Very thoughtful post. This is a phenomenon that I have discussed with some other top-ranked players in the past, and as a beneficiary of this supposed chip inflation, let me offer some perspectives.
The wealth inequality that you have observed certainly could be caused by chip inflation. I also believe this to be the case. However, there is another plausible explanation, namely that such large gaps in bankrolls are a function of differences in skill that have manifested themselves as a result of volume of play rather than chip inflation. In reality, it probably is a combination of both.
To determine just how large of an impact chip inflation is having, we need hard data on the change in the aggregate number of chips within the Replay economy. “Wealth creation” on Replay comes in the form of login bonuses, tournament overlays, promotions and chip purchases. “Wealth destruction”, on the other hand, is mainly due to rake but also players that have stopped playing. (Like you noted, this was the case for myself as I have become relatively inactive.)
Both pieces of information are easily accessible to Replay staff. Thus, to confirm or deny the hypothesis, it suffices to plot the aggregate number of chips over time. If this variable is largely constant, it would be safe to say that income inequality is observed due to volume of play, since stronger players will end up with most of the chips over time.
To combat this problem, if it is indeed perceived to be one, I would prefer to act on both sides of the equation rather than simply increasing rake. I agree that rake at the highest ring games is absurdly low and warrants an increase, but a rake of 5% dramatically alters the nature of optimal play in NLHE, more so than you may appreciate:
-
Preflop strategy bifurcates, with increased 3-betting frequencies and decreased defense frequencies due to a “no flop no drop” policy. Opening ranges significantly narrow from all positions.
-
Postflop frequencies are now piecewise, with the kink existing at the cap. Before the cap, risk-reward calculations are distorted as the utility of a value bet is diminished by rake.
(Side note, this also means that I believe rake in lower ring games should be decreased, but that is not the point of this discussion, which is on chip inflation specifically.)
I would recommend that Replay staff take a look at the delta between chip creation and chip destruction and aim to close that gap via 1) increasing rake on ring games to a reasonable value AND 2) removing certain sources of chip creation. As a bit of an NLHE purist myself, I dislike sources of distortion to optimal play, hence I dislike exorbitant rake. By extension, this also means that I dislike promotions because they alter ICM pressures in a tournament, where some people are playing for the leaderboard or whatever, instead of playing poker as it is meant to be played.
One last thing that I would like to point out is that there is a possibility that higher rake will exacerbate this inequality, counterintuitive as it may seem. The effect of rake decreases everyone’s winrate by some BB/100. Most winners on this site are what I consider marginally profitable players, with a BB/100 in the low single digits. Rake will thus make these players’ bankrolls stagnate since they become breakeven players, leaving only a handful of elite players who have double digit BB/100’s before rake to be the only profitable players left on the site.
Just my 2 cents.