The opposite of rake back

[Uglyowl]

The relative fishiness of Party is definately overrated.

The speed of the games is great, obviously game selection is great, but the fees are a little higher than most, but why not, they get away with it.

[Boltsfan1992]

[ QUOTE ]
"Also if you get rid of the sharks now, then the next level of players become the sharks. "

I've heard this and I am not behind it 100%

Here's why: If you remove the top 10% skill-wise now the difference between top and bottom is less, by > 10%. You're pulling the right tail off of a normal distribution curve which will contain all the really superior players. All that remain become 'more equal'

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless they are learning the game. If the top 10% of the players leave, then those at the 20% become the top player. They can learn the nuances of the game if the players apply themselves to it. They might figure, "What would happen if I added a table? Then another? Then another?"

Then, they figure that there are books about poker and they read them. The only difference here is that these players may not have a rake back deal in place to increase their profit. But they still play the same amount as the first top tier of players did before they left. Rake is generated for the house and Party poker benefits.

New players would have to still come in and learn the game, hopefully wagering money to do so.

I think there are different levels of a Tight Aggressive player in terms of skill, and if the best leave, the good become the best. It may be a better playing field for the weaker players initially, but in the long run, those that apply themselves will be in the top 10% of playing ability. The weaker players will have to adapt or win just enough to come back.

I hate to write this but I think those at the top now, are a smaller number than those in the middle and bottom. I don't think Party et al much cares about the top group because they know another group will play just as much later on.

On a side note, hijacking this thread a little...besides a possible rake back agreement, what advantage is it for the player to sign up with an affliate versus just downloading the software from the main site? When I started, that's what I did. I didn't know about any affliate business until I came here. From what I see, it's a winning deal for the company and the affliate, but what advantage does the player have (sans rakeback)?

PB

[poker-penguin]

[ QUOTE ]
Besides this, the fishyness of Party is vastly overrated. Many high volume players would earn as much on Prima and Crypto.

[/ QUOTE ]
SHHHHHH!

[Boltsfan1992]

[ QUOTE ]
The relative fishiness of Party is definately overrated.

The speed of the games is great, obviously game selection is great, but the fees are a little higher than most, but why not, they get away with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree with you here. The only reason I like playing Party Poker is for the large game selection that the smaller sites do not have. Novice players are everywhere and people like different brands for different reasons. One of my friends (she plays sng's on Pokerroom) hates Partypoker.com, but likes the cool graphics of Pokerroom instead.

Go figure.

PB

[poker-penguin]

[ QUOTE ]
The greediness of the rake and the extra 10% hold back as an admin fee on the bad beat tables is a tribute to it's greediness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Greed is good. Were you not around in the 80s?

For the record, I was 9.5 when the 80s finished, but I've seen Wall Street.

[OrianasDaad]

Any business will do the math, which you conviently ignore.

Your idea has some merit, but the math cannot support it.

I'm done explaining. Break out a calculator, my man.

[Jonny]

It would be impossible to win paying 4x rake. Hell, even paying twice the rake most could barely break even at 5/10.

Also, a business would never single out individuals. It goes against their terms and conditions.

Also, I've made way more money on paradise than party. Party isn't THAT fishy.

[StellarWind]

When Party successfully eliminates rakeback from all skins I will take my business elsewhere unless they provide some other discount for high volume players. No extra "encouragement" is necessary to make me leave. There is no reason I should play at the highest priced room in the industry. The games are good but not that good and the software is junk. Lots of sites can provide multitabling and I don't have to play at only one site.

FYI, check the archives. Pacific actually did something like this. Last December they closed their rewards program to high-volume winning players. Pacific is reputed to have the fishiest games in the industry and are unique among the major rooms for their anti-pro attitudes.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, a business would never single out individuals. It goes against their terms and conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]
As I said in my last post, Pacific Poker actually did exactly that. They made a list of winning players and disqualified them from their equivalent of Party points.

And yes, it did occur to me in passing that a site that attacked pros in that fashion might be capable of doing other things to reduce the profit of winning players. Trust is such a fragile thing.

[FlFishOn]

"FYI, check the archives. Pacific actually did something like this. Last December they closed their rewards program to high-volume winning players. Pacific is reputed to have the fishiest games in the industry and are unique among the major rooms for their anti-pro attitudes. "

That is worrisome. Someone saw the draining nature of regular winners, balanced it against their value and decided they weren't that damn valuable.

This judgement will likely spread. There's no hiding a winning game online. They know to the dollar how well you do and how much you cost the site. Not so in RL.