Re: Fish: Do they run out of time or money?
[ QUOTE ]
"Players who regularly withdraw money are unavoidable"
This certainly has some truth to it, but I'm not sure its as big of a factor as many of you seem to think. If you took the very best 5% of players out of the games, there would certainly be new winners who would withdraw money regularly, but not as much money or as regularly as the very best 5% now. This is because the worst players wouldn't get any worse (we're not replacing the best 5% with an equal # who are worse than all current players). So, the players who are left are much closer in skill level. The difference betweent the very best and the very worst is MUCH smaller. Therefore, players who must stop playing because they run out of money could play for longer before they go broke, providing more rake.
[/ QUOTE ]
The top 5% are very fortunate if they collectively average 2 BB/100.
The horrible players who donate most of the money lose 10-15 BB/100. If you don't believe me I suggest that you take a PT datamining database and filter on > 65% VP$IP with at least 50 hands. Go to the Summary tab and look at the average results for that group of players.
The difference between a typical winning player and the breakeven players is much smaller than the difference between the breakeven players and the really bad players. Skimming off the best players would reduce the skill gap but not by very much. There will still be a huge disparity and lots of money will still be withdrawn.
|