Why Current Online Win Rates Won't Persist

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if I undertsand your logic, you're basically saying you only want to play against people in your own wealth bracket, and you don't think poor people should be allowed to play with rich people?


[/ QUOTE ]

I really can't understand where you got this from. It's not even remotely like anything the OP has written. Are you just making things up or did I miss something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think the point of this thread is something along the lines of a concern that when people in poor countries start playing online poker more, good players will be happy to play at lower limits because the profit at those levels will be high compared to what other jobs pay. And, that this will make it harder for the current players to make money, since there will be a worse player to fish ratio...

Then, the poster I replied to said:

[ QUOTE ]
I think it will be exported quickly, unless poker sites segregate the players. I'm hopeful, if the government ever legalizes and regulates the sites, that they require it to be US vs US only.. it even makes sense when one considers that it would limit capital drain from the usa.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, sorry for assuming too much in my post. Let me rephrase my question. The poster would like to limit play to US vs US players. One reason stated is to limit "capital drain from the usa." ... presumably capital moving from the usa to people in poor countries. So, the poster doesn't want to play online poker with people from foreign countries. I wanted to clarify if this was for pragmatic (profit) reasons, or if he thought the "capital" drain, or something, was a morally bad thing.

Also, limiting play to US vs US only would also exclude European countries, for example, which hasn't been the topic of this thread. So, is that something that this poster doesn't like too? (the non-american players currently in the internet pool).

Hope my question is clearer now...

[SomethingClever]

You forget one key point: Most people suck at poker, and always will.

[ QUOTE ]
You forget one key point: Most people suck at poker, and always will.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I didn't. I assumed profibility above the rake remained, just at lower magnitudes to to an influx of serious players (sharks) who found playing to be advantageous over their profesional career in a depressed economy. The same thing would happened if every winning USA player decided to play poker rather than have a job. The win rakes would fall like a rock. Luckily many winning players have a greater earnings potential at their real job. This is not the case in other countries.

USA wages are ridiculous compared to those in other countries playing poker should/will be a much more attractive career people in countries with high unemployment in low wages.

[scrapperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You forget one key point: Most people suck at poker, and always will.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I didn't. I assumed profibility above the rake remained, just at lower magnitudes to to an influx of serious players (sharks) who found playing to be advantageous over their profesional career in a depressed economy. The same thing would happened if every winning USA player decided to play poker rather than have a job. The win rakes would fall like a rock. Luckily many winning players have a greater earnings potential at their real job. This is not the case in other countries.

USA wages are ridiculous compared to those in other countries playing poker should/will be a much more attractive career people in countries with high unemployment in low wages.

[/ QUOTE ]

You act like being a winning poker player is like joining the army. You sign your name, take a physical, and get rolling. It does not work like that. Why do you think that 92% of the people lose?

[Innocentius]

[ QUOTE ]

You act like being a winning poker player is like joining the army. You sign your name, take a physical, and get rolling. It does not work like that. Why do you think that 92% of the people lose?

[/ QUOTE ]

This point has been made by a number of posters, and I think it's missing the OPs point completely. Let's assume that 8% of all players today are good enough to beat the games for at least a small amount. This doesn't mean that 92% of todays players are inherently incapable of becoming good poker players, or that if 100 dedicated and smart nigerians decide to try to make a living at poker, 92 of them will fail. Most of the playes today play recreationally, and don't bother much about improving their game, something that the 100 nigerians in my example would probably do.

That said, I don't agree with the OP that this is likely to happen, especially not anytime soon. The reasons for this (lacking funds, education, infrastructure, etc.) has already been elaborated by other posters.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You act like being a winning poker player is like joining the army. You sign your name, take a physical, and get rolling. It does not work like that. Why do you think that 92% of the people lose?

[/ QUOTE ]

This point has been made by a number of posters, and I think it's missing the OPs point completely. Let's assume that 8% of all players today are good enough to beat the games for at least a small amount. This doesn't mean that 92% of todays players are inherently incapable of becoming good poker players, or that if 100 dedicated and smart nigerians decide to try to make a living at poker, 92 of them will fail. Most of the playes today play recreationally, and don't bother much about improving their game, something that the 100 nigerians in my example would probably do.

That said, I don't agree with the OP that this is likely to happen, especially not anytime soon. The reasons for this (lacking funds, education, infrastructure, etc.) has already been elaborated by other posters.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the first paragraph.

There are plenty of educated underpaid (relative to usa standards) people in developing countries. These same individuals tend to have PC's and internet conections.

[mackthefork]

A 0.2 bb/100 player could easily loose even a 2000 bb roll, I would reckon third world players might tighten up the lower limits for a time, because what they can earn there at say 25/50c limit is plenty, this might create its own set of problems for higher limit pros in the west.

Mack

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
You forget one key point: Most people suck at poker, and always will.

[/ QUOTE ]

bingo

[gabyyyyy]

I don't buy the argument that the fish will eventually run out of money.

Tons of suckers go to vegas to play blackjack and slots every year and lose. Yet they go back year after year.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy the argument that the fish will eventually run out of money.

Tons of suckers go to vegas to play blackjack and slots every year and lose. Yet they go back year after year.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said they would. I said that, in effect, the number of sharks would increase to a point where the distribution of the fishes money is no longer attractive for the next shark to start playing. This level will be set based on what the lowest shark requires, given the pay differential the shark from the developing countrie will have the lowest requirements. Hence, they replace the USA pro.. or the USA pro accepts lower wages.