Sharky: @lennukI respect your opinon but I dont shre the same one .
Would you mind to share why do you think staking effects poker in any way?
Any why playing under stakes diminishes players success and skillset?
How I see it is that nowdays poker is bussiness for many.
And at times it can be very stresfull and big burden.
So some ppl decide they want to enoy good side of their poker skills (winnings) at cost of share of their winnings, but when things get ugly they dont care much, couse its mostly backers burden to carry.
I deffo can see how its not everyones cup of tea, however its a free will of a person to choose how he wants to play and live.
That being said I totally fail to see how it can have negative effects on poker developemnt whatsoever ( assuming its honest and straightforward player) .
I agree its become a little more like a business and I agree it can be stressfull and a burden. But if its too much for you then maybe you`re in the wrong game ???
But its hard to sell X-buy in tournament with Z guaranteed to the winner when even a lot of recs know that the winner didnt win it all.
Hard to put pressure on other players when payjumps doesnt mean nothing to them cause its not their money. And if they lose its like " aa there was nothing i could do with the stacks etc" Similar goes to cashgames.
And the thing that a lot of people play better with stake money is unbelieavable ,your best game should be with your own money and then come others ,like the point of poker.
Yes it doesnt change poker ,game is a game ,but the things around it affect it a lot.
Bankroll and variance is a skillset.
And it literally diminishes players success cause im sorry but winning the main event and keeping 20% is is a lot more unsuccessful than winning the main event and keeping 100%.