if your average player is 1-tabling, he's getting (maybe) 80 hands/hour. that same player at a rush table is getting 250 hands per hour. rush poker probably tripled their revenue. who knows how many times it multiplies their profits.
You lose some competitive advantage with the rush style, mainly in reading your opponents tendencies in betting patterns, hands played, etc., so win-rates don't scale entirely with hands/hour.
Edit as an ex midstakes amateur, frankly I speculate rush is unbeaatable after rake bc the nash equilibrium style is ez and widely known, good players have no edge, bot wet dream. Sent from mobile
That makes sense then - I completely misread what you were saying.
I only tried rush poker in passing once. By the time it came around, I had already been out of the online poker game (I pretty much gave it up after PartyPoker withdrew from the market), but if the tracking programs w/ heads-up displays still worked and you could get enough data on the people you were paired with, you could figure out people's pre-flop tendencies enough to probably squeak out an edge. Losing post-flop data hurts though, unless that data was still tracked even though you moved on after folding.
Fair, but from houses perspective they just don't care what happens above 1/2nlrake wise, high stakes is just marketing. I speculate. Kinda like how trump males his money from penny slots. Sent from mobile
(It also seemed rare to not have your credit card blocked for making deposits. So I wouldn't express it as a commonality.)
The industry has been lacking credibility for some time. Players have been pushing to get it regulated to avoid something like this from happening.