Corporate Greed Changing Face of Online Poker Forever

[FlFishOn]

""Unregulated monopolies like utilities excepted?" In the US? They're heavily (and illogically) regulated,"

I think it would be difficult to argue that an unregulated monopoly would never screw it's customers.

Please continue on the illogic of utility regulation. I'm interested in hearing a case for total deregulation.

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
""Unregulated monopolies like utilities excepted?" In the US? They're heavily (and illogically) regulated,"

I think it would be difficult to argue that an unregulated monopoly would never screw it's customers.

Please continue on the illogic of utility regulation. I'm interested in hearing a case for total deregulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's actually really easy since unregulated monopolies don't exist long enough to do it. They will try to screw the customer as fast as they can and then they won't be a monopoly anymore. Someone else will move in. Even if they don't screw their customers someone will probably move in. 100 years ago there weren't enough large sources of capital for this to happen, but it's a virtual certainty now. The only thing that prevents it is regulation.

Regulation does not serve the consumer in the long run though it may reduce short term variance at the expense of overall expectation. A totally free market will always balance itself. SE's complaining is part of this free market process. The Internet is a beautiful thing partially because it is so easy for new businesses to enter the market. If the sites move their rake too high then people will leave and new sites will take over. If the companies go out of business with the lower rake then the higher rake will stay and we'll have to get used to it. Some marginal winners will stop playing, shrinking the market and only the better run sites will remain. Someone will have a better idea of how to do something and they'll take over while someone else fades away. That's capitalism.

[Synergistic Explosions]

[ QUOTE ]


You suggest removing the capitalism from business. That is childish in it's simplicity and also impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you would comprehend others comments, maybe you would understand their argument a little better before you comment.

I said I hoped the bigger sites would go the route of continuing to grow their player base, creating larger volume so rake increases were not needed.

Instead, they want to increase player base AND increase rakes at the same time. To me, this is not the way to go. If less players make a profit, then the sites will have less players. If they increase rake and it pushes marginal people out of the site, the site loses in the end.

I state that raising rakes will backfire on these sites as their player base erodes as people leave when they become net losers instead of net winners.

By seeking immediate returns on a quarterly basis to impress Wall St for short term positive affirmation, the sites are eroding the building blocks in regards to a stable player base into the future.

If players one day realize the only ones making money from online poker is online poker sites, then online poker will die a fast death. So limits on rake are indeed needed at some point. Even you have to admit that. Unless this whole thing is to become nothing but a goldrush that shrivels up and fades away in 7 years.

[FlFishOn]

Yes, yes, we're in agreement here but...Explain how my electric utitity faces any chance in the coming 20 years of facing competetive pressure? I don't see it.

Now cable TV, I understand. When my basic bill reached $25 in 1999 I pulled the plug and never watched the thing again. They now face some competetion but the price is not falling. Yet.

[FlFishOn]

"By seeking immediate returns on a quarterly basis to impress Wall St for short term positive affirmation, the sites are eroding the building blocks in regards to a stable player base into the future."

Sounds like you've isolated a niche. Raise some capital and compete. Yor're a poker player, right? What do you figure the odds are that your business model is better than the one Party is using, Party being a (multi?) $Billion business?

Sorry about the previous post but you sounded like a whiney lefty, my least favorite life form.

[scrapperdog]

How long will it be before one of the sites breaks from the norm and lowers rake to 3% with a max of 2$ in an attempt to gain business? This will happen sooner or later and if it works (I think it will) it eventually will make the other sites respond.

[KJ o]

[ QUOTE ]
It's actually really easy since unregulated monopolies don't exist long enough to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]
In most cases you are correct, but the conspiracy nutter has a point when he specifically mentioned utilities.

There are natural monopolies, after all. They are not as common as the average European socialist politician would like to think they are, but they are there nevertheless.

Obviously, online poker sites are not one of them.

[mbpoker]

Ho is Empire best run company? They have no software and no support, just a dozen of marketers who used to market almost exclusively to Party players.

[Sniper]

Pokerstars is experimenting with a 20% MTT payout structure... if they make these permanant, while not a rake reduction, this will increase the expected life of the average MTT player.

[William]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you suppose would be good for you as a player, thinking industry wide?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully respectable countries (like the US, GB etc..) not only legalizing online poker but forbidding all the banana republic sites, which would liberate us from all the scums that drive those sites and would not allow them anymore to do whatever dirty trick they wish without fearing punishment.

And Yes, TP CEO, you are indeed a funny guy.
You have nerve as well with the rake your site takes...