![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Majesty In An Empty Coke Can
Aug. 24th, 2006 08:24 amWhereas we refer to the "metagame", Aaron Brown in his most stimulating book "The Poker Face of Wall Street" refers to the "ecosystem". Obviously taking his inspiration from the concept of sharks and fishes (and plankton, and uber-sharks), Brown makes some interesting points that revolve mainly around how it's wrong to think in terms of "opponents".
I like the way Brown says things, partly because I agree with much of what he says and, even when I don't, the fact that both he and I spend a lot of time looking at the financial markets means that we inevitably look at things from the same starting point, even if our conclusions are different.
Brown's point about poker as an ecosystem is important, and he uses as an analogy the exchange of goods between a buyer and a seller. If you take this as a zero-sum operation, then there has to be a "winner" and a "loser". But, in the grand scheme of capitalism, you can both be winners. Simon Galloway's point that you might as well pay someone else to do the ironing (which you hate doing) if you can make the same amount back playing poker online in the same time, since you prefer playing poker online to ironing. Meanwhile, the person who does your ironing has also "won", because they hate poker, but quite like ironing.
Even when you pay for a "good" such as a car, you have not necessarily "lost" if you don't spend five hours bargaining to save a couple of hundred quid. The salesman might think you were a mug for not bargaining, but if your time is worth more than the money saved, then you have "won".
In this sense, the poker ecosystem is somewhat grander than zero sum, because if I am a bad poker player, but I enjoy playing poker with my friends, then a night of poker that costs me an average of twenty quid, whereas a night in the pub would have cost me forty quid, means that I have "won" twenty quid in the grand scheme of things.
Clearly, therefore, part of the process in keeping the ecosystem going is in keeping the losers happy about losing. The winners are, in other words, in the entertainment industry. Where they get the hump is that, unlike when you are a magician, you have to toss a coin which then says that, for tonight, you have either won five hundred or lost two hundred. It's hard to smile and be an entertainer when the other half of the transaction has not only had all the fun, but is also walking away with your money.
Brown focuses on the private game as an ecosystem, and here it's easier to see the plusses and minuses. Private games usually die eventually. That particular ecosystem runs its course. But this also got me thinking that the online poker arena is a much BIGGER ecosystem of poker. And it's the first of its kind. We haven't seen one before. In a metaphorical sense, all bets are off. For example, if I am in a private game and I am a winner, then it's obviously in my interest to keep the other participants in the game happy (even the other winners), because I want this ecosystem to survive. I don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, and that goose is not one particular loser, but the game as a whole.
But in the online world, there are hundreds of thousands of providers, and we reach a kind of prisoner's dilemma with other winners. It would be in our interests to only win enough that the "losers" (in a financial sense) are enjoying themselves enough to keep coming back (so that the losers feel that they are "winners" in terms of getting value for money). But if I play by these rules, whereas someone else plays by different rules (taking the guy for as much as possible in the shortest possible time), then the total gain between we two winners will be smaller, but the gain for the guy who breaks the rules will be greater.
In other words, in the grand ecosystem of online poker, there is no incentive to act for its long-term survival. Just hit the fish when they arrive for as much as you can.
What keeps the online ecosystem going, then? Well, we know the answer to that. It's the marketing of the online poker companies. Their contribution to "our" online ecosystem is along the lines of a man going out on the street with a sandwich board to recruit people to your private game, meaning that you don't need to worry about keeping the current players happy. There will always be someone else on the waiting list. We pay the man with the sandwich board a part of our winnings from the private game, because we need him to keep bringing in fresh blood.
It's partly for this reason that I resent Party less than I might. OK, they are trying to take more for themselves by moving people over to the casino and to backgammon, but they keep people coming in. Eventually, this new supply will fade drastically (see cod, New England) and the ecosystem will have to adapt to survive.
I like the way Brown says things, partly because I agree with much of what he says and, even when I don't, the fact that both he and I spend a lot of time looking at the financial markets means that we inevitably look at things from the same starting point, even if our conclusions are different.
Brown's point about poker as an ecosystem is important, and he uses as an analogy the exchange of goods between a buyer and a seller. If you take this as a zero-sum operation, then there has to be a "winner" and a "loser". But, in the grand scheme of capitalism, you can both be winners. Simon Galloway's point that you might as well pay someone else to do the ironing (which you hate doing) if you can make the same amount back playing poker online in the same time, since you prefer playing poker online to ironing. Meanwhile, the person who does your ironing has also "won", because they hate poker, but quite like ironing.
Even when you pay for a "good" such as a car, you have not necessarily "lost" if you don't spend five hours bargaining to save a couple of hundred quid. The salesman might think you were a mug for not bargaining, but if your time is worth more than the money saved, then you have "won".
In this sense, the poker ecosystem is somewhat grander than zero sum, because if I am a bad poker player, but I enjoy playing poker with my friends, then a night of poker that costs me an average of twenty quid, whereas a night in the pub would have cost me forty quid, means that I have "won" twenty quid in the grand scheme of things.
Clearly, therefore, part of the process in keeping the ecosystem going is in keeping the losers happy about losing. The winners are, in other words, in the entertainment industry. Where they get the hump is that, unlike when you are a magician, you have to toss a coin which then says that, for tonight, you have either won five hundred or lost two hundred. It's hard to smile and be an entertainer when the other half of the transaction has not only had all the fun, but is also walking away with your money.
Brown focuses on the private game as an ecosystem, and here it's easier to see the plusses and minuses. Private games usually die eventually. That particular ecosystem runs its course. But this also got me thinking that the online poker arena is a much BIGGER ecosystem of poker. And it's the first of its kind. We haven't seen one before. In a metaphorical sense, all bets are off. For example, if I am in a private game and I am a winner, then it's obviously in my interest to keep the other participants in the game happy (even the other winners), because I want this ecosystem to survive. I don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, and that goose is not one particular loser, but the game as a whole.
But in the online world, there are hundreds of thousands of providers, and we reach a kind of prisoner's dilemma with other winners. It would be in our interests to only win enough that the "losers" (in a financial sense) are enjoying themselves enough to keep coming back (so that the losers feel that they are "winners" in terms of getting value for money). But if I play by these rules, whereas someone else plays by different rules (taking the guy for as much as possible in the shortest possible time), then the total gain between we two winners will be smaller, but the gain for the guy who breaks the rules will be greater.
In other words, in the grand ecosystem of online poker, there is no incentive to act for its long-term survival. Just hit the fish when they arrive for as much as you can.
What keeps the online ecosystem going, then? Well, we know the answer to that. It's the marketing of the online poker companies. Their contribution to "our" online ecosystem is along the lines of a man going out on the street with a sandwich board to recruit people to your private game, meaning that you don't need to worry about keeping the current players happy. There will always be someone else on the waiting list. We pay the man with the sandwich board a part of our winnings from the private game, because we need him to keep bringing in fresh blood.
It's partly for this reason that I resent Party less than I might. OK, they are trying to take more for themselves by moving people over to the casino and to backgammon, but they keep people coming in. Eventually, this new supply will fade drastically (see cod, New England) and the ecosystem will have to adapt to survive.
