Question: Why does everyone get so upset about 'The Juice' In tourney?

[CincyLady]

I have to ask this, as I hear ppl get upset about this a lot, and have read in many threads, how some get really torked when they feel that too much 'juice' is being charged for a tourney.

I mean if you pay 100 bucks for a tourney, cash for anything above that, are you not making money? IMO, its like if you buy a lotto ticket for a buck, and win 1k, that's still more in a day than you'd make at most day jobs.

I've been a sweepstaker now for 35 years (since I was 14), and I've heard the same kind of comments from ppl about taxes. I've never understood it, because you are still making money. I like it (as a sweepstaker or a lotto player), when I have to pay taxes, because that means I won money, and all for either a buck (for the lottery), or the price of a stamp, envelope, and 3x5 paper or card.

Casino's and poker tour directors/companies are in it to make money, and I don't think we would do it for free (or for next to free), so why should they?

Can anyone explain it to me what the issue is why ppl get so upset about events that charge high 'juice' for them, when if you cash, many times you'll make more in a few days than you would in your day job?

[gobboboy]

If there is a poker tournament with a $1000 entry fee and $1000 rake, no one can win in the long run. Just because you cash once for a big amount does not mean you can profitably over the long run win a big amount playing those tournaments. The pros are the ones who complain about high rake, and that's because over the long run a 10% increase in rake is a ton of money out of their pocket.

[shaundeeb]

what's a sweepstaker?

[gobboboy]

[ QUOTE ]
what's a sweepstaker?

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone who failed statistics.

[JP OSU]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what's a sweepstaker?

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone who failed statistics.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/heart.gif

[tippy]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to ask this, as I hear ppl get upset about this a lot, and have read in many threads, how some get really torked when they feel that too much 'juice' is being charged for a tourney.

I mean if you pay 100 bucks for a tourney, cash for anything above that, are you not making money? IMO, its like if you buy a lotto ticket for a buck, and win 1k, that's still more in a day than you'd make at most day jobs.

I've been a sweepstaker now for 35 years (since I was 14), and I've heard the same kind of comments from ppl about taxes. I've never understood it, because you are still making money. I like it (as a sweepstaker or a lotto player), when I have to pay taxes, because that means I won money, and all for either a buck (for the lottery), or the price of a stamp, envelope, and 3x5 paper or card.

Casino's and poker tour directors/companies are in it to make money, and I don't think we would do it for free (or for next to free), so why should they?

Can anyone explain it to me what the issue is why ppl get so upset about events that charge high 'juice' for them, when if you cash, many times you'll make more in a few days than you would in your day job?

[/ QUOTE ]


Even more annoying is when you cash just inside the bubble, make enough to cover your entry fee, tourney juice, tips for the waitresses, and maybe a burger for lunch AND THEN THEY SET THE DEALER TIP BOX IN FRONT OF YOU and ask if you would like to leave even more juice for the dealers...

**** them. You know what, that 20% juice the casino took basically means that the casino finished the tourney in second place. Why don't THEY leave some "juice" for the dealers?

[AngusThermopyle]

Spoken like a TD or owner of a casino.

Or like a carny who expects the mark to get all excited over a $1.97 stuffed toy that cost the mark $15 in tickets to 'win'.

[CincyLady]

If you've ever walked into a store or something and they had a drop in box to win a trip, car or cash, that's sweepstaking.

Taking it one step farther as a hobby, there are newsletters out there, that print the current sweepstakes that are running.

For the small price of a stamp, an envelope, and in most cases, a 3" x 5" piece of paper or card with your details on it (name, address, phone number), you can win some really big prizes.

In fact, there are several companies out there that in the last few years, have awarded seats (with airfare and hotel) to the WPT or the WSOP ME's (Hersheys is one of them).

This here is a simplistic explination of it (why advertisers run them):

[ QUOTE ]

It's a form of advertising all sponsors use to "get the consumers attention"! Anything to get you to buy that product or remember the sponsor's name.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is in a nutshell, just another form of gambling. If you'd like to find out more, just do a search of the internet under:

Sweepstaking Hobby

For the record, I've made some good money, and won some really great prizes sweepstaking. One person I know has won 3 cars in the last 5 years.

Now, back to the topic at hand here.

I know of no casino that takes a 100 percent rake, anywhere.

Thus, if you spend 100, cash for 100, didn't you just double your money? Why does it matter what the house takes, if you doubled your money (or made even more than double your money)?

[Todd Terry]

People love to complain when the price of anything rises. They complain the most when they are still willing to pay the higher price, that is, when the setter of the price realizes there's more money to be made by setting a higher price. Examples: gasoline, tickets to sporting events and concerts, the biggest and most lucrative live poker tournaments of the year at the WSOP.

