I asked some serious questions in your last post on this topic
but never got any answers. I'll post them again below, thoughts?
- Is the problem really "winning players", or that winning players are more likely to have rakeback?
- If so, do the figures actually support that? In theory anyone (winner, loser or otherwise) can get rakeback.
- Isn't there a point beyond which a rakeback player who plays loads of hands generates more gross rake for the site than a rakebackless player who plays less?
- Isn't it true that there's a whole class of players (the "rakeback pros") who would lose money if it weren't for rakeback, and therefore probably just stop playing if they couldn't get it?
And some new ones based on this latest material:
- I suppose a losing player who stays on a site indefinitely spewing cash into the poker economy is the best kind of player for all parties: the site keeps making rake and the winning players have a loser to play against. But how many of these players actually exist? Surely there has to be an attrition rate where these losing players give up and decide to do something more fun with their time? Not everyone can be a whale and even whales wise up / run out of money eventually.
- Traditional business theory teaches us that it's a lot cheaper to keep an existing customer than it is to recruit a new one. Wouldn't a system like the one proposed do the reverse: drive away existing winning players with disincentives, meaning the operator has to spend more to constantly bring in new customers who may or may not be fish?