Sites Have Motivation to Reward Poor Players. Period.

[CORed]

You are losing because you suck at poker.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
The Sites maximize their earnings when they have players that are as evenly matched as possible playing as many hands as possible. If the sites had their perfect utopia we would all start with, say, $500, and play heads up for hours and hours until the rake would have eaten all of our money, save for a couple cents won by whoever won the last hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, this statement is retarded. You think this would be Utopia for a site? This would put them out of business. I'm going to give you a clue here... SITES WANT WINNING PLAYERS. Winning players are what attract everyone else. When people see that there are people playing poker, some making hundreds of thousands a year, they think, hey, I can do that. It's not that they are actually winning, its the dream that they can that keeps players going. Why do you think people play lottery? From a practical standpoint, EVERYONE is a losing player at lottery. The number of people who win is so statistically insignificant that for this arguments purpose I can make that statement. Yet, millions of people play it, they do because they see that one winner every now and again. A site where no one won in the long run, and everyone just traded money back and forth would go out of business. It would have no hope. Even here on 2+2, it is the stories of players like El Diablo, bk, james, that keep hope alive amongst posters here that they too, can one day win that much. I guarantee at least 25 percent, maybe 50 percent of the people who post on this site are losers, but they keep playing because they know that out there, there are winners, and maybe they can be one someday as well. So this central premise of your argument is flawed, thus making every argument you've made after it flawed as well.


Edit: Lock this damn thread. We have the same argument over and over and over and over and over and over, and its retarded already. Everything has been said 10 times before. The arguments on both sides have been flushed out. You did not have ANY original thoughts or claims in this post that you started.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why would poker sites go out of their way to pay someone to fiddle with the algorithm when:

1) A regular deck of 52 cards gives bad players the chance to suck out on good players.
2) If they get caught, they lose ALL their business.

[/ QUOTE ]


A: To boost short term profits.


[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so to follow up, why would someone PAY someone else in the short term to marginally boost short term profits when a proper randomizer ALREADY DOES THIS!

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, the sites notice that Fred the Fish is a pretty consistent losing player. Paul is a pretty consistent winning player. Assuming that such programming is possible (I have personally done extrememly limited programming, and do not claim to be an expert on this) the site could arrange that Fred get AA and KK as 1% of the hands that he is dealt (compared to the statistical average of 0.45%). Furthermore, the site could deal Paul AA/KK only 0.33% of the time. I mean, you can play with these averages as you prefer, but the benefit would be placed with Fred, and the burden with Paul. Paul will still get dealt AA/KK with enough frequency that he would not notice he is getting less than the statistical avaerge. Fred would not notice that he is getting it a bit more often, etc.


[/ QUOTE ]


Why ignore the work that has already been done? Someone already has taken an extensive database and compared the actual distribution of his cards to the expected distribution of his cards. Something like getting AA/KK 1% of the time instead of .45% would be noticed. I think it's in the FAQ somewhere.

[TruePoker CEO]

Truepoker openly subsidizes losing players in our Mocro-Limit games because we want them to try our software and spread the money around the site. The practice has been euphemistically referred to as feeding the fish. We think it may work out better than spending that same promotional money on general media buys or grilled cheese sanwiches.

We are not abandoning other direct-to-player promotions, such as our WSOP4Free series, freerolls for frequent players, and TruePoints convertible to cash.

We are not doing loss insurance for any sinister reason nor any altruistic reason. We want to see how allocating promotional money to losing players for recirculation on the site benefits the games, us, winning players, and the losing players.

What we sell is a service, if we spend $10,000 on Card player, radio or television ads, that only benefits players as it brings in new players. If we spend $10,000 subsidizing poor players (via a monthly rebate), that money may provide for more play on the site, increase game selection and become available for winning by the better players.

We likely will try this for a while.

(We do NOT care if a given player wins or loses or what the result is in a given hand, we provide an honest deal. We ARE indifferent as to who wins or loses and welcome players of all skill levels.)

Truepoker CEO

[ QUOTE ]
Truepoker openly subsidizes losing players in our Mocro-Limit games because we want them to try our software and spread the money around the site. The practice has been euphemistically referred to as feeding the fish. We think it may work out better than spending that same promotional money on general media buys or grilled cheese sanwiches.

We are not abandoning other direct-to-player promotions, such as our WSOP4Free series, freerolls for frequent players, and TruePoints convertible to cash.

We are not doing loss insurance for any sinister reason nor any altruistic reason. We want to see how allocating promotional money to losing players for recirculation on the site benefits the games, us, winning players, and the losing players.

What we sell is a service, if we spend $10,000 on Card player, radio or television ads, that only benefits players as it brings in new players. If we spend $10,000 subsidizing poor players (via a monthly rebate), that money may provide for more play on the site, increase game selection and become available for winning by the better players.

We likely will try this for a while.

(We do NOT care if a given player wins or loses or what the result is in a given hand, we provide an honest deal. We ARE indifferent as to who wins or loses and welcome players of all skill levels.)

Truepoker CEO

[/ QUOTE ]

At first I read this and I was indignant, then I realized that this is probably a pretty good business idea to try.

Let us know how it works!

[GrannyMae]

thank god.

i thought this week was going to be KOOK-free.

that would be no fun.


Best Wishes,

Granny




(btw, spend as much time on study as you did with the emails and posts and you will be headed in proper direction)

[KidPokerX]

What a silly thread.

[MasterShakes]

[ QUOTE ]

OK. Let's talk a bit more about these things.



[/ QUOTE ]

Good lord... could everyone please stop talking about these things?

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
you're right, let's just ignore the entire sensical, well thought out email that they were nice enough to send to a loon such as yourself and focus on the first sentences which you take issue with.

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously...that email response was fabulous on their part. I'm very impressed.