don't know when or where Mason made his 2% winners statement (I thought I'd read all his books) - but some of the above guesstimated figures do stack up with some of his and David's staements. Things like as few as two bad players are enough to make a game profitable, and the fact that you need to be significantly better (not just a bit better) than good players to make any serious money at the game.

Blah blah blah, I'm rambling - you obviously know what you're doing - what whould your breakdown of players EV be?

Thanks,

- roGER

[Jimbo]

Hi Roger,

Thanks for the info on Nolan Dallas's estimates they are interesting. Let's do an estimate using his percentages:

A 10/20 game.....1000 players....8 hour days....100 days
03% win 002BB/hr= $0,960,000 profit
02% win 003bb/hr= $0,960,000 profit
10% win 001BB/hr= $1,600,000 profit
20% win .33BB/hr= $1,056,000 profit
20% break even = $0
20% lose .33BB/hr=$1,056,000 loss
Rake & Tips at $5/hand=$120,000 loss
Now we need the worst 25% of the players to lose $3,640,000
over 100 8 hour sessions. That would be 250 players losing $18.20/ hour for 4 straight months.

On the surface these numbers seem reasonable but here is the catch. If you figure that each losing player would lose $14560 every 4 months how long will their bankroll last? Would an average of 2 months be unreasonable? That would be a 364 BB bankroll for their chosen game. If not then we now need 6 times as many losers for one years worth of winners. Therefore we now have 1250 losing players vs the field of 750 others (big winners/break even/small win/small loss). So now our percentages have changed to 60% of the players are major losers and this is after only one year. As you can tell as time increases the percentage of losers must invariably increase to a point where if there are still 2% of the total players winning that is still a remarkably high percentage. If you believe the bankroll estimate I have used is too small simply multiply it by the factor you prefer and then multiply that factor times the 1 year and all we have done is extended the time it takes for the inevitable to occur.

Do you still believe my 90% of all poker players are losers is so unreasonable? Actually now I believe it is unreasonable as well and I defer to the Mighty Mason and OZ who think it is closer to 2%. The only reason their figure could be considered accurate is that they have stated a winning player can expect a 1BB/hr win rate (at this limit) and nothing so lofty as 2 or 3 BB/hr. This in fact, in a roundabout manner, confirms this estimate as well.

What Nolan Dalla and others here have neglected to consider is that a loser does not have an infinite bankroll. As the losers go bust as they invariably will they are replaced by other losers which increases the total percentage of losing players and theryby reduces the total percentage of winning players. Please do not try to use the arguement that once a loser has gone bust he is no longer a poker player, that will not cut it.

It is certainly possible,in fact not unreasonable,that I have made a mistake (or several) in my computations or assumptions. If you do find any which significantly alter my hypothesis please point them out and allow me a response.


Jimbo

PS: If Mason would like me to write an essay on this subject for future publication I would be honored. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[roGER]

Hey thanks for a well reasoned and thoughtful response!

Firstly, perhaps I was wrong to quote Nolan Dalla on this, because I'm going from memory, and may well have not remembered his numbers or argument accurately (although hopefully I'm close).

Basically what I'm saying is, perhaps we should call them roGER's numbers based on a much better reasoned analysis first posted by Nolan Dalla. In fairness to Nolan, it was wrong of me to quote him, yet no be able to be sure I was quoting him accurately.

Right, onto your analysis, and I agree that when you plug the numbers in it doesn't look good.

Its true then, that if we say that players who go broke REMAIN poker players, then it all goes to hell.

BUT if we call the poker players who go broke "inactive players" and then say that the percentages I've suggested apply to "active players", then I would suggest the numbers do make sense.

My basic objection to the statement that only 2% of poker players are winners is that it doesn't stack up with what I observe at the tables.

To put it crudely, at a typical 4-8 or 5-10 Hold Em game, out of a table of 10 players, I'm a winning player, and there are usually 1 or 2 other winning players at the table. Then there are 3 or 4 players who are tight but passive (rocks) whom I guesstimate to be small winners or losers. Finally there are 2 or more (hopefully!) very poor loose players who give a tremendous amount of action.

I would claim that these bad players (apart from the few terrible regulars who must be well funded) are replaced on a fairly constant basis by other bad players - to use the old Vegas expression "tourists."

