Jdanz
09-03-2005, 09:06 PM
in some ways we have very competing interests and in some ways they are almost the same.
We want to play on their sites and they want us to play there, but we want to pay a small price for that privledge while they want us to pay a large price.
This is fairly simple stuff. As more suppliers of this service exist the price of the service should go down, as demand increases the price should go up.
However the problem we as players face is that while party poker et. all can act somewhat unilaterally (or in an oligarchical fashion) players by their dissassociation/natural competition/desire to play in the best games, have a difficult time acting in any unified fashion.
In response to an action by, for example, party poker, there are basically three things that can happen.
1) Rake is raised and no one resists
This is great for party, terrible for players
Status of the games: Status Quo
2) Rake is raised some people leave
Likely good on the whole for party, terrible for players that leave, and somewhat less terrible for those who stay as the leaving players will likely be net winners.
Status of the games: Very Good
3) Rake is raised and a large portion of high volume players leave.
This is horrible for party as they by no means want to lose players (like myself and many others) that pay tens of thousands of dollars of rake a year. However this is also terrible for these players, as clearly they have a desire to put in a great deal of hands at a site with great games. Also as the quality of the games would be so great there would be a strong incentive for "scab" players to take advantage.
Status of the games: Great
My point:
Really we have the power to force poker sites to actually compete for players in a far more meaningful way (to high volume players) then marketing, however we lack the ability to unify to do so, and as we as a force become stronger there is a greater and greater disincentive to join. anyone can freeride on a protest, by playing in the now better games without contributing to party's incentive to change. A solution would be for some creative person to found a new site with a much better rake structure, but that person will have a difficult time filling a site as only serious players would see the advantage in this site, and serious players don't want to play against serious players. Which is of course a place like party's ultimate advantage, the quantity of non-serious players.
All in all it is entirely within the power of the 2+2 community (and other high-volume players) to meaninfully effect the levels of rake at the sites they play, but it would take a level of short term self-sacrifice/ community solidarity/ coordination/ and publicity that i don't believe we as a community are capable of maintaing.
So what's the point?
A) we can change the games if we want, but it will take some serious effort
B) rake levels will drop to competative prices once the main commodity (bad players) equalizes among sites and they are forced to gain market share in different ways. (hopefully this is before the increased prevalance of poker drains the desposable income from the non-serious market).
C) Let's not complain irrationally, as party poker (or any other site) is acting completely rationally as we as group will likely be unable to act rationally in response (a freerider dilemna), we have the option of acting or not acting, but poker sites certainly aren't stupid to raise rates if we won't respond in a manner that would aversely effect them.
I'd like to say i'd organize something myself, but i don't really think it's worth the time and effort unless it's done whole heartedly and i have neither the time or the energy. I just wanted to a put this whole scenario into what i believe is a somewhat accurate model, so that a response if orchestrated can at least work constructively and rationally towards the goal of cheaper games.
We want to play on their sites and they want us to play there, but we want to pay a small price for that privledge while they want us to pay a large price.
This is fairly simple stuff. As more suppliers of this service exist the price of the service should go down, as demand increases the price should go up.
However the problem we as players face is that while party poker et. all can act somewhat unilaterally (or in an oligarchical fashion) players by their dissassociation/natural competition/desire to play in the best games, have a difficult time acting in any unified fashion.
In response to an action by, for example, party poker, there are basically three things that can happen.
1) Rake is raised and no one resists
This is great for party, terrible for players
Status of the games: Status Quo
2) Rake is raised some people leave
Likely good on the whole for party, terrible for players that leave, and somewhat less terrible for those who stay as the leaving players will likely be net winners.
Status of the games: Very Good
3) Rake is raised and a large portion of high volume players leave.
This is horrible for party as they by no means want to lose players (like myself and many others) that pay tens of thousands of dollars of rake a year. However this is also terrible for these players, as clearly they have a desire to put in a great deal of hands at a site with great games. Also as the quality of the games would be so great there would be a strong incentive for "scab" players to take advantage.
Status of the games: Great
My point:
Really we have the power to force poker sites to actually compete for players in a far more meaningful way (to high volume players) then marketing, however we lack the ability to unify to do so, and as we as a force become stronger there is a greater and greater disincentive to join. anyone can freeride on a protest, by playing in the now better games without contributing to party's incentive to change. A solution would be for some creative person to found a new site with a much better rake structure, but that person will have a difficult time filling a site as only serious players would see the advantage in this site, and serious players don't want to play against serious players. Which is of course a place like party's ultimate advantage, the quantity of non-serious players.
All in all it is entirely within the power of the 2+2 community (and other high-volume players) to meaninfully effect the levels of rake at the sites they play, but it would take a level of short term self-sacrifice/ community solidarity/ coordination/ and publicity that i don't believe we as a community are capable of maintaing.
So what's the point?
A) we can change the games if we want, but it will take some serious effort
B) rake levels will drop to competative prices once the main commodity (bad players) equalizes among sites and they are forced to gain market share in different ways. (hopefully this is before the increased prevalance of poker drains the desposable income from the non-serious market).
C) Let's not complain irrationally, as party poker (or any other site) is acting completely rationally as we as group will likely be unable to act rationally in response (a freerider dilemna), we have the option of acting or not acting, but poker sites certainly aren't stupid to raise rates if we won't respond in a manner that would aversely effect them.
I'd like to say i'd organize something myself, but i don't really think it's worth the time and effort unless it's done whole heartedly and i have neither the time or the energy. I just wanted to a put this whole scenario into what i believe is a somewhat accurate model, so that a response if orchestrated can at least work constructively and rationally towards the goal of cheaper games.