I think these issues being raised are great, but I do not agree with several of the underlying assumptions. Right now, poker is experiencing nearly exponential growth, something which is not sustainable. That is not the same as saying that new - and completely naive - fish don't get spawned on a permanent basis.

What will the stable equilibrium for the poker-playing demographics look like? I would guess it will be very similar to what we have now ... a very wide base of really bad players, a very narrow peak of extremely good players, and most of us 2+2ers somewhere in the middle.

There seems to be this assumption that this base of bad players is going to go away, but this is ignoring a very important part regarding population dynamics of any group of individuals ... the fish of tomorrow are NOT the same as the fish of today. Advertising is not going away ... which will mean a steady population size with recruitment.

Just because the growth of the population slows down does not mean that the proportion of fish decreases.

Anything we can do to feed the fish (direct them on how to get more reload bonuses) makes them more valuable to us. All fish eventually will disappear ... either through learning, or out of money. Personally, I think that giving people the means to increase their playing money (reloads), coupled with the illusion that they could get better easier (read a book, read a forum) will be higher EV than ignoring them. Most people will not work hard enought to translate what they read into effective practice. I would guess that most people are a best unaffected by what they read, and many likely become worse players. Those that actually become better are a very small proportion (in my opinion). Similarly, discouraging them through being rude at the table, or even just ignoring their big pots can only be -EV.