Lastly I would suggest that many of the bad players don't play that much. To use your example, I suspect that many of these players don't play 800 hours of poker in a public cardroom in their lives! $14,000+ lost over a lifetime, or perhaps 20 or 30 years is perfectly possible for many people - I suspect they are just like the people playing table games and slots that Las vegas was built on. Because the loss is spread out over many isolated days and over an extended period of time, it isn't really noticed...

What we have here is a failure on my part to differentiate between "serious" cardplayers and casual ones; Lets say people who visit a cardroom at least once per week on average are "serious" and lets say there is a much larger population of casual players, who visit a cardroom perhaps a maximum of 4 or 5 times per year.

If we take both casual and "serious" players together in the same population, then its perfectly possible the winning players only make up a percent or two of the total population. BUT, here's the rub, if that is the case, then the total percentage of "serious" players is only perhaps 10% of the total population, perhaps far less.

I *think* using the above model, both our points can be valid. And, far too late in the day, I begining to think that Nolan in his post (I really will try and find the damn thing!) said something like he was excluding people who only played "home" poker for nickels/bottle tops/match-sticks and occasionally played in Las Vegas from his calculations...

Has the above made any sense? Can we agree? Wouldn't it be nice for Mason or one of the other gurus to step in? Would you mind me mailing Nolan our posts on this topic and see if he has anything to say?

Best wishes,

- roGER

PS: Where is that 2% winners statement by Mason by the way? I'm not doubting you that he made it, I'd just like to look up the essay/article/post to see his reasoning explained.

[GrannyMae]

pokergrannymae@aol.com

thx honey

[GrannyMae]

Would you mind me mailing Nolan our posts on this topic and see if he has anything to say?

no, WE don't mind.. i can't find Nolan's post on this either, and do not remember your numbers being what he posted, nor Jimbos being them either.. but i beleive you are closer to what ND had posted..

i only remember not beleiveing what i had read from him either (but that is commonly the case with my readings of ND.. the one's i stay awake through anyway.. JUST KIDDING DALLA!!.. sort of)

/forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif

[Jimbo]

Granny I specifically stated I used Rogers' recollection of Nolan's numbers for my example. It doesn't matter whose numbers they are they are incorrect.

Jimbo

[Jimbo]

Roger,

If you will let me take your point to the extreme as you chose to do with my example then nearly 100% of the "serious" or active (professional) cardplayers will be winners. Everyone else will stop playing poker, only play ocassionally, lose their bankroll or just find another vice. Sorry but that doesn't seem like very useful information to me since a 5th grader could deduce that. That was why I attempted to disallow this arguement to my hypothesis knowing it could be construed to be any percentage you choose. All I can tell you is from my experience most of the poker players online and in B&M are either ocassional, long term or permanent losers.

What else would you call a poker player who goes broke? A railbird? lol

Roger said "My basic objection to the statement that only 2% of poker players are winners is that it doesn't stack up with what I observe at the tables." Roger I believe the other winners may be bluffing you about their status as winners.

You also asked "Where is that 2% winners statement by Mason by the way? I'm not doubting you that he made it, I'd just like to look up the essay/article/post to see his reasoning explained." I will have to research that this weekend Roger. I have just read eight of his and David's books straight through in the last ten days so my recollection is fuzzy. It is even possible Mason stated only 2% or less are expert players and I may have unintentionally misconstrued that to mean winners which he carefully defines as 1 BB/hr or more over a sustained time period. If I have made this error I will repost prominently and cite the exact book and page number. Boy I should have used my yellow highlighter more often!! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif It would make it easier to find this information.

One more thing Roger, even when I find the quote it offered no detailed explanation such as the one I have attempted. If you have the Oz's TOP it may be in there. Will you skim through that if you have a copy and let me know as well?

Many Thanks,


Jimbo

PS: As far as mailing these posts to Nolan please do. I would enjoy hearing his response. I will assume it will be a similiar explanation as you gave since no other rebuttal seems possible.

[GrannyMae]

I have just read eight of his and David's books straight through in the last ten days

OH MY GOD.. you poor poor boy..

lose a bet??

/forums/images/icons/shocked.gif /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif

[Piers]

Poker is not like blackjack. Its IMPOSSIBLE to remove the winners from a card room. You can only change who they are.

Certainly a card room could continuously ban winners until they are left with one hopeless fish waiting for a game. Except he will never get a game as he is so bad that whoever he plays against will automatically become a winner and hence banned.

What is however possible is that someone might win so much over a significant period of time that the chance that they have broken the system starts to become higher than the chance that they have just been lucky.