pp skins cracking down (+retarded)?

[ep510]

I haven't been able to cashout for a month. I just called pay-pro and they "interrogated" me, asking me lots of questions.

They asked me how many tables I played at once. I tell them 4-8, playing multiple sites at once. They ask how this (multitabling) is possible. I tell them I use 2 monitors. They ask how I'm able to click fast enough. I tell them that it's not that difficult after enough practice. They ask me if I always play at the same tables (i.e. same exact table names). I say no. They ask how many hours per day. I say 2-3. They say ONLY?

And then later they ask what software I use. I say I use PT and GT+. They ask ONLY? I say yes, that's it. They ask me what the software does, do they calculate poker odds for you? I say no, they keep track of player statistics. They tell me that any other software, INCLUDING AI, is prohibited.

Dude. Wtf. They think I'm an AI?! They make it sound as if they've never heard of multitablers or PT or GT+ or people that have accounts under multiple skins.

So they said they're gonna call me back in 24 hrs, and my cashout still doesn't look like it's coming. WTF?!

[Robk]

this happened to me. i had to call them everyday for about a week but in the end it was no big deal. just keep asking where your cashout is, and if they say theyre running their routine security check ask to speak to the investigations team. then repeatedly tell the investigations team you are not a bot, etc. apparently you can trigger some kind of bot detection program with a combination of playing >4 tables, not using the advance action buttons, playing long sessions, etc. i dont remember all the reasons they gave me. i wasnt using gt or pv at the time.

[BlueBear]

This is making me paranoid, unfortunately, Party and skins seem to be taking a tougher stance on everything these days.

[ep510]

Yea, I've had to call them everyday for 4 days now (but it wasn't till today that they asked me these questions). Same kind of deal for me: playing >4 tables, not using advanced action buttons, long sessions. Hopefully, I'll be able to get this taken care of like you did, ASAP.

Another thing that worried me was that they said that software like PT and GT+ give players an unfair advantage in the game, and is discouraged. They went so far as to say that PT/GT+/PV will be prohibited in the future. I asked if a warning would be sent beforehand, and they said yes. Sigh...more worries to come.

[Robk]

while that may be true, this happened to me back in march.

[Robk]

[ QUOTE ]
Yea, I've had to call them everyday for 4 days now (but it wasn't till today that they asked me these questions). Same kind of deal for me: playing >4 tables, not using advanced action buttons, long sessions. Hopefully, I'll be able to get this taken care of like you did, ASAP.

[/ QUOTE ]

persistence is key. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[ QUOTE ]
They went so far as to say that PT/GT+/PV will be prohibited in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, this is surprising to me. did they refer explicitly to each of these programs?

[grouchie]

personally I hope they do end up prohibiting any of the HUD's.

They can never really prohibit PT unless they stop giving hand histories (you can use it to analyze your play, not just as way to mine opponents).

It will be a good day in online poker if HUD's get banned.

[LowDown22]

[ QUOTE ]
personally I hope they do end up prohibiting any of the HUD's.


[/ QUOTE ]
I really wish they'd stop saving HHs on your hard drive too. Get rid of these huge networked DBs.

[HRFats]

[ QUOTE ]
I really wish they'd stop saving HHs on your hard drive too. Get rid of these huge networked DBs.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can opt out of this if you want...I forget the exact steps though (not at my poker machine right now)

[Lestat]

After a couple of near-misses, banning PT and other (information only) software WILL be the shot that hits their foot this time. Certainly this will cause them to take a big hit in their income statement in the form of lower rake profits. Multi-tablers with either cut down on the number of tables played and/or switch to sites that allow PT and GT+. There's no way around this one and is no doubt why they have not went beyond the threat phase yet.

[LowDown22]

I think you misunderstood what I meant. I want to get rid of (or at least make more difficult) the possibility of users pooling together their HHs into huge databases. I have nothing against the people who create/support/use these DBs, I just don't think this will have a good effect on online poker long term. So I wish Party sites which stop saving HHs to hard drives on all PCs, and not allow an option to do it. Ofcourse I think I am a minority here and virtually never speak out about it.

[Pokamastah]

[ QUOTE ]
After a couple of near-misses, banning PT and other (information only) software WILL be the shot that hits their foot this time. Certainly this will cause them to take a big hit in their income statement in the form of lower rake profits. Multi-tablers with either cut down on the number of tables played and/or switch to sites that allow PT and GT+. There's no way around this one and is no doubt why they have not went beyond the threat phase yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, I don't know. Those programs are one of the main reasons I avoid playing PP and skins except for when they have 7X bonuses..

