The Pro Argument
 

I've heard it said that Party doesn't want pro's (for these purposes, players winning money on a consistent week over week basis). It's been said they are bad for the game.

I think logically speaking, if you owned a poker room, you would want every player playing as long as possible. Thus they generate the most rake.

On a perfectly level playing field, everyone would play until the rake ate their money. However, a perfectly level playing field is impossible. Skill levels come in variations.

So the question becomes, does the 64 hours a day a typical pro plays (8 tables times 8 hours) make up for the amount of hours that the fish they knocked out would have played had the pro's not knocked them out.

Assuming you average fish would play for 20 hours before the rake killed them if the playing field was completely even, then the average pro can knock out 3 fish a day and still make money for the house.

However, there are psychological issues at play, if a fish loses his money in 20 hours is he more likely to deposit and play again as opposed to if he loses his money in 1 hour? Possibly.

It's just another way to look at things. I'm sure that Party itself doesn't even have a definite answer on things. It seems people are arguing things are "exactly" this way, or "exactly" that way, when the issue is very complex.

Re: The Pro Argument
 

Almost nobody plays that much.
You vastly overestimate the skill differential relative to variance in the short term.

I get what you are saying though.

On the whole, I think people are looking at this argument from the bottom line (long term profit of the site) when they should be looking at the top line (site revenue).

Site revenue is solely a function of the amount of play. In those terms, a semi-pro player who plays 3 hours x 4 tables x 5 days a week, year round is worth 100-200x as much compared to a 'deposit once, play a single table for a couple of hours a day, quit after a month' sort of player.

Re: The Pro Argument
 

I hope this turns into a huge argument of semantics over the word choice "pro" like the recent MHNL thread.

Re: The Pro Argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hope this turns into a huge argument of semantics over the word choice "pro" like the recent MHNL thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the semanitics of the term semipro?

Re: The Pro Argument
 

I would just add that another reason Party might not like Pros, is that we are the only ones who consistently and regularly take money away from their site. I can't speak to the rake vs. fish longevity issue, but clearly the fish are 1-way depositors, and pros are not.