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. [img]/forums/images/icons/cool.gif[/img]
I posted the question in general theory...we'll see what the smartypants have to say about it.