1/ I'm incredibly bored — so at the risk of sounding like a broken record on this topic and knowing most of y'all have heard this time and again, here's my quick overview of how I've approached the subject of pari-mutuel/pool and peer-to-peer game ecology management. https://twitter.com/Joeingram1/status/1291157413052153857

2/ Regardless of whether you're talking about poker, daily fantasy sports, racing pools, or betting exchanges, as an operator, you'll always have the conflict between players of different skills, your revenue, and the unit economics that impact marketing reinvestment & EBITDA.

3/ In its purest form, you have 3 parties interacting within the ecosystem: net depositors, net withdrawers, and your rake / take / hold as the operator. An operator's optimal game is evenly matched, highly engaging, w/ a hold % that's equal to the entertainment value.

4/ Players continue to compete in perpetuity until their deposits are transferred to the operator, and they re-deposit due to their love of the game.

5/ Problem with that is you're no longer in the realm of a skill game (or reality). So how can you address the inherent impacts of skill difference within your game w/out running the acquisition costs of a player (and CAPEX OPEX) higher than the revenue generated by that player?

6/ This GIF encapsulates my feelings towards whoever answers 'just ban all winning players.' As an operator, it's your job to create a game, platform, and business that's viable without bansticking those that show more skill at the game you've offered them.

7/ So what can be done? A few examples: game design (introduce variance; remove bumhunting), rake structures (invert the rake structure for time-dependent games like poker; long-tail payouts), education (decrease the skill-gap via learning), rewarding recreationals.

8/ At its core, the game operator's job is to create and manage an ecosystem wherein skill can still play a part, but the skill gap disparity isn't so significant that all newly acquired players are defeated so quickly you can't recoup at least your marketing acquisition costs.

9/ If it costs $100 to acquire a new player, they deposit $100, are stacked after $5 in attributable rake, and the remaining $95 is withdrawn from the system — that's an unsustainable business.

10/ Both the beauty and the drawback of these types of markets lies in the skill component. Those highly skilled often mistake their turnover as solely good, with an inherent claim to lower hold and/or higher loyalty return in exchange.

11/ That said, the highly skilled shouldn't be looked at as an absolute evil, either (unless they're cheating or breaking T&Cs). They play an essential part as the catalyst between money being put onto the platform and the revenue generation for the operator.

12/ But the higher the skill-gap differences and the more niche the liquidity pools, the more non-viable a gapped ecosystem becomes for the operator — ultimately affecting all parties involved. That's what I wished all players acutely understood.