[HesseJam]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After a couple of near-misses, banning PT and other (information only) software WILL be the shot that hits their foot this time. Certainly this will cause them to take a big hit in their income statement in the form of lower rake profits. Multi-tablers with either cut down on the number of tables played and/or switch to sites that allow PT and GT+. There's no way around this one and is no doubt why they have not went beyond the threat phase yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, I don't know. Those programs are one of the main reasons I avoid playing PP and skins except for when they have 7X bonuses..

[/ QUOTE ]

The first quote is incorrect, I think. If this drove the multis away, PP would become more fish friendly and would reattract multis, HUD or no HUD.

Winning multis are the worst players for Party anyway because they take money away from the tables which is then lost for being transferred slowly into rake. They also tend to make the fish feel uneasy.

The best players for Party are slightly loosing players (loose all their money eventually to rake) or break even players who do not take money away from the tables. The break even players gobble up all the money from the bad players who loose twice as much as the rake.

So Party definately would not miss the winning multis. They'd preferred the multis to move up instead of adding ever more tables on the lower levels.

[HRFats]

[ QUOTE ]
Winning multis are the worst players for Party anyway because they take money away from the tables which is then lost for being transferred slowly into rake. They also tend to make the fish feel uneasy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must disagree with this assessment. I believe that the poker life of a losing player is much shorter than that of a winning player. So all things being even, a winning player will play more hands and contribute more rake than a losing player. I also believe the winning players are more likely to play multiple hands than a losing player. So the winning multi player is contributing FOUR times the rake of a single table losing player AND will be playing on the site for many more sessions than a losing player. It's not even close.

[LowDown22]

Loosing players, i.e. fish, are what keeps Party going strong. If the site were just a bunch of TAG multitablers it would gradually go downhill because very few people would make any money. The reason you play on Party is to take money off the fish - no fish and who would stay? Party needs to do all they can to retain their losing players as long as possible. (And winning players certainly don't contribute as much rake as a fish because they play far fewer hands.)

[HRFats]

[ QUOTE ]
Loosing players, i.e. fish, are what keeps Party going strong. If the site were just a bunch of TAG multitablers it would gradually go downhill because very few people would make any money. The reason you play on Party is to take money off the fish - no fish and who would stay? Party needs to do all they can to retain their losing players as long as possible. (And winning players certainly don't contribute as much rake as a fish because they play far fewer hands.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to disagree with you again but it's just a technicality. The site does not directly need the fish, it's the winning players that need the fish. The site makes money from BOTH players and I still believe that winning players contribute far more rake in their lifetime than a losing player will. And since most four table, they are adding that much more rake. Granted if all the fish swam away the winning players would go elsewhere. But in the grand scheme of things, there's ALWAYS another fish coming on board. Every day 1,000's of people turn 21. And at 21, you're the best poker player in the world, remember??

So, yes, fish are necessary but only to keep the winning players around adding rake day after day...

[ckessel]

[ QUOTE ]
personally I hope they do end up prohibiting any of the HUD's.

[/ QUOTE ]

*shrug*, fine by me. I'll just write my own, or write a wrapper around an existing one so they can't tell I'm using it.

[HesseJam]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Winning multis are the worst players for Party anyway because they take money away from the tables which is then lost for being transferred slowly into rake. They also tend to make the fish feel uneasy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must disagree with this assessment. I believe that the poker life of a losing player is much shorter than that of a winning player. So all things being even, a winning player will play more hands and contribute more rake than a losing player. I also believe the winning players are more likely to play multiple hands than a losing player. So the winning multi player is contributing FOUR times the rake of a single table losing player AND will be playing on the site for many more sessions than a losing player. It's not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without fish/loosers, there would be no winners. It doesn't matter that multis/winners individually play longer and more tables, as a group they have to play the same amount as the fish. There are just so many more individual fish than individual multis/ winners.

If winning multis go, Party will not loose a lot of money.

[Supersetoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Yea, I've had to call them everyday for 4 days now (but it wasn't till today that they asked me these questions). Same kind of deal for me: playing >4 tables,


[/ QUOTE ]

I know this is a noob question (I still am one in my mind) but how do you play more than 4 tables at once on Party? I heard it was available on some of the other skins but have never seen it on party.

Thanks in advance.

[Lestat]

I guess there are several theories to all of this, but I'm going to go with one you espouse as being ridiculous. No offense. Just healthy debate.

I'll concede that times are changing with more and more novices taking up poker. But I believe that EVERY poker room live or online still needs winning players to maintain it's base!

Do you have any idea how much rake someone multi-tabling the 30-60 8 hours a day generates? If you say it's nothing, then why did myself and many others get a phone call a couple of months ago asking why weren't playing as much and what they could do to get our play back where it was?

Good players keep the games going when it's slow. They start games short as well as hold games together when the they would otherwise break up. They play the highest limits which produce maximum rake.

