Quote:
3) your argument that:
“Winnings players as a rule generate far more rake then fish ever will. Usually fish are casual part time players where winning players spend many more hours a week playing generating many times the rake.”
Is a shallow thought penetration, and mistaken:
|
No, it's not shallow, it is what it is.
You have not proven in your essays that it makes sense for any pokerroom to favor the lousy/beginning players. The rake is the same, whether it's coming from a table of sharks or it's coming from the regular player. The amount the pokerroom makes is directly proportianate to the number of hands played. Period. The software doesn't give a rat's ass who has a better chance of playing at a table with Hellmuth.
Quote:
|
2) Who polices the reputable poker rooms? How can chating be discovered? How can it be proven? By many thousands of hands of extremely complicated statistical analysis? Who’s gonna do this? And even if it is proven that they cheat, will you hear it in the news? I hear it from the first time about Propoker and Pokertropolis.
|
And this is really your whole point. It's a pain in the ass to get proof, ergo the pokerroom is cheating?
In the bad old days, when a woman was accused of witchcraft, she was lowered into a river. If she floated, it was proof of witchcraft, and she was put to death. If she sank, she was not a witch and innocent of the charge....but she drowned.
It looks to me as if you're arguing that the lack of proof is the proof itself that pokerrooms cheat.
Your arguments are interesting, and well thought out...I'm just not buying them. If you are really looking for constructive and intelligent discourse on the subject, you might try to tone down the egotistical put-downs a bit.