[gobboboy]

This thinking makes no sense and is incredibly results oriented. If I have an roi at tournaments of 100% over a ton of results (say 1000 or so) and expect to double my investment in every tournament I play, the rake plays a huge effect on how much money I win.

If a tournament is 80+20 and I spend $100 to get in and double that, I would be cashing for $200. If the buyin is $60+40 it's suddenly a LOT harder to cash for the same $200. The amount of the money in the prize pool is crippled and your roi and overall profit are crippled.

If I win some random tournament and win 100 buyins, whoopee, but I would never play a tournament I thought to be -EV from the outset. The amount of rake the WSOP charges is completely absurd but they do it because they know the fish don't care and the pros are there because the games are ridiculously soft. It does NOT cost them $2k a head to run the freaking $50k horse event.

[MJBuddy]

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, if you spend 100, cash for 100, didn't you just double your money? Why does it matter what the house takes, if you doubled your money (or made even more than double your money)?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you pay 100 and win 100, you've broken even.

But the real meat is that if you pay 100+10 vs paying 100+15. You pay 115 and get the same prize pool as the 110 MTT.

[Alex Jacob]

[ QUOTE ]
If you've ever walked into a store or something and they had a drop in box to win a trip, car or cash, that's sweepstaking...

For the small price of a stamp, an envelope, and in most cases, a 3" x 5" piece of paper or card with your details on it (name, address, phone number), you can win some really big prizes.

It is in a nutshell, just another form of gambling.


[/ QUOTE ]

this comparison is a little insulting. did you think this through at all? how many people have gone broke from losing too many postage stamps?

[Ray Zee]

the more the rakeoff the less amount is returned to the players. as that rakeoff dissapears from the total pool of players and new players money, the games and tournaments must suffer. suffer from less entrants. less poor players entering. and less total money left to be won by the field of poker players in general.

it has happened a few times in the past where the games got very tough and smaller. but when poker expanded in california the money got a boost. then the internet and tv shot it up again. expect to see the downturn in money someday in the future. with it the marginal players that havent improved their game going broke.

[skoldpadda]

Go rent the movie "The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio" to see what a sweepstaker is.

[Bonified]

How many tournaments have you played in the last year ? Or ever ?

How much less money would you have right now if they had been raked an extra $5 each time ?

Does the fact that when you cashed, you made many times your buyin change this in any way whatsoever ?

[Todd Terry]

The more the rake, the lower your ROI. If the rake were 0, your ROI would also be 0, since there would be no tournaments. If the casino which ran the WSOP charging a lower rake went bankrupt (which of course actually happened), your ROI for the WSOP would be 0. I happen to believe that the amount of the rake should be set by the market forces of supply and demand. Direct costs of the host of the tournament go into the equation, as do other things such as how much players are willing to pay, and the opportunity costs to the host casino from the diversion of resources from other extremely profitable activities.

I've never heard any public complaints about the rake charged by Internet sites, but the ratio of rake/cost has to be way, way higher for any Internet tournament than it is for any live tourney. The costs of airfare, hotel rooms and meals each have a greater effect than rake on the ROI of a live tournament player, but no one complains about them.

While there probably is a point at which the rake would be too high to play extremely profitably, we are nowhere near that point, and I can't imagine we'll ever get there. Right now, there's a huge amount of money being made in the poker business by everyone. Winning players are getting a huge chunk of it, and really can't be heard to complain. The ROI of top players is still pretty high compared to the ROI from pretty much any other investment or activity in America.

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]

How many tournaments have you played in the last year ? Or ever ?

How much less money would you have right now if they had been raked an extra $5 each time ?


[/ QUOTE ]

if the extra $5 rake was just taking $5 away from the prize pool for everyone then the question of "how much less money would you have right now?" is entirely dependent on her results.

[Bonified]

Yeah, I realised that after I posted it. For the purposes of the question, assume that, for example, $300+30 becomes $300+35 with the $300 still going into the prize pool.

Of course, if the $5 does come out of the pool, you'll still have less money, but, er, let's try to keep this as simple as possible ...

[Bonified]

[ QUOTE ]
but the ratio of rake/cost has to be way, way higher for any Internet tournament than it is for any live tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's true Todd. There are plenty of small live tournaments out there raking 18-20% when you add everything up. And that's not even including the CEO poker tour :-).

8-10% is standard online, with the sole exception that I can think of, $5+1 SNGs.

[Todd Terry]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I realised that after I posted it. For the purposes of the question, assume that, for example, $300+30 becomes $300+35 with the $300 still going into the prize pool.

