My typical day

I rather doubt this. The problem isn't so much the volume of fish; as most of us with thorough PT databases know, the net losers with either fish, LAG, or donk stats far outnumber the sharps. Search the world over, and you'll find at least 10 fish looking for a $200+15 SNG at any given time, the problem is how they're distributed, as they're inevitably distributed inefficiently. Were all the different sites conflated into one network, fish wouldn't have an problem finding each other, and the pros would be superfluous for "liquidity" purposes.

Now the "one network" scenario is extreme, of course, but more realistically, if you take the pros out of the equation, then the market would inevitably produce fewer sites. The value of pros for liquidity - and I would say that if they are valuable at all it's only to a small percentage of fish who play higher limits - is created only under current market conditions. Remove the pros, lose a small chunk of the player pool (even if that small chunk is a bigger chunk than their numbers would suggest, due to multi-tabling), combine a few sites and networks, and you're right back to where you started.

Having said that, that's not quite the point I was responding too, as TrueBritt was advocating the value of pros as providing "entertainment". Your reasoning resembles his, though, in that it's based on the benefits pros offer under current market conditions. What I think you're both overlooking is that if you remove the pros, market conditions change, and the fish can provide all the benefits you two have listed for themselves. Pros bring nothing unique to the table other than their finely honed ability to suck up a fish's EV.