The Pro Argument

I've heard it said that Party doesn't want pro's (for these purposes, players winning money on a consistent week over week basis). It's been said they are bad for the game.

I think logically speaking, if you owned a poker room, you would want every player playing as long as possible. Thus they generate the most rake.

On a perfectly level playing field, everyone would play until the rake ate their money. However, a perfectly level playing field is impossible. Skill levels come in variations.

So the question becomes, does the 64 hours a day a typical pro plays (8 tables times 8 hours) make up for the amount of hours that the fish they knocked out would have played had the pro's not knocked them out.

Assuming you average fish would play for 20 hours before the rake killed them if the playing field was completely even, then the average pro can knock out 3 fish a day and still make money for the house.

However, there are psychological issues at play, if a fish loses his money in 20 hours is he more likely to deposit and play again as opposed to if he loses his money in 1 hour? Possibly.

It's just another way to look at things. I'm sure that Party itself doesn't even have a definite answer on things. It seems people are arguing things are "exactly" this way, or "exactly" that way, when the issue is very complex.