Why TAGs are undesirable

I am sick of hearing why TAGs are valuable. We suck as customers. This post will be the irrefutable proof.

Imagine a hypothetical NL pool of 10 players (I use NL only because it exaggerates the effect of skill, as contrasted with limit poker), each with a stack of $1000 in front of him. 9 of the players are morons. 1 of the players is excellent. The morons push preflop on inadequate values, draw when they shouldnt, etc; the TAG plays well and gets his money in only when it makes sense.

How many hands will it take before the TAG has all the money? Let's hypothetically say in 500 hands this will happen (the players are real morons). Party's take: 500 x $3.00 = $1500 in rake paid.

Now suppose that the players are of more or less equal skill and that no player has an edge. To the extent that one player wins a given hand, he is just as likely to lose it back the next hand. Money flows between players are random. Under this situation, the money theoretically goes back and forth between the players--say 3333 hands--until Party has it all due to rake. Party's take = 3333 x $3 = $9,999

Conclusion: TAGs are undesirable players because they reduce the number of hands that fish can survive. Instead of passing money back and forth and re-raking it until nothing remains (Party: $9999, players $0), the TAG captures this profit by taking the money out of the pool available to be raked by Party (Party: $1500, players $8500, monkeys $0.00)

The fewer hands that fish can play, the smaller the rake for Party. Thus, TAGs create huge marketing costs for Party because they are constantly depleting the pool.

The logic of this proof is inescapable.

That is all.