Some points of clarification
This is just some general comments of the feedback this thread has recieved about point three. First, my argument about how the poker sites view more serious players who play lots of hands is not the heart of my argument. It's number three because I thought it was the third most important of the three factors I listed (it just happens to be the most controverial). Second, on a player-by-player basis, most of you are correct. Any single high volume player is more valuable than and single recreational player. I was speaking more generally. A site would rather have 4-6 recreational losing players ("fish") than a single high volume, serious, winning poker player ("shark"). My argument implies they (the sites) are looking at this from a more "ecological" perspective.
Think of this for a moment, not player-by-player, but hand-by-hand. Okay, I beleive they perfer "fish hands" more than "sharks hands." The reason is that a "fish pot" is likely to have money that will eventually go to another player, from which the house will get a cut in the form of rake. Meanwhile a "shark pot" has money that will go towards that second Dell fp2001. I think that my discussion with CrayZee best laid out my argument.
Thanks for the intelligent discourse in this thread.
|