I believe you are very wrong. I don't blame you, cuz a lot of experienced poker room managers don't seem to understand this either. They figure as long as it's crowded they're ok. But as soon as the good higher limit players start leaving, the room can collapse right in front of them and they never figure out why.

[Lestat]

HRfats-

You are so exactly correct!

[Lestat]

Think about what you're saying... There will ALWAYS be winners!!! It's not static like you suggest. There are varying degrees of skill. It's a pecking order.

The best players will beat the good players, who will beat the mediocre players, who will beat the bad players, who will beat the total fish. But if you lose the good players and up... The fish will sporadically come and go, but without the better players for a base, who start games and keep them going day after day, the games will start to fall apart after a while.

[o0mr_bill0o]

[ QUOTE ]
After a couple of near-misses, banning PT and other (information only) software WILL be the shot that hits their foot this time. Certainly this will cause them to take a big hit in their income statement in the form of lower rake profits. Multi-tablers with either cut down on the number of tables played and/or switch to sites that allow PT and GT+. There's no way around this one and is no doubt why they have not went beyond the threat phase yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

god i hope that happens. if it gets rid of all the multi-tablers then i'll be the only one remaining, just waiting to clear up.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yea, I've had to call them everyday for 4 days now (but it wasn't till today that they asked me these questions). Same kind of deal for me: playing >4 tables,


[/ QUOTE ]

I know this is a noob question (I still am one in my mind) but how do you play more than 4 tables at once on Party? I heard it was available on some of the other skins but have never seen it on party.

Thanks in advance.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can play more than one skin at once. Each skin has a max of four tables. In order to play more than four of party, you'd need to be playing additional tables at another skin.

[Lefthander]

The perfect player for Party is one who loses exactly the rake, but has enough minor successes to think he's just unlucky and therefore keeps depositing. Party would like every player to be like this. Good multi-tablers don't deposit (unless bonus whoring), and they scare other players away.

[ep510]

Well, I told the internal services guy that I used these (PT/GT+) programs. He said that these (so he didn't specifically state which) programs give an unfair advantage to those who possess them and that they (pp skins) will work toward banning them sometime in the future. He didn't specify how long, so it could still be far away. So I asked him if there would be a warning before they put forth this restriction, and he said, yes, they will notify all players when this ban is placed.

The thing is, PT isn't even run in conjuction with their servers. It only parses hand histories that are on our computers, so how can they know that we are using it? GT+ and PV, they might be able to track, and through them, they will probably know your're using PT. But without the presence of GT+ and PV, I don't think they're able to track PT. Am I correct here?

[Lestat]

I don't mean to be rude, but why is it so hard to understand that there IS NO ideal player for Party? Just as there is no ideal player for any poker room live or online. A poker room has one goal:

To keep as many tables filled as possible. To that end, they couldn't care less if the people filling those seats are winning or losing players. How much their players win or lose makes no difference to them as long as they keep showing up!

Winning players keep showing up! So it is the winning players who they should be MORE concerned about losing their business. I don't see why some of you guys don't get that.

[Lestat]

<font color="red">god i hope that happens. if it gets rid of all the multi-tablers then i'll be the only one remaining, just waiting to clear up. </font>

No you won't, because if it goes to it's fullest conclusion, the bigger games won't be getting off as consistently.

[pokerplayer28]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean to be rude, but why is it so hard to understand that there IS NO ideal player for Party? Just as there is no ideal player for any poker room live or online. A poker room has one goal:

To keep as many tables filled as possible. To that end, they couldn't care less if the people filling those seats are winning or losing players. How much their players win or lose makes no difference to them as long as they keep showing up!

Winning players keep showing up! So it is the winning players who they should be MORE concerned about losing their business. I don't see why some of you guys don't get that.

[/ QUOTE ]

lestat you have a lot to learn

[Lefthander]

Winning players don't deposit. They don't bring money in. They do take it out. If you were running a poker site would you want that?

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
Winning players don't deposit. They don't bring money in. They do take it out. If you were running a poker site would you want that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker rooms don't make any money from deposits or lose any money from withdrawals. They make money from people playing.

[pokerplayer28]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Winning players don't deposit. They don't bring money in. They do take it out. If you were running a poker site would you want that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker rooms don't make any money from deposits or lose any money from withdrawals. They make money from people playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you saying a 50k hand/month 3bb/100 player is more valuable than a 5k hand/month -20bb/100 player?

[SumZero]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker rooms don't make any money from deposits or lose any money from withdrawals. They make money from people playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's only true for a very poorly run poker site. They ought to be investing the money deposited with them and making money from that as well.

But that said I think poker rooms would like to have as many players as possible regardless of what kind of player it is. And the only question they really need to ask are more people (as messured by $rake collected so weighting people more if they play bigger games and/or more tables and/or more hours) discouraged by multitable players and PT and PE etc. or are more people encouraged to play using that? My guess is that by far more people are encouraged.

If it becomes a threat (as in rumors of bots, collusion, cheating, etc.) that scares off too many players then they shoud kill it. I think it is no where near that now.

[Eder]

[ QUOTE ]
[
Poker rooms don't make any money from deposits or lose any money from withdrawals. They make money from people playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You gotta be kidding me lol

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, PT isn't even run in conjuction with their servers. It only parses hand histories that are on our computers, so how can they know that we are using it? GT+ and PV, they might be able to track, and through them, they will probably know your're using PT. But without the presence of GT+ and PV, I don't think they're able to track PT. Am I correct here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, party poker uses screen scrapers to see what programs you have running (they can even monitor im conversations). So if your'e running ptracker while playing, they can know.

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Winning players don't deposit. They don't bring money in. They do take it out. If you were running a poker site would you want that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker rooms don't make any money from deposits or lose any money from withdrawals. They make money from people playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you saying a 50k hand/month 3bb/100 player is more valuable than a 5k hand/month -20bb/100 player?

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker rooms obviously benefit more from the 50k / month player as he generates more rake.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Yea, I've had to call them everyday for 4 days now (but it wasn't till today that they asked me these questions). Same kind of deal for me: playing &gt;4 tables, not using advanced action buttons, long sessions. Hopefully, I'll be able to get this taken care of like you did, ASAP.

Another thing that worried me was that they said that software like PT and GT+ give players an unfair advantage in the game, and is discouraged. They went so far as to say that PT/GT+/PV will be prohibited in the future. I asked if a warning would be sent beforehand, and they said yes. Sigh...more worries to come.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did they happen to say if this would occur before after the end of rake back on all the skins besides pokernow?

[FlFishOn]

....months ago. Multi-tablers will be regarded as pond scum, not valuable customers. Expect worse treatment in the near future. (posted while 4-tabling and bonus whoring!)

[Nigel]

[ QUOTE ]
They ought to be investing the money deposited with them and making money from that as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, no. Not a good idea.

[pokerplayer28]

very simple minds

[Kevroc]

[ QUOTE ]
are you saying a 50k hand/month 3bb/100 player is more valuable than a 5k hand/month -20bb/100 player?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both are necessary but, 50k hands per month will generate more $ for the site.

[ QUOTE ]
Poker rooms don't make any money from deposits or lose any money from withdrawals. They make money from people playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I get what this poster is saying, he is generally correct save for the fact that money is being made with the deposited funds via outside investments. The point is that the site is looking to generate rake by keeping games going, not by players continually depositing.

Overall, I think its in the sites best interest to protect the fishy players by "poker schools or lessons". Eliminating PT and GT won't do any good. Players will find a way to stat track and study if they are persistant. (all players should make the efforts)

Educating the fish is the best route, a balance between good multi-tablers and generally poor players is ideal.

[gh9801]

Poker is a zero sum game. There will be winners and losers. The multitabling TAGs/PT users/sharks tend to win, and the fish tend to lose. PP and skins should accept this and just take the rake.

[ep510]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, party poker uses screen scrapers to see what programs you have running (they can even monitor im conversations). So if your'e running ptracker while playing, they can know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where does it say that pp uses screen scrapers? Isn't this a violation of privacy? Or is it a necessity for the sites to discover collaborators/cheaters?

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, party poker uses screen scrapers to see what programs you have running (they can even monitor im conversations). So if your'e running ptracker while playing, they can know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where does it say that pp uses screen scrapers? Isn't this a violation of privacy? Or is it a necessity for the sites to discover collaborators/cheaters?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know where it says this exactly, but this has definitely been discussed elsewhere in these forums, and I think you agree to it when you click "Accept" when you download the program in the EULA.

[Lestat]

And what is that? What should I learn? That a $700 pot equals a $3 rake whether it's a table full of fish or a table full of pros?

Or should I learn that the less pros there are playing in those games, then the less games there will be which means less rake for the card room? Teach me, oh wise one.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, party poker uses screen scrapers to see what programs you have running (they can even monitor im conversations). So if your'e running ptracker while playing, they can know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where does it say that pp uses screen scrapers? Isn't this a violation of privacy? Or is it a necessity for the sites to discover collaborators/cheaters?

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't. The program takes screenshots and saves them in a folder. I think you probably could make that folder read-only and be safe.

[Lestat]

IT'S NOT THE SITE'S MONEY!!!!! WHY DON'T YOU GET THAT?

Yeah, they care about money on deposit, so let's talk about that...

Who's more likely to keep more money on a poker site? A pro who needs to put his money on the table every day? Who knows he can slide 5k in a single day? Or some fish who hits and runs all the time? Seriously, this is getting ridiculous having to state common sense over and over again.

[Lestat]

That's what I'm saying... Again... Why do you think the poker site cares which skill level is getting the money. IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY!!!! They care about generating rake.

[Lestat]

Now that makes sense.

[AASooted]

[ QUOTE ]
That's what I'm saying... Again... Why do you think the poker site cares which skill level is getting the money. IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY!!!! They care about generating rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the fish have a bottomless pool of money. It may seem that way, but it isn't. You're right that a poker site cares about generating rake. The more hands that are played, the more rake the site gets. (Right now you're thinking I've just proved your point. Stick with me for the next paragraph.)

The faster a fish loses his money to a good player, the fewer hands get played with his bankroll. The good player withdraws that money to buy a new 2001FP, and the site doesn't get any more of it. If a fish doesn't get wiped out as quickly, he plays more hands with the new money he brought to the site. More hands with new money means more rake for the site. Fish losing his bankroll in half as many hands means less rake for the site.

Any money withdrawn from a site is money that will not be risked at a table, and therefore not raked. That impacts their bottom line. If you don't think they care about that, you're nuts.

[rivered]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean to be rude, but why is it so hard to understand that there IS NO ideal player for Party? Just as there is no ideal player for any poker room live or online. A poker room has one goal:

To keep as many tables filled as possible. To that end, they couldn't care less if the people filling those seats are winning or losing players. How much their players win or lose makes no difference to them as long as they keep showing up!

Winning players keep showing up! So it is the winning players who they should be MORE concerned about losing their business. I don't see why some of you guys don't get that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you naive enough to believe this? It's a simple plus/minus observation. Fish deposit &amp; winning players withdraw. Party makes little money off of processing withdrawals, neteller probably would appreciate them though. Winning players are only there to take money off of losers. Losers are there no matter what and without the money they keep putting into the poker sites, poker would be gone overnight.

[Lestat]

<font color="red"> Fish deposit &amp; winning players withdraw. </font>

Here's what I'm saying: Winning players KEEP money on the site! I've got over 135k on poker sites as we speak. Do I withdraw? Sure. But I am 100% more likely to be in action tomorrow.. next week.. and next month.., than the next fish you meet. He's gone and I'm still playing and generating rake.

Fish are a dime a dozen and I say that fully realizing their importance to pros. They come, they go, and they come back. If they're lucky, they run hot and stay for a while. But eventually they leave for yet another hiatus. There's also another kind of fish...

A whale. Someone who likes to play high and can well afford his losses. If you do not have winning players to form a solid base for that game, these people get bored and take their action somewhere else.

I've been around live card rooms for a while now. I've seen the cycle. You lose the better players and eventually you lose the game. You guys aren't understanding this, and I've said all I can say to try and explain it.

[Lestat]

I completely understand (and agree?) with what you're saying. On a whole other subject this is why I hate tournaments. When a fish wins a big tourny, he goes out and buys a car, remodels the house, etc. Now THAT'S money that will never return to the poker ecomony. But I digress...

I don't think you're considering that there are a whole slew of winning players that don't take 100% of their winnings out of the poker economy. They build their bankrolls and move up the limits. Winning 2-4 players eventually become winning 5-10 players and so on. In the meantime, THEY become somewhat the fish during their learning curve.

Are you also assuming that fish are playing for a living? You don't think they can go back to work, make some more money, and return to play another day? This is what fish do!

I agree that the ideal situation for a poker room is to have EVERYONE break-even for as long as possible. But that's not realistic now is it? It's not going to happen.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
THEY become somewhat the fish during their learning curve.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so true.

Perhaps the only thing more profitable than a fish is a player who thinks he's good and is going to make a career of poker while they are learning ... they donate tons, and keep at it blaming variance.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker rooms don't make any money from deposits or lose any money from withdrawals. They make money from people playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but people need money to play. Every time a winner cashes out, they are removing money from the "poker economy" of that site. That money is no longer "rakable."

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you misunderstood what I meant. I want to get rid of (or at least make more difficult) the possibility of users pooling together their HHs into huge databases.

...

So I wish Party sites which stop saving HHs to hard drives on all PCs, and not allow an option to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're ok with emailed hand histories? What's stopping me from sharing those and building huge databases?

[pokerplayer28]

[ QUOTE ]
And what is that? What should I learn? That a $700 pot equals a $3 rake whether it's a table full of fish or a table full of pros?

Or should I learn that the less pros there are playing in those games, then the less games there will be which means less rake for the card room? Teach me, oh wise one.

[/ QUOTE ]
you run PP im a player and make $500,000/month 16 tabling 10/20 and rake $200,000/month youre considering banning HUD's I email you saying if you do it i take my business elsewhere. What do you do?

here are your facts/estimates
you bring in 8000 players/month
4000 players quit/month
of all the players that have quit, done so after they lost on average $500 including bonuses

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you misunderstood what I meant. I want to get rid of (or at least make more difficult) the possibility of users pooling together their HHs into huge databases.

...

So I wish Party sites which stop saving HHs to hard drives on all PCs, and not allow an option to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're ok with emailed hand histories? What's stopping me from sharing those and building huge databases?

[/ QUOTE ]

Convenience, and the fact they only email x00 per day per person.

Edit: You can still share them and build huge databases, but they will be a lot less huge.

[HesseJam]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you're considering that there are a whole slew of winning players that don't take 100% of their winnings out of the poker economy. They build their bankrolls and move up the limits. Winning 2-4 players eventually become winning 5-10 players and so on. In the meantime, THEY become somewhat the fish during their learning curve.


...


I agree that the ideal situation for a poker room is to have EVERYONE break-even for as long as possible. But that's not realistic now is it? It's not going to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your are correct in the first paragraph. This is what the poker sites prefer. You are a big winning player at the lower level -&gt; you move up towards a more even competition to a higher level. This is basically what I said above: "So Party definately would not miss the winning multis. They'd preferred the multis to move up instead of adding ever more tables on the lower levels."

Multitabling for profit provides an incentive to stay longer at the lower level. You are right that the MTs are profitable for the sites if they use MTing only for bankrollbuilding and eventually move up without ever cashing out until they find their personal last level where they only break even.

Unfortunately, this is not the case for many Mters. They play for a certain monthly income and move up if they think they are strong enough to increase that income. They are trying to optimize their income, e.g. they are trying to take the maximum away from the tables.

I agree to your 2nd paragraph that it is not realistic to keep all players break even. But discouraging profitable Mters who just play for their monthly nut gets you a little closer.

[Hood]

You know, if I was a bot writer, I'd be coding in support for using 'advanced action buttons' right now.

[AASooted]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you also assuming that fish are playing for a living? You don't think they can go back to work, make some more money, and return to play another day? This is what fish do!

[/ QUOTE ]

Eventually they buy back in, but you're still assuming an unlimited amount of money for them. If Fish A goes through his $500 monthly poker allowance in a week (say 2000 hands), he's done for the month -- he won't bring any more money to the table until he gets his next paycheck. If it takes Fish B all month to go broke (call it 8000 hands), the site gets more rake from the same amount of money. Some of the money won from those fish goes to a multi-tabling pro who takes it off the site. Fish B is more profitable for the site.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that the ideal situation for a poker room is to have EVERYONE break-even for as long as possible. But that's not realistic now is it? It's not going to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not going to happen, but you do realize that you just said that sites would rather not have winning players taking money from the fish quickly, right?

If you do have a $135K bankroll, you're still not as efficient for the site as having 1350 people with $100 unless you're buying in for that amount and risking it at a table. Sites do best when every cent on their site is bought in at a table. If your bankroll never dips below $100K, it's the same as if you withdrew it -- the site never rakes any of it.

[Lestat]

If I had the time (and eloquence), I'd really like to write an essay on this. Both of our points are valid and at times are in sync. We just disagree on the effects and outcome.

I maintain 3 things:

1. ALL fish go broke! The only question is at what rate. It's just a matter of time before any losing player busts out. We agree on this. Following your argument to it's ultimate logical conclusion, it's just a matter of time before all poker on planet earth ceases to exist, since we can expect all fish to eventually go broke.

2. Fish is a relative term. You are assuming that every player is either a winning player or a loser player. But this is not true. A shark who crushes the 2-4 games might very well be a loser when he takes a shot at the 15-30 games. So this player is actually both fish and a winner simultaneously. However, if the winning players didn't exist in the 15-30, the 2-4 player would have nowhere to move up to. So winning players provide the base for which all games exist! Therefore, winning players are more important to a poker room than losing player.

3. The flow of money in and out of the poker economy is a dynamic process and not static as you seem to be suggesting. Fish play recreationally. They play until they lose, then they go back to their live's until they save enough to play a few more sessions. This is an ongoing process that can last a lifetime. I know 70 year olds who were losers when they were 30 and they are losers now. Yet they're still showing up to play poker. This player will NOT permantently bust out any more than his counterpart who spends all his disposable income on golf will bust out. Poker is not their whole life. These people have jobs, investments and/or savings. Poker is but a part of their live's which they enjoy.

