My typical day

[SamIAm]

[ QUOTE ]
I accept poker as a career providing a service for other players to compete against but that's a stretch that took me 15 years to achieve.

[/ QUOTE ]That is SUCH a stretch, to the point that maybe it should count as a lie. I think you have to face the fact that you don't construct or provide anything in your line of work. That's ok; there are lots of jobs that earn money but don't necessarily add to society. But don't pretend you're "providing a service".
-Sam

[TrueBritt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I accept poker as a career providing a service for other players to compete against but that's a stretch that took me 15 years to achieve.

[/ QUOTE ]That is SUCH a stretch, to the point that maybe it should count as a lie. I think you have to face the fact that you don't construct or provide anything in your line of work. That's ok; there are lots of jobs that earn money but don't necessarily add to society. But don't pretend you're "providing a service".
-Sam

[/ QUOTE ]

We provide the same service that Casinos do: entertainment. That's why people play blackjack, and that's why they play poker. They play for fun.

[ QUOTE ]
We provide the same service that Casinos do: entertainment. That's why people play blackjack, and that's why they play poker. They play for fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, and they can play for fun against other people who are playing for fun, or they can play for fun against people who are constantly studying to improve at taking their money. This "we provide a service" line is pretty amusing to me. Remove all the 2+2ers from Party Poker and you'll certainly have more enjoyable and less costly games for the fish. Expert players ruin the experience just enough to make money, but not enough to scare the fish away entirely, and they use variance as a smoke screen. Let's not kid ourselves.

[TrueBritt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We provide the same service that Casinos do: entertainment. That's why people play blackjack, and that's why they play poker. They play for fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, and they can play for fun against other people who are playing for fun, or they can play for fun against people who are constantly studying to improve at taking their money. This "we provide a service" line is pretty amusing to me. Remove all the 2+2ers from Party Poker and you'll certainly have more enjoyable and less costly games for the fish. Expert players ruin the experience just enough to make money, but not enough to scare the fish away entirely, and they use variance as a smoke screen. Let's not kid ourselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like casinos and all other service businesses, we charge for the service we provide. That service is competition, gamble, and fun. That is, competition and gamble provide the fun for the fish. Fun (i.e. entertainment) is what they are buying. The fish could easily decrease the competition in their game by dropping down a level or two. But that would decrease the gamble, too. On the whole, they would have less fun, so they stay at the higher level, where they are destined to lose over the long run. But that's ok because they are there for fun, and their loses have simply paid for their fun.

It is common knowledge that the casino has the edge in all table games. Yet millions of people play them anyway. Why? Because gambling is fun. Winning gives us a rush of euphoria. Apparently, for many people, that short-term rush is worth the long-term losses that are inevitable in those games. The same is true for the losing poker player. He is paying for that short-term rush with his long-term losses. It is his choice to do that, and there is nothing wrong with either the casino or the winning poker player charging him a fee for his fun.

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. The mob was providing a service too when they were kind enough to offer "protection" to local shopkeepers.

I exaggerate, of course, but I really think that you're kidding yourself here. If anything, the fee that fish pay is the rake. 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. 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.

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.

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.

[gisb0rne]

Pro online players don't provide a service because the game is there with or without them and the experience is no way enhanced by their presence. Partypoker or whatever site you play on is the one providing the service. Certain professional players that play live provide a service, similar to that of professional athletes and actors. Would a rich fish rather play against other rich fish or against Phil Ivey?

Several people seem to be missing the idea that the ~ $15k income is fixed. That's not true at all. Because the income was derived from an initial bankroll of $500 or so, the OP is making much much more now than when she started. Her current annualized income might be more like $50k or even more.

[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.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

I'm very pressed for time here, so unfortunately I can't give this debate the time that it deserves.

My reaction, though, is that there is no reason why the higher stakes game has to be -EV. Were there no pros, the fish would simply inhabit every level, their choice depending on their bankroll. Sure, it's exciting to play higher stakes. But you don't need to sacrifice expectation to play higher stakes, or at least, not by definition. To continue the casino analogy, the EV of a roulette table is the same whether you're playing at the $5 or the $100 tables. The excitement comes from moving up to stakes that are meaningful for the bettor, but the casino doesn't start paying out 30-1 on the numbers just because the stakes are higher, as if that's the higher stakes "fee" gamblers have to pay.

That the higher stakes games are -EV is not what makes the game exciting, it's an unfortunate trade-off for the excitement that the fish would rather do without. It's not "exciting" to be playing against better players: some TAG who lurks to your left, folds for 20 hands, raises to isolate you, and then grinds you down with aggressive play doesn't make the game fun. The stakes can be fun, but they will be considerably more fun if everyone is there to gamble and enjoy themselves. Someone who is there to suck up their money diminishes the experience considerably.