One thing I just don't get about the "fish will lose their money" deal

[pyroponic]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm more worried about the shark population actually. Burnout seems to be HIGH among 2+2 posters. (Ok, I'm not worried about the shark population, but I am worried about a few of my mates.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because someone can play winning poker doesn't make him or her a shark.

[ QUOTE ]
This is good news for winning players, if you're correct that losing players can still fool themselves into thinking they're not losing.

[/ QUOTE ]
This should not be news. (See: Las Vegas, city of)

Think back to every friend, relative, etc. who has gone to Vegas. How many have been happy to tell you of their winnings, of their blackjack "system," etc.? Now, how many have told you they lost a bundle there - probably not as many, right? Now, you know for a fact there are more losers than winners in Vegas, so do you explain this differential by telling yourself you just have smarter friends than most people?

[ QUOTE ]
How does he manage to withdraw money and take his family to dinner, though?

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this a serious question? If so, I think you'll find that many people have enough in their bank account, say, to cover dinner the day before their paycheck arrives. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[OldLearner]

The fish are MUCH better off at a casino game (blackjack/roulette/slots/craps) than at a poker table.

Blackjack has a house edge of around 1% if played correctly (which isnt hard to do). Roulette, one of the worst games for the fish, has a house edge of of around 5.76 %.

At a poker table, they have to be able to beat the other players at the table for more than the rake (say 5%).

Break Even player - 0% disadvantage - beats the game for exactly the rake

Good fish - 10% disadvantage
Avg fish - 20% disadvantage
Bad Fish - 30% disadvantage

I am pulling the fish numbers out of my hat, but you can see the point. The fish are MUCH better off at a table game trying to beat the house edge than at a poker table.

This is why it is so important to provide them an environment where they would prefer to play the game that affords them the least chance of winning.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Blackjack has a house edge of around 1% if played correctly (which isnt hard to do). Roulette, one of the worst games for the fish, has a house edge of of around 5.76 %.

At a poker table, they have to be able to beat the other players at the table for more than the rake (say 5%).


[/ QUOTE ]

The fish don't pay all of the 5% rake, this being the problem with your analogy.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is fish will never decrease in a Brick and Mortar room because they don't keep records.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is important. Also, in B&M, the good players can only play one table, which keeps the fish in action longer.

Online, the thousands of good multitablers are busting the fish at a higher rate. Many of you are mistakenly thinking that the new players will always keep pace with this, but it's impossible. Even if the new players come in at a constant rate (which they aren't, it's actually starting to decline), they would bust out at the same rate. The few who do become good players usually join the ranks of the multitablers. Rinse and repeat. It doesn't take a genius to extrapolate this out over time.

[GMan42]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no way an online player can fool himself into thinking he's winning over time, because he knows he has to keep putting money into the casino and that he's not getting anything out of it. His balance over time always drops to zero and then he has to redeposit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think reload bonuses help to muddle the $$$ situation for the typical fish (this may even be part of the sites' strategy). They deposit a couple of hundred, earn a $50 bonus after dropping a bundle, then look at their balance and say "Eh, I think I'm up a few bucks maybe...I forget what I started with."

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
Roulette, one of the worst games for the fish, has a house edge of of around 5.76 %.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slot machines are often much worse than six percent. I believe many have juice over ten percent.

[Sadat X]

How popular is online blackjack? craps? roulette?

[miami32]

I hope your right.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Fish has always been there and will definitely stay here forever. I ´m pretty sure of that. Also they will never run out of money because new fish and new money will replace the old one.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that an endless supply of horrible players will always be there, to replace the ones who get sick of losing and quit, is nice - but I'm not buying it.

The games are ridiculously easy right now, only because there are so many new fish trying the game. This is because it's the "in" thing, all over television at the moment. It's a fad. Just because you and I enjoy poker, and plan to play long-term, doesn't mean the fad will last forever for the more casual players. Some will get tired of losing and reloading. Some will get bored of it and move on to whatever the new trendy thing is.

And I don't buy the logic that just because people still gamble away money at the slots (or blackjack, craps, etc.), that it must follow that there will be an endless supply of fish at the poker tables. One does not equal the other. Yes, people will always like to gamble for recreation, even if they know it's -EV. That fact alone is not proof that the current poker boom (or fad, or whatever you want to call it) will last forever. When the fad dies down, those who were never all that into it in the first place will move on. And with them will go a lot of the easy profits.