[TrueBritt]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I know what you're saying, but here's the problem: you're charging a fee for your services, but a lot of people are giving it away. To use your casino comparison: if you were in some kind of collective casino, running a standard roulette table, but there are four people on either side of you running a table without the zeros (i.e. mostly neutral-EV), are you still providing a service? I suppose, but it's neither a necessary nor desireable service. It's a service that your casino patrons would happily go without, if only they were sophisticated enough to know the difference that losing the zeros makes.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your analogy, the consumer has the choice between a neutral and a -EV game. That would be analogous to a choice between a poker game in which his opponents are, on the whole, equal in skill to him (let's forget the rake for now) and a game in which his opponents are, on the whole, better than he is. If such a choice existed, obviously the consumer would and should choose the neutral EV game. And if the choice of a +EV game were added, he should of course choose that one. We should all choose the game with the highest expectation.

But what if our poor player is so bad that there are no + or neutral EV 5-10 (let's say) games for him? What should he do? Drop down a level or two, of course! But he doesn't. If he did, he would no longer be a losing 5-10 player, but an even or winning player at some lower level. That's not who we are talking about.

Why doesn't he move down? Because the 3-6 game doesn't have high enough stakes to get him excited. So he stays in a -EV game despite the fact that he is destined to lose in it. He is choosing a -EV game because he wants excitement. In other words, he is, consciously or unconsciously, buying entertainment.

He had a choice to move to a + or neutral EV game, and he chose not to. He must now accept the consequences of that choice.

[ QUOTE ]
If anything, the fee that fish pay is the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the fee the casino charges for hosting the game. There is another fee, which is the fee the winning players charge the losing players to play in a game that is exciting, but which is too high for their skill level.

[ QUOTE ]
Losing their money on top of the rake isn't a "fee" for the action, because they can get their action from other fish, which will be neutral-EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

No they couldn't. There are winning players in every 5-10 game. To get their action for free, they would have to move down a level, and they don't choose to, because the stakes aren't high enough to get them excited.

[ QUOTE ]
You're not charging them for their fun; they would be getting that anyway. You're charging them for their ignorance, or at least their ignorance relative to you: someone who spends substantially more time learning and playing this game than they'd care to commit.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, I'm charging them to play at a level that is exciting for them, but which is too high for their skill level.

[ QUOTE ]
And I'm sure that you're not suggesting that without the pros, or even the 2+2ers, that the tables would be virtually empty every night. There would still be thousands of games taking place on many different sites; the only difference being that the fish would have more money in their accounts at the end of the night than they would have had otherwise. Good players are not props, nor is their presence as such required.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is an unrealistic scenario, though, because, bad players will always attract good players, unless the stakes are too small to make it worthwhile for the good players.

[ QUOTE ]
One last thing: you conclude by saying that "there is nothing wrong with either the casino or the winning poker player charging him (the fish) a fee for his fun." That's true; there's nothing wrong with it, and that's why I happily play poker, and win. The delusion that a few posters seem to be under is that they're productive members of society, charging a fee for a service, like an accountant or masseuse. And that's just not fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're offering the same service that a casino is offering: entertainment. And if that entertainment could be found elsewhere, I'm sure the fish would go there. But the fact is, the fish attract the sharks, so there is nowhere else for them to go. They are destined to feed the sharks until they drop down to a level at which they themselves are the sharks.