Of course, if the $5 does come out of the pool, you'll still have less money, but, er, let's try to keep this as simple as possible ...

[/ QUOTE ]

We're talking live, right? Around $500? Which I think is what the typical poker pro spends on a bottle of champagne at a club.

[Zetack]

Suppose you enter twenty $100 + 10 tournaments and you cash five times for:

120
120
210
320
1500

Your cost to enter the tournaments was 2200 dollars and you won 2270. Who-hoo, you're in the black.

Suppose instead that the tournaments were 100 + 20. Now you have the same prize pools and the same cashes and you win the same 2270, but it now cost you 2400 to enter. Boo-hoo, now you're in the red.

Ok, suppose the 1500 cash were actually now a 15k cash. I suppose your point is that, having made so much money, you don't care about the extra 200 dollars in entry fees. Fair enough, I suppose, but everybody else's point is that, huge cashes are few and far between, and over the long term, extra juice can really eat into your returns.

Think of it this way, suppose you only entered one tournament, and you didn't cash, would you rather be out 110 bucks or 120 bucks?

You can do the same type of calculation with juice taken out instead of added on, the effect is the same: i.e. suppose you entered a tourney with a hundred dollar entry fee with 10 percent taken out vrs 20% taken out. Although in this case the size of the entry doesn't vary, the size of prize pool goes does, with the same type of effect on your results. With less less money in the prize pool, either fewer places get paid out or less money goes to the players that do get paid out. The higher the juice, the bigger the effect on your results (assuming you do occaissionally cash, of course).

--Zetack

EDIT:

Think of it another way. Suppose instead this were a juiceless lottery. 100 players get together and put 100 dollars in the prize pool and they draw lots to see who wins it (perhaps there are multiple places, whatever) But all the money gets paid out. If you participated in this enough times you would expect to break exactly even.

However, suppose the organizer took 10% out to pay for his time and effort to run this lottery -- now you expect to lose money playing this lottery over time. The more the organizer takes out, the more you expect to lose, over time.

In poker, of course, its not a lottery, you, as a good player, expect to have an edge over the field so you expect to make money, not break even. If your edge is large enough, you can make money even if the organizer takes money out. But in poker your edge over the field is relatively small, so the more the organizer takes out the harder it is to have a positive expectation and the smaller your positive expectation is, i.e. the less money you expect to make. If the organizer takes out more than your corresponding edge over the field, you are like the guy in the lottery, over time you will expect to lose money.

[CincyLady]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thus, if you spend 100, cash for 100, didn't you just double your money? Why does it matter what the house takes, if you doubled your money (or made even more than double your money)?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you pay 100 and win 100, you've broken even.

But the real meat is that if you pay 100+10 vs paying 100+15. You pay 115 and get the same prize pool as the 110 MTT.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I worded that wrong, what I meant by Cash 100, is that you made 100 more than your buyin was.

I'm still kind of new to poker (less than 5 years now), so I'm just getting to the point in my playing, where I am looking at these kinds of things. Because before, I pretty much played just for the entertainment of it.

Of late, I'm taking things a lot more seriously, hence why I started this thread.

[CincyLady]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you've ever walked into a store or something and they had a drop in box to win a trip, car or cash, that's sweepstaking...

For the small price of a stamp, an envelope, and in most cases, a 3" x 5" piece of paper or card with your details on it (name, address, phone number), you can win some really big prizes.

It is in a nutshell, just another form of gambling.


[/ QUOTE ]

this comparison is a little insulting. did you think this through at all? how many people have gone broke from losing too many postage stamps?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I did think it through, as it is the most common place way ppl have experienced what a sweepstakes is.

Yes, I'm sure just like in other forms of gambling (which sweepstaking in it's purest form really is), there is a small percentange who've taken it too far, and spend too much on stamps and such.

However, for the vast majority of us, its not a problem and it's fun (just like playing the slots are for some, playing poker is for others, and playing the lottery is for others is too).

[ QUOTE ]


Go rent the movie "The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio" to see what a sweepstaker is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, she was a contestor (which requires a skill of some kind, aka solving a puzzle, writing a jingle, and many times requires you purchase the company product who's running it, in order to enter the promotion), not a sweepstaker (which is based on purely luck, because it's drawing based, and where it's against federal law for the sponsor to require you to buy their product to enter), but the principal is the same when it comes to being able to get a lot of prizes, just for entering.

[ QUOTE ]
How many tournaments have you played in the last year ? Or ever ?

How much less money would you have right now if they had been raked an extra $5 each time ?

Does the fact that when you cashed, you made many times your buyin change this in any way whatsoever ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've played in a lