Hey Dikshit

to make things very short.

what party needs is a steady source of new deposit. no new deposits no new income.

and OOO is right. the winning players don't bring new money by themselves. the play and pay rake with the money they won from the losing players.

still though winning players are not bad for party. as OOO said they keep up the action. its just that party needs to retain a healthy share of winning players in relation to the losing players.

the problem is that losing players are much more shortlived than the winning ones. if you keep losing you'll get frustrated and stop playing (as long as you ain't an addict). so for each new winning player (pro or not) party would nead bring in X-times new losing (hobby) players to keep the cash flow steady.

long text but simple concept.
OOO is completely right in my opinion.

[daveymck]

I think people are thinking that 10% is just the pro multiplaying people, I suspect its not does anyone have a figure for the number of real accounts they have, cos if its say 500,000 to a million then 10% is probably encompassing a lot more of the more recreational players.

[somapopper]

Unquotable name guy, I think your point is an interesting one, but largely semantic.

Sure, I can buy that in a hypothetical player pool with a limited number of profitable players, that the unprofitable ones, are effectively paying all the rake, as by definition profitable players will take unprofitable players money in excess of the rake taken from profitable players pots. However, I don't think this models real life very well.

Let's say for the sake of argument that multi-tablers seeking rake back do account for 10% of the player base and 70% of the rake contributed (where rake contributed indicates the share of total raked hands played).

10,000 players- 1,000 MT 9,000 fish

scenario 1: MT's leave. Fish play each other at the same rate. 9,000 fish play in 900 cash ring games generating x rake per hour.

scenario 2: MT's stay. 3,000 cash ring games run (MT's account for 70% of action). 7 MT's and 3 fish at each table generating 3.33x rake per hour.

Scenario 2 is clearly superior if the games can be maintained, that is if these limited number of fish are somewhat inelastic in their demand for poker, and are willing to lose at a quicker pace. If a fish is going to play however many hours he's going to play, is somewhat insensitive to his long term results, and is willing to replenish his poker account with his income, that satisfies the above conditions.

It is silly to assume that all fish are 100% like this, but it is also silly to assume that a losing player makes a one time buy in of say 500 dollars and decides that this is all he is ever willing to lose for life. It seems to me that for many losing players, the limiting factor is time. The losing player enjoys playing poker, and even if he will eventually give the game up, he is willing to spend 5 hours a week for 2 months playing.

Also, scenario 1 isn't really accurate, as new winning players would emerge from the weak competition. Certainly, it would be in a poker room's interest to have a game where all players were of exactly equal skill so no money left the system. I don't see how this is even remotely possible.

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
Overview of "The Phantom Menace"

People should read this.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that the fact the argument is still going, I believe that nobody read this [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Lori

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
People who cash out regularly and show a profit are not a source of rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false, and all of us have the PT numbers to prove it.

Yeah, I read it, and laughed. Who's the naboo by the way?

And stop trying to 'fix' things, I know women like to do that [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
This is false, and all of us have the PT numbers to prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are misunderstanding.

You pay the rake, but it doesn't come from you, it comes from the people who re-deposit.

I don't think it really matters in the argument, since The Phantom Menace teaches us all we need to know, but the actual money comes from those who deposit it.

Lori

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

BTW do you have a link to this press release with the 10%/70% numbers you quoted? I remember seeing the numbers but would like to look at the exact wording.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...mp;sb=5&o=

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Overview of "The Phantom Menace"

People should read this.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that the fact the argument is still going, I believe that nobody read this [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Aye, I read it too, I'm too stubborn to quit arguing though, I guess that makes me a bad person. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Mack

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is false, and all of us have the PT numbers to prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are misunderstanding.

You pay the rake, but it doesn't come from you, it comes from the people who re-deposit.

I don't think it really matters in the argument, since The Phantom Menace teaches us all we need to know, but the actual money comes from those who deposit it.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

That is an artificial distinction.

Of course since Party is draining the poker economy people will have to deposit money to keep it going.

Of course in a theoretical construct we could have a situation where no one deposits and everyone withdraws everything. Then the poker economy would grind to a halt since money is what fuels it. But that would be a hypothetical that has little to do with reality.

Claiming that some win and some lose, some deposit and some withdraw doesn't put online gaming in a new light where we have to re-evaluate who pays rake. Everyone who plays pays rake. It is so easy to prove this empirically.

If you buy something with money you found on the street, are you the source of sales tax or the guy who dropped the money?