Poker Player Union

[The Truth]

I think we ,the winning poker players who play for a living or part time living, should form a union. Then we could have more power as a unit in regard to the major poker sites and fish, we could control the direction of the game more effectively.

Thoughts?

[STLantny]

Poker, inherently, is not a group effort. Nor should any facet of it be.

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker, inherently, is not a group effort. Nor should any facet of it be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think there are 3 distinct groups.
1. the house
2. the winning players
3. the producers (fish)

Right now the house charges as much rake as the winning players will allow them. They cant push the winning players away because they need the winning players to fill the games up so the fish will have a place to play.

So an equilibrium is established, the total number of fish allow for a giving number of winning players and a given amount of profit for the house. you see where its going.
Us thinking that this is a game all about individuals is exactly what the house wants. they want us to accept sick amounts of rake simple because of the "there is nothing we can do" mentality. We get what we deserve, if we accept the screwing, they'll gladly give it.

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]

They cant push the winning players away because they need the winning players to fill the games up so the fish will have a place to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is backwards

[ThisHo]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif
how exactly is a union going to solve the problem of the rake? Rake is a fact of life -- if there were no rake there would be no house and without house there would be no game. What is a Union going to do to bring down the rake? Part of the rake problem is the friggin' jackpot drops. Those are there to attract fish. Winning Players look at the jackpot drop as -EV and fish see it as a lottery ticket waiting to be cashed. What is a union going to do to rid the world of jackpot drops? Do we even want to (knowing that they help draw the fish)?

My first thought was "How Stupid!" But I thought I'd give you a shot at expanding upon your idea before completely dismissing you.... Expand Away!

ThisHo is All Ears!

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

They cant push the winning players away because they need the winning players to fill the games up so the fish will have a place to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

fish dont care about the rake, so they could charge higher rake and still have tons of fish, but they dont... why?

This is backwards

[/ QUOTE ]

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

First, wrong forum, yadda yadda...

To the point, I thought the advantages of a poker union are more for tournaments and their structure, as well as big name stuff where promotions, endorsements, and media deals are involved.

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

They cant push the winning players away because they need the winning players to fill the games up so the fish will have a place to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

fish dont care about the rake, so they could charge higher rake and still have tons of fish, but they dont... why?



[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

1. competitors
2. just because a fish may not win, does not mean he does not understand the concept of the rake

[Pocket Trips]

[ QUOTE ]

They cant push the winning players away because they need the winning players to fill the games up so the fish will have a place to play.[ QUOTE ]



I don't think the house cares who wins and who loses. As long as the seats are filled they are happy.

Another flaw with this line of thinking seems to be that if all the "winning players" left the game there would be no one left to play. I think it is exactly the opposite of what would happen. If I knew a poker game was devoid of strong players i would do anything humanly possible to play in that game, and even if all strong players were to leave a game. A "strong player is a relative term. no matter the quality of play in a poker game there will still be winners and losers. This fact will ALWAYS draw people to play poker who think they can "beat the game."

[The4Aces]

i think this is a good idea. is there any way that a big group could get some type of decent insurance deal? if so i am guessing a lot of people would be willing to join.

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/confused.gif
how exactly is a union going to solve the problem of the rake? Rake is a fact of life -- if there were no rake there would be no house and without house there would be no game. What is a Union going to do to bring down the rake? Part of the rake problem is the friggin' jackpot drops. Those are there to attract fish. Winning Players look at the jackpot drop as -EV and fish see it as a lottery ticket waiting to be cashed. What is a union going to do to rid the world of jackpot drops? Do we even want to (knowing that they help draw the fish)?

My first thought was "How Stupid!" But I thought I'd give you a shot at expanding upon your idea before completely dismissing you.... Expand Away!

ThisHo is All Ears!

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all you must be confused about the jackpot rake. The jackpot can be +ev if the jackpot is high enough. The live games I play in (20-40 or higher) don't have a jackpot rake, because the players dont want one. Online, you have the option of playing at a jackpot table or nonjackpot table. So, we aren't really talking about jackpot rake here.

The actual rake. I'm talking about onlnine here not live like at the casino, although alot of this holds true live as well.

Ok the amount of money a site like party poker is making is sick.
There is little overhead, and the amount of rake per hand they take is excessive. (i understand online rake is low compared to live that is not the point)
Many 2+2ers are paying party poker around 100,000 dollars a year in rake. This is just to allow us to play poker on their site.

There are plenty of people who would run the same business partypoker is running and accept a much more modest income of say 5-10 million per year.
This would equate to the person paying 100k a year paying merely 400 dollars a year.

As a union, winning players would be able to pressure the larger sites like party poker into lowering their rake to match what the true equilibrium should be, which is much much much lower. There are sites out there right now that would charge tons less than party poker, they simply have problems filling the seats.

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]
First, wrong forum, yadda yadda...

To the point, I thought the advantages of a poker union are more for tournaments and their structure, as well as big name stuff where promotions, endorsements, and media deals are involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be nice as well

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

They cant push the winning players away because they need the winning players to fill the games up so the fish will have a place to play.[ QUOTE ]



I don't think the house cares who wins and who loses. As long as the seats are filled they are happy.

Another flaw with this line of thinking seems to be that if all the "winning players" left the game there would be no one left to play. I think it is exactly the opposite of what would happen. If I knew a poker game was devoid of strong players i would do anything humanly possible to play in that game, and even if all strong players were to leave a game. A "strong player is a relative term. no matter the quality of play in a poker game there will still be winners and losers. This fact will ALWAYS draw people to play poker who think they can "beat the game."

[/ QUOTE ]

And there will always be 3 defined groups. The (long term) losers, the winners and the house.

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think we ,the winning poker players who play for a living or part time living, should form a union. Then we could have more power as a unit in regard to the major poker sites and fish, we could control the direction of the game more effectively.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a couple thoughts, several of them involve shoving a FUCKING STICK UP YOUR FUCKIGN ASS. You would love to be the leader of this union wouldnt you HITLER!! Maybe afterwards we can create a motherFucing ANARCHY CLUB!!!!. GET THE [censored] OUT OF HERE!! HOLY SHIT AND DIE TOO!

[/ QUOTE ]

Can someone get this man his medication please.

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

They cant push the winning players away because they need the winning players to fill the games up so the fish will have a place to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

fish dont care about the rake, so they could charge higher rake and still have tons of fish, but they dont... why?



[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

1. competitors
2. just because a fish may not win, does not mean he does not understand the concept of the rake

[/ QUOTE ]

I aree with you on both accounts, at least to a degree.
Note this...

Live B&M games, often, the rake at a live 4-8 game looks like this, max 4 dollar rake, and 1 dollar jackpot drop.
The 20-40 game looks like this no jackpot rake, and often 3 dollar cap rake (sam's town in tunica has this exact rake).

The jist is that total rake at higher limit games is often lower than total rake at a lower limit game, because the lower limit players wont say anything about big rake, but higher limit players will.

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think we ,the winning poker players who play for a living or part time living, should form a union. Then we could have more power as a unit in regard to the major poker sites and fish, we could control the direction of the game more effectively.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a couple thoughts, several of them involve shoving a FUCKING STICK UP YOUR FUCKIGN ASS. You would love to be the leader of this union wouldnt you HITLER!! Maybe afterwards we can create a motherFucing ANARCHY CLUB!!!!. GET THE [censored] OUT OF HERE!! HOLY SHIT AND DIE TOO!

[/ QUOTE ]

Can someone get this man his medication please.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol this guy hates unions. a poker player union would be bad for the affiliates for sure.

[bd8802]

[ QUOTE ]

I have a couple thoughts, several of them involve shoving a FUCKING STICK UP YOUR FUCKIGN ASS. You would love to be the leader of this union wouldnt you HITLER!! Maybe afterwards we can create a motherFucing ANARCHY CLUB!!!!. GET THE [censored] OUT OF HERE!! HOLY SHIT AND DIE TOO!

[/ QUOTE ]

worst gimick account ever, and there have been some bad ones lately.

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can someone get this man his medication please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whats this now? huh? I cant hear you with all that cock in your mouth. BRING IS PANSY. I eat people like you for breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacktime too!! BRING IT ON WHIGGER!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Try and make sure you include in your next post atleast one of the following:

1. Intellegence
2. Legibility
3. Humor
4. Anything interesting.

[ThisHo]

{sigh}... we're not getting anywhere here...
{sigh}... I'm just about to close my mind to this idea entirely ...

here's where I am and where I need more info:

1 - you think that online sites take too much rake
2 - you think that there are other sites that will charge less rake, but can't fill seats
3 - you think that a union will help lower the rake on Party
4 - you think that the union will be made up of "winning players"

Here's where I'm at
1 - YES, the rake sucks, especially if the rake is $3 from any game up to and including 5/10. Sucks to have the blinds raked away.
2 - Rakes are a fact of life --- if you don't have a rakeback deal then its even worse.
3 - I still don't understand HOW a union is going to get Party to lower their rake. What are we going to do, go out on strike?
4 - How many people do you think are "winning" players? How many "winning" players do you think that you can get together and boycot Party? Do you think that Party is going to care if "x" "winning" players don't play for a while? Do you think they will even notice? What is the requirement for entry into the union?
4 - A better plan is to start frequenting the smaller start up sites that charge less rake (or find a 100% rakeback deal with them) and push to get these guys up there with the big boys... then you'll get a RakeWar amongst sites.

If you can explain to me HOW a Union would be able to bring about change, I'm happy to listen, otherwise I'm done with this post.

ThisHo

ps... you're thining "so what if YOU are done with this post, there are plenty of other posters out there that will listen/reply/etc." What do you think Party Poker would think if they found out there was a Poker Union. Probably "so what, don't play here, there are plenty of other players that will."

[jakethebake]

This idea is stupid.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
They cant push the winning players away because they need the winning players to fill the games up so the fish will have a place to play.


[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't seem to be a problem at a roullette or crap table.

The good/winning players are the equivalent of those little fish you see swimming underneath a big fish or whale. The whale doesn't need them to survive.

A union would also likely force one to report earnings. Which is a big benefit to playing since there are no benefits provided in comparison to actually having a job.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
a poker player union would be bad for the affiliates for sure.


[/ QUOTE ]

Doubt it.

b

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a couple thoughts, several of them involve shoving a FUCKING STICK UP YOUR FUCKIGN ASS. You would love to be the leader of this union wouldnt you HITLER!! Maybe afterwards we can create a motherFucing ANARCHY CLUB!!!!. GET THE [censored] OUT OF HERE!! HOLY SHIT AND DIE TOO!

[/ QUOTE ]

http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~andress/nei.ch/albums/famousfatboy/ban_him.jpg

[Uglyowl]

Yes form a union and all go play somewhere else.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
This idea is stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Boris]

I say we form a corporation and take over the world!

[Pocket Trips]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

They cant push the winning players away because they need the winning players to fill the games up so the fish will have a place to play.[ QUOTE ]



I don't think the house cares who wins and who loses. As long as the seats are filled they are happy.

Another flaw with this line of thinking seems to be that if all the "winning players" left the game there would be no one left to play. I think it is exactly the opposite of what would happen. If I knew a poker game was devoid of strong players i would do anything humanly possible to play in that game, and even if all strong players were to leave a game. A "strong player is a relative term. no matter the quality of play in a poker game there will still be winners and losers. This fact will ALWAYS draw people to play poker who think they can "beat the game."

[/ QUOTE ]

And there will always be 3 defined groups. The (long term) losers, the winners and the house.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think you just proved why a players union would be powerless against the casinos both online and B&M. I think you are trying to imply that a players union could negotiate a better rake, comps etc. by saying as a group that if you don't give in to our demands we won't play in your card room. However, if as you said there will ALWAYS be winners and losers, why on earth would the house care if any one group of players stopped playing in their rooom if they will only be replaced by other players? The players who boycotted the room would have NO negotiating power whatsoever.

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]
{sigh}... we're not getting anywhere here...
{sigh}... I'm just about to close my mind to this idea entirely ...

here's where I am and where I need more info:

1 - you think that online sites take too much rake
2 - you think that there are other sites that will charge less rake, but can't fill seats
3 - you think that a union will help lower the rake on Party
4 - you think that the union will be made up of "winning players"

Here's where I'm at
1 - YES, the rake sucks, especially if the rake is $3 from any game up to and including 5/10. Sucks to have the blinds raked away.
2 - Rakes are a fact of life --- if you don't have a rakeback deal then its even worse.
3 - I still don't understand HOW a union is going to get Party to lower their rake. What are we going to do, go out on strike?
4 - How many people do you think are "winning" players? How many "winning" players do you think that you can get together and boycot Party? Do you think that Party is going to care if "x" "winning" players don't play for a while? Do you think they will even notice? What is the requirement for entry into the union?
4 - A better plan is to start frequenting the smaller start up sites that charge less rake (or find a 100% rakeback deal with them) and push to get these guys up there with the big boys... then you'll get a RakeWar amongst sites.

If you can explain to me HOW a Union would be able to bring about change, I'm happy to listen, otherwise I'm done with this post.

ThisHo

ps... you're thining "so what if YOU are done with this post, there are plenty of other posters out there that will listen/reply/etc." What do you think Party Poker would think if they found out there was a Poker Union. Probably "so what, don't play here, there are plenty of other players that will."

[/ QUOTE ]

1.agree
2.agree
3.I was hoping a poker player union in addition to free market competition would lower the rake at party.
4. I shouldn't have said "winning" poker player union, and simply left it at poker player union. Including both wining and losing players, and no longer differentiate between the two. You guys made me realize that those 2 groups dont really exist in the scheme of what I am talking about.

As to how a poker player union would help get party to lower the rake... Unsure, was kind of going to see if anyone on here had any suggestions; it was a fleeting idea i thought might get some interesting responses.
In retrospect, one of the few ways I could see us helping is through basicly proping on the web sites with low rake for a bit for free... which is unrealistic for obvioius (for free) reasons. Which is just like frequenting the smaller sites like you said.

The last statement you made "What do you think Party Poker would think if they found out there was a Poker Union. Probably "so what, don't play here, there are plenty of other players that will.""
I disagree completely. This is the main reason I said "winning" players earlier. I think you grossly underestimate the amount of rake we (the winning players) generate. I alone am worth 100k a year in gross rake to party. If I myself quit they wouldn't really blink, but at they sametime it wouldnt make them happy. Now say 100 people like me quit and their monthly revenue drops by 1 million a month (not that 1 million is huge to them, its just a starting point so you get the idea). They might at least listen take the time to listen to what we had to say.


The consensus still that this idea has no merit, and we are simply at the mercy of the house? To me, It is hard to accept that we pay the salary of the company that provides a service for us, and many smart people that are paying this salary believe that they are voiceless in the system.

The market will eventually shift towards more reasonable rake. This is true for 2 reasons; 1. People are willing to offer the service that party offers for much cheaper. 2. Players would rather pay lower rake given the option between two comparable sites. Party will lower their rake in order to compete. I was hoping we could help speed this process.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I'd be interested...
I spend $2K a month on rakes and I do not qualify for rakeback since I'm an existing customer.

I'd go on strike for 25% cut in rakes. 25% x $2000 x 12 months = $6000/ yr. Count me in!
Besides, there are plenty of other sites I could play at while I was striking.

Sites already earn interest on my bankroll and I don't get squat for that.... /images/graemlins/frown.gif