Pro win rate vs. Other Pro...

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, from observation, the live players who drop
$100-$200 at at B&M don't even miss it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say they don't "miss" it. My game of choice (and I do well) is $1/2 NL. It's a great game to fleece the fish. The buy-in is usually $200 (varies slightly by each card room). When they burn that up, they'll shoot their hand up with two benjies for the floor to come and get in exchange for a new full rack.

It is so beautiful to see those full yellow racks coming over to a fish on tilt! Tilt is so prevalent at the NL tables because on bad play can wreck their rack. And then they want revenge...

Fish making bad plays with money to burn (but still "miss" because they do want to win) wanting and revenge are factors that make NL games so lucrative.

[K C]

First, keep in mind that there's still going to be a distribution of skill among the better players that hang out here. It's not really that different than moving up to higher levels, where the players are better, but there still are stronger and weaker players. It's only when the players are evenly matched that only the house wins. Suffice to say though that under this scenario it would be a lot tougher for most, because most are bound to lose, as is always the case.

I wouldn't worry about our game becoming less populated with fish. Sure, a particular site may go that way, to a degree, but overall we are attracting a lot of new players, and in particular, a lot whose main attraction is entertainment, not profit.

You don't have to look any further than the casino games to appreciate this. Everyone there is a big fish. Yet the fish just keep coming back for more. The reason is, although they are losing money consistently, they are being entertained.

Let's entertain them some more [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

KC
http://kingcobrapoker.com

[Megenoita]

Bringing this back a little to the original question of this thread, I think of Ted Forrest who is known to play in "probably the toughest stud game in the world". Now, the money he makes in those top, top cash games--that money is mostly coming from other top players, no? And people like him and Lederer can make a living off cash games at the very high stakes, not because of wealthy fish, but because of succeeding in competition against anyone...right?

Maybe, though, the "win rate" for a Ted Forrest against other top pros at 1,000/2,000 isn't near what an online pro makes at 3/6 or 5/10, but it's gotta be something good...

M

[tek]

Poker has been played in this country for at least 200 years. And books to help people improve have been written for at least 100 years. I doubt the fish population will die or get better.

People love to gamble, but don't love to work on improvement. Even if fish read books, they still need ability, emotional control (lack this and forget it...) and the desire to continually work on their game. Same thing in bowling or golf.

The problem is there are only 168 hours in each week. There are priorities in our lives. For our discussion, if your priority isn't poker, then your progress will be limited.

Another consideration is even if more people work on their games and have emotional control and have a proper bankroll, etc the people above them will maintain their dominance if they continue to work on their game. In other words the gap between good players and fish will remain.

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
Bringing this back a little to the original question of this thread, I think of Ted Forrest who is known to play in "probably the toughest stud game in the world". Now, the money he makes in those top, top cash games--that money is mostly coming from other top players, no? And people like him and Lederer can make a living off cash games at the very high stakes, not because of wealthy fish, but because of succeeding in competition against anyone...right?

Maybe, though, the "win rate" for a Ted Forrest against other top pros at 1,000/2,000 isn't near what an online pro makes at 3/6 or 5/10, but it's gotta be something good...)

[/ QUOTE ]

Most good players don't want to butt heads. They will play to break even with each other until new fish arrive. Then they take turns chipping away at them. That's the way it is with me and other good NL cash players whenever I play.

[bandfan]

i liked the bass analogy

[Michael Davis]

I think your comments apply to live play more than the internet. The games have gotten much worse in quick time online.

-Michael

[ACW]

Online poker will move out of its growth phase an reach a dynamic equilibrium, where the number of sharks matches the influx of new players. If there are too many sharks, and they can't win fast enough to make playing worthwhile, some of them will leave making it more priftable for those that stay.

A similar micro-dynamic equilibrium will apply to the flow of players between sites.

Interesting questions would be

1) How long before growth stops and equilibrium sets in (are we already there?)

2) When equilibrium is established, how much money will be flowing out of the fish, how much taken by the sites, how much is won by the sharks?

3) In equilibrium, what percentage of fish graduate to sharks?

[Arm187r]

[ QUOTE ]
i liked the bass analogy

[/ QUOTE ]
me 2