Why TAGs are undesirable

[ QUOTE ]
If tags are UNdesirable as you claim they are, why did Party opened up the possibility to play 10 tables, instead of 4? Surely to lure the multi-table sharks back in their lap right?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're correct, Party is definitely seeking to attract TAGs, by offering 10 tables simultaneously. I frankly dont understand why they think this is desirable, unless they think they can get share that would otherwise go to Prima, Pokerstars, etc. It is, frankly, a mistake.

If I were Party, I would do as much as possible to eliminate advantages that one player can get on another player. In theory, HUDs, Pokertracker, Poker Edge, even notes should all be banned because they reward skilled players and thus result in fewer hands being played by fish before they bust. I suspect the only reason Party hasn't chosen to ban Pokertracker/HUDs, is that they face a genuine risk of losing market share to Pokerstars and other sites that are pro-player tools.

By the way, for those of you who dont like my argument, how about chewing on this one: Does the existence of high limit games damage the long-term viability of mid-limit games? If so, why? Do you see how this is similar to the problem of TAGs?

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
unless they think they can get share that would otherwise go to Prima, Pokerstars, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your proof seems to be looking less and less irrefutable as we go along, no?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hold the amount of money in the poker universe constant

[/ QUOTE ]

There's part of your problem right there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that this is a simplifying assumption. But it's also not entirely off.

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

More to the point, in order to "grow" the poker economy, Party needs to hire Mike Sexton, buy spots on the WPT, give away bonuses, etc. All of these customer acquisition and retention costs come off the bottom line.

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.

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 ]
[ 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.

[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)

[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.

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.

[Bill Poker]

thats why the online poker is rigged, TAGs get more bad beats than fishes.

<font color="white"> yes, i think Party should include this idea in their next release </font> [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]