Poker writer Steve Ruddock, and others have written several articles defining the problems that come with online poker catering to regs. That's a good place to start.
Consider all of the threads on various forums with subjects like "Poker's Dead, Everyone is Solid," and "Where are the Fish?" These threads which bemoan the disappearance of recreational players mostly started well before Black Friday, indicating that the online game was already in trouble before the U.S. shutdown.
I'll have to look up the article. But poker can't be dead and although everyone is more solid now there are obviously still players that have a significant edge in the games they play. Maybe those players are working harder to refine their game as the fields are continuously changing and adapting?
Most recreational players just want to get good value and entertainment out of the money they deposit and if they deposit say $20 and lose it in a half hour and leave feeling let down it is less likely that they will deposit again.
To provide good entertainment value for the money spent so they will come back and deposit again is the challenge that online poker rooms face.
It is wrong to put the blame on the profitable players as seeing that is the carrot or dream that most new players are chasing.
By focussing promotional dollars on the rec players (net depositors) instead of the regs (net withdrawlers) , the rooms have a better chance of continued success as do the regs that rely on net depositors for their gains.
I'm all for focusing the promotions towards the rec players, we all want them around. But it's not just that, they're taking shots at winning players which seems counterproductive if you ask me.
Hypothetically if you removed all of the winning players and it was just the loosing recreational players from before what would happen? Correct me if I'm wrong in my thinking but it would be the exact same as what's happened over the past several years. The edges would get smaller, right? Obviously some recs are better than others and they then would be the winning players against the even worse recs but their edge just wouldn't be that large. Granted the worst of the recs probably wouldn't loose as fast as they might now. Those "winning players" would still make withdrawals and the losers would still deposit. The house would still only make money off of rake, which would be a fraction of what it could be without the real winning players.
I understand that we don't want the newest of the new to be discouraged to play but even the worst player can win a pot off of Ivey. Is that not enough of a chance? To what extent must they be catered to, there is a learning curve in EVERYTHING and when your new at something you mostly suck. If it was your first time playing blackjack
and your hitting on 18 when the dealer shows a 3 obviously you don't know what your doing and your going to loose at a large rate but you learn, get better and loose at less of a rate eventually. Is it the casino's job to teach you how to play as not to discourage you from coming back? Will the casino's deter you from placing large bets on 00 when playing roulette
? The fish will learn not to call an UTG raise with a6o and then call down under intense betting, the question is how long will it take and how much will it cost them. It's no ones responsibility to hold their hands and teach them.
I don't know for sure but it seems like they all wish poker was slots
or something. Either that or they just feel entitled to every cent ever deposited onto their sites and take it very personally any time some of it is withdrawn, which is unavoidable because someone always has an edge.. It's the cost of doing business.