Players Union

[Drunk Bob]

Do you think that a 100 million+ site is gonna careif 1000 sharks go on strike.

Read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond.Especially the part about "The Tradegy of the Commons"

Please excuse all spelling errors.

[FlFishOn]

"I disagree with people who say that the substantial number of high volume players who generate $50k-$100k in rake revenue per year per head have no value."

Do some math here. Assume you pay $50k rake/year. Assume you win $75k / year. Net net, the site still has $75k less in it's coffers thanks to your effort. It's worse than that though because the site had to spend $10k in promotion to get that $75k deposited into their site. How can you be a valuable addition under such circumstances?

Justify your $85k value to this site. You will be hard pressed to do so.

[teamdonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that a 100 million+ site is gonna careif 1000 sharks go on strike.

Read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond.Especially the part about "The Tradegy of the Commons"

Please excuse all spelling errors.

[/ QUOTE ]

if those 1000 sharks generate on average $1500 in rake per month, you're talking about a loss in annual revenue of 18 million dollars (before rakeback). Yes, the site will care.

[FlFishOn]

this is just ignorant:

"this is just ignorant. Party gets the same amount of rake from a table no matter what the fish/shark ratio is. You're not winning money from the site (like a card counter), but from the other players."

If you win it and take it home then the site will not rake it. 10 fish will all leave broke. 100% bankroll conversion into rake, a sites goal.

[Uglyowl]

I don't want to play with a bunch of people who know they pay too much in rake.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
"For example, suppose a poker players union negotiated with Party Poker for a 40% rake rebate for its members. The rebate would be paid directly into the player's account by party poker."

In RL a union would easily find a way to pocket half or more of that 40%. Oh, there will be 'good' reasons to be sure but count on 50% shrinkage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Fish,

I think you need to read this entire thread and then start posting. The orginal poster has stated that his choice of the word "union" was a bad one. The intent here is not to start a union and collect dues. Please read the entire thread.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that a 100 million+ site is gonna careif 1000 sharks go on strike.

Read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond.Especially the part about "The Tradegy of the Commons"

Please excuse all spelling errors.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is talking about going on strike here. Please read the entire thread.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
100% bankroll conversion into rake, a sites goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really think this is a site's goal? To bankrupt all the players so there is no game period? I think you way underestimate the value that high volume multi-tablers bring to the online game.

If the sites did not want high volume players, they would not allow multi-tabling.

If sites did not want longterm, high volume players, they would not be sending them watches, TVs, LCD flat screens and paid trips for two to Vegas.

Ultimately, the site makes more money with each and every new table they open up. Without multi-tablers, there would be quite a few less tables.

[FlFishOn]

"If sites did not want longterm, high volume players, they would not be sending them watches, TVs, LCD flat screens and paid trips for two to Vegas."

Longterm, high volume players are exactly what a site wants IF they are losers. Otherwise you are a leach. You are not an asset to a site. No amount of self-delusion will change this.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]

Longterm, high volume players are exactly what a site wants IF they are losers. Otherwise you are a leach. You are not an asset to a site. No amount of self-delusion will change this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets take three scenarios:

1. 10 losing players at the table pass winning pots from one to another and game eventually goes broke and card room goes out of business.

2. A table with 10 players, 8 regulars, 4 who are sharks, 2 who are slight winners, 2 break even or slightly losing players and two fish who the card room can continually replace through marketing.

3. A table with 10 players, 6 regulars, 4 sharks, 2 break even players, and 4 fish who the card room can replace through marketing.

Which one of these scenarios would you want if you operate a card room? To say the longterm, high volume winning player has no value to the card room is just flat wrong. Without a game, there is no money to be made. It is alot easier to replace 2-4 players at the table over time, than it is to replace all ten who are losers in a much shorter time. Otherwise, the terminology "prop" would have never existed.

But ultimately, if your mind is made up, there is no amount of debating the issue that will help.

Lets assume by some "miracle", a poker site that has a decent shark to fish ratio does offer a nice incentive for a group of high volume players to play there at a discount, many of those players who said from the start this will never work, will be saying, "damn", wish I jumped on that bandwagon.

One other point, who said all high volume players are winners?