Why TAGs are undesirable

[MentalNomad]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker cannot grow at double-digit rates ad infinitum, so we know that poker bankrolls are finite at some point.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect. Poker bankrolls, for most people, are part of their discretionary INCOME.

Think of casino gambling; all the games are profitable for the house, yet there is a continuous stream of people coming in with fresh money to play.

In the poker world, they don't play against the house; they play against each other.

So in the poker world, TAGs are like slot machines. They generally take people's money, but occasionally they pay out. People come to play against them, despite the sure knowledge that they will lose (long-term), and they don't play with a bankroll -- they play with discretionary income.

All that having been said, too many TAGs are like a casino full of slot machines that very rarely pay out. It becomes less popular than other casinos. That effect, in a place like Party, is very, very small. . . because the losers don't see the money going to the house. They see it going to other players, and can imagine being those players.

Also, you seem to miss the point made earlier -- the question of who qualifies as a fish is always relative. There is ALWAYS someone at the top of the food chain, and they will win at poker. If you suddenly removed everyone with a VP%IP below 20%, people playing to 21% would be the tightest players, and would run more profitable at tables full of looser people. They would suck the money out of the loose game as surely as the previous TAGs did. In fact, they would be the new TAGs, becuase "tight," itself, is a relative term. The balance of power remains unchanged; only the players in power are different.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
So to the extent that TAGs require Party to spend more money on marketing, they reduce the bottom line. This is why we are undesirable.

[/ QUOTE ]
Party doesn't really need to spend money marketing to the TAGs - they need to market to the fish. The TAGs will find the good games on their own, after all, that's their job. Party needs to market to the fish (with bonuses and commercials and Mike Sexton).

Lets ask a newer/smaller sight, say like a Games Grid, who they would rather have.They have a choice of 10,000 TAGS or 10,000 fish walking through there front door as new customers.

Which would they rather have?

[somapopper]

If everyone will play an equal number of hands: fish

If each TAG will play 10x as many hands as each fish: TAGs

Which do you think is closer to reality?

(obviously, if an empty player pool is filled with TAGs, the TAGs will leave, so I think the PP situation is different)

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
If everyone will play an equal number of hands: fish

If each TAG will play 10x as many hands as each fish: TAGs

Which do you think is closer to reality?

(obviously, if an empty player pool is filled with TAGs, the TAGs will leave, so I think the PP situation is different)

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say your assumption is wrong based on the fact that 80,000 TAGs would be playing there within 4 weeks of these fish turning up.

Edit : If it was my site I might consider protecting my fish by offering less possible tables, I know this wouldn't be popular with you guys but if I marketed well and the games had a lot of fish in them this kind of idea would balance the games out a little more imo.

Mack

Interesting thought problem. I dont know the answer.

The game is like a coin flip (neither side has an edge, whether it is TAG v TAG or fish v. fish). However, the pots themselves will differ in size. TAGs will play for smaller pots, and fish will play for larger pots. Larger pots means the rake will be capped more often, but on the other hand, larger pots (with random winners, as should happen in an equal skill game), means greater variance. Greater variance, means each player faces a larger risk of ruin. So the fish v. fish games should die out before the tag v. tag games do.

Im not sure what the answer is, but I think these are the decisive factors.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets ask a newer/smaller sight, say like a Games Grid, who they would rather have.They have a choice of 10,000 TAGS or 10,000 fish walking through there front door as new customers.

Which would they rather have?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this isn't a good analogy if you're defending TAGs, because a new site would obviously prefer the fish.

This would make the site desireable for TAGs to play on in the future, and therefore grow.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lets ask a newer/smaller sight, say like a Games Grid, who they would rather have.They have a choice of 10,000 TAGS or 10,000 fish walking through there front door as new customers.

Which would they rather have?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this isn't a good analogy if you're defending TAGs, because a new site would obviously prefer the fish.

This would make the site desireable for TAGs to play on in the future, and therefore grow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fold. NH

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You also forgot that multitabling TAGs keep some tables going that would not exist otherwise, thereby generating more rake for the site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hold the amount of money in the poker universe constant and your logic fails. Even if a table falls apart, a new table will form eventually. Then we're back at the question of how many hands can get played before the players are broke?

Additionally, the "TAGs keep tables going" argument doesnt really work in a network this large. The fact is that the Party network is so liquid that it survives just fine without the presence of TAGs. (Witness the fact that they're doing fine despite the split.) Your argument might have some merit in an illiquid market like Prima.

As an aside/metaphor, consider whether the NYSE or AMEX need to employ specialists to maintain market liquidity, or whether market transactions can occur perfectly well w/out a specialist (a la NASDAQ).

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of the reason the party network is so liquid is because there are many pros constantly playing there. Fish is nice. but they dont play that often and you need very many of them to keep the game constantly going. besides, it is very costly to recruit new fish. Just like the day traders make the stock market more liquid. besides, even fish have different skill level. without all the sharks, there are still going to be winners and losers. with sharks around, fish can find a game much easier, play more often and contribute more rake. i think party management did their homework and came to understand that the benefits of multi-tabling sharks far outweigh the downside.

Correct.

Another way to consider it:
Both the sharks and the house(rake) are in competition for the fishes money. As long as there are enough fish to keep games going, the sharks are unnecessary competition.