And this leads up to the felonious concept of: Fish deposit money while pros take money out. Of course fish deposit money. But they also take money out! When a fish runs unusually good he does not diligently add these winnings to his bankroll. Hardly. Thrilled with the novelty of actually having made money from poker, he takes his spurious profits and treats himself to some additional spending. Winning players however, are constantly building their bankrolls. Sure they regularily take out a portion of their winnings, but a winning player also understands he can run bad and is always looking to increase his bankroll if for no other reason, than so he can play higher and make even MORE money. And when he does so, he will likely take on the role of fish for a while (at least to the best players in the game).

So this is all a very dynamic process and while you are afraid that one day all of the fish will bust out never to be seen again, I maintain this will never happen as long as the rake is kept to a reasonable level. In fact, RAKE is the biggest danger of all the fish busting out and that's what should be our biggest concern. It's not the rate at which fish bust out. Fish have many options when they start losing too fast, not the least of which is to move down in limits. When it comes to poker, there will always be enough fish in the sea (as long as rake is kept to a minimum). And ironically this is true BECAUSE there will always be a better player to take his money.

[BigF]

[ QUOTE ]

you run PP im a player and make $500,000/month 16 tabling 10/20 and rake $200,000/month youre considering banning HUD's I email you saying if you do it i take my business elsewhere. What do you do?


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's call all losing players on Party fish and all winning players sharks and you are Party. If one day all fish call you to threaten to quit unless all sharks quit and so do sharks. What do you do?

[BigF]

[ QUOTE ]

1. ALL fish go broke! The only question is at what rate. It's just a matter of time before any losing player busts out. We agree on this. Following your argument to it's ultimate logical conclusion, it's just a matter of time before all poker on planet earth ceases to exist, since we can expect all fish to eventually go broke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh...all Americans die! Following your argument to it's ultimate logical conclusion, it's just a matter of time before the U.S. ceases to exist. While the conclusion is correct, the reasoning is flawed.

[ QUOTE ]

2. Fish is a relative term. You are assuming that every player is either a winning player or a loser player. But this is not true. A shark who crushes the 2-4 games might very well be a loser when he takes a shot at the 15-30 games. So this player is actually both fish and a winner simultaneously. However, if the winning players didn't exist in the 15-30, the 2-4 player would have nowhere to move up to. So winning players provide the base for which all games exist! Therefore, winning players are more important to a poker room than losing player.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got it all wrong buddy.
1. The reason that a game of certain limit exists is not because there are winning players at that limit. It's because there are people who'd rather play at that level. In other words, even if all 15-30 players are losers or break even players, as long as they want to continue to play 15-30, the games will continue to exist.

2. Even if you insist that for a level of games to exist, there must be consistent winning players, then your conclusion "So winning players provide the base for which all games exist" is still false. The base is certainly not winning players. It's not just losing players either. The base is the fact that there are fish at that level one can consistently win money from and more skilled players can overcome rake with the money they win from fish. Therefore the base is the combination of losing players and reasonable rake.

[pokerstudAA]

[ QUOTE ]

3. The flow of money in and out of the poker economy is a dynamic process and not static as you seem to be suggesting. Fish play recreationally. They play until they lose, then they go back to their live's until they save enough to play a few more sessions.

[/ QUOTE ]

DING DING DING

[ QUOTE ]

And this leads up to the felonious concept of: Fish deposit money while pros take money out. Of course fish deposit money. But they also take money out! When a fish runs unusually good he does not diligently add these winnings to his bankroll. Hardly. Thrilled with the novelty of actually having made money from poker, he takes his spurious profits and treats himself to some additional spending.

[/ QUOTE ]

WE HAVE A WINNER. Of course they take it out.

My fishy friends treat Party like live poker. They buy in for $300-500 on Friday and play as high as they can until they almost bust playing 10/20 then play 1/2 - 6max for the last $35. Or they run that $500 upto $2000 - tell me how easy online poker is - and cash it all out on Sunday. The winning players leave money deposited and Party gets to invest it.

[Bluffoon]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean to be rude, but why is it so hard to understand that there IS NO ideal player for Party? Just as there is no ideal player for any poker room live or online. A poker room has one goal:

To keep as many tables filled as possible. To that end, they couldn't care less if the people filling those seats are winning or losing players. How much their players win or lose makes no difference to them as long as they keep showing up!

Winning players keep showing up! So it is the winning players who they should be MORE concerned about losing their business. I don't see why some of you guys don't get that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the key fact however is that the beast (party) needs to be fed regularly. The winning player is a parasite to party. The fish supply the food.

[Lestat]

<font color="red">Uh...all Americans die! Following your argument to it's ultimate logical conclusion, it's just a matter of time before the U.S. ceases to exist. While the conclusion is correct, the reasoning is flawed. </font>

This proves me point, not yours. The reason the US continues to exist is because of the constant influx of new population. Poker is no different. In fact, poker is in LESS danger of losing it's population, since fish come back to play. Dead people are gone forever.

<font color="red"> 1. The reason that a game of certain limit exists is not because there are winning players at that limit. </font>

I'm looking to play a little $300-$600 today. Would you care to be my opponent? No? Well then it's a good thing there's a solid winning player who will probably offer me a game then, huh? Otherwise, where am I supposed to go play $300-$600 if there aren't enough fish like you to play?

EDIT: The last line looks as if I'm partially making your point. And I am. Of course you need fish. But WHO are the fish, is the question. It changes. I'm the fish for the sharks who are sitting there waiting for me to get into the game. Once I get into the game, hopefully others will follow who I can profit from and so on until a new game is born. But it starts with the very best player who is (or thinks he is), good enough to make money from the next guy who sits down.

<font color="red">In other words, even if all 15-30 players are losers or break even players, as long as they want to continue to play 15-30, the games will continue to exist. </font>

This is where YOU'VE got it all wrong buddy. The majority of people playing the 15-30 ARE beating it or at least breaking even!!! If THEY weren't there, there wouldn't be nearly as many games for the fish wander into.

<font color="red">The base is the fact that there are fish at that level one can consistently win money from.. </font>

What is it about this concept that is so friggin hard to understand? Both "fish" and "winning player" are relative terms. You make money from players E,F, and G, and lose money to players A,B, and C. You are both "fish" AND "winning player"! Get it? Now players H,I, and J come in and players, E,F, and G make money from them. Who's the fish now and who are the winning players? The competition is in a state of constant change. There are no static winners and losers. It's your stubborn refusal to accept this very basic and simple fact why we will never make any progress with this dialog.

[BigF]

[ QUOTE ]

<font color="red">The base is the fact that there are fish at that level one can consistently win money from.. </font>

What is it about this concept that is so friggin hard to understand? Both "fish" and "winning player" are relative terms. You make money from players E,F, and G, and lose money to players A,B, and C. You are both "fish" AND "winning player"! Get it? Now players H,I, and J come in and players, E,F, and G make money from them. Who's the fish now and who are the winning players? The competition is in a state of constant change. There are no static winners and losers. It's your stubborn refusal to accept this very basic and simple fact why we will never make any progress with this dialog.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying. I do NOT agree on the conclusion "The base is the fact that there are fish at that level one can consistently win money from..". I purposely drew that conclusion from your FALSE preassumption "There must be consistent winners for a level of games to exist". I said "Even if you insist...." Get it?

I define winners at certain level as people who win money at that level over certain period of time, e.g. A is a winner at 15-30 games in 2004. It doesn't matter how much money he won or lost at certain table last night. That being said, A, B,C, D, E... are either a winner or a loser at 15-30 in 2004. It doesn't matter if A won money from B and B won money from C last night. That's irrelevant in terms of finding out if ABC... are a winner or a loser. In that sense, it's static, not dynamic. Don't you agree?

If in real life you do play 15-30 in 2005 and I ask you "Are you a winner or a loser at 15-30 in 2005 so far?", you answer wouldn't be "Uh... it's not static... It depends.....", would it? You are either a winner or a loser. It does NOT change.

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
The majority of people playing the 15-30 ARE beating it or at least breaking even!!! If THEY weren't there, there wouldn't be nearly as many games for the fish wander into.

[/ QUOTE ]

This can't be right. Maybe that's true at high limits; I don't know. But that can't be right at 15/30.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The majority of people playing the 15-30 ARE beating it or at least breaking even!!! If THEY weren't there, there wouldn't be nearly as many games for the fish wander into.

[/ QUOTE ]

This can't be right. Maybe that's true at high limits; I don't know. But that can't be right at 15/30.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is incorrect at every limit. The majority of people at any particular limit are not beating that limit, its just not possible that the minority could lose so much as to feed a majority. Sure they may be winning poker players at lower limits, taking shots at ahigher limit and losing, but the majority of money at any limit has got to be dead money.

[Lestat]

I probably shot that off without giving it proper thought. But the main point that I was trying to make is that there are quite a few break-even players or players who don't lose much, or players close enough to being winners that they think they are beating the game.

And isn't this the case with all limits? That is, many losing players profess themselves to be winners or at least better than they really are. There is little danger of these players not returning again and again to the tables.

[BigF]

[ QUOTE ]

And isn't this the case with all limits? That is, many losing players profess themselves to be winners or at least better than they really are. There is little danger of these players not returning again and again to the tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

And there is grave danger of sharks threatening to leave the site? I think NOT.

[FlyWf]

The average player is a significant loser. Party, above anything else, wants people to play higher limits. Who plays higher limits? People who have won money at lower limits. Overall life-to-date winnings are irrelevant. 99.999999% of poker players have non-poker income, talk about "the poker economy" is a bit silly. People will always be putting money in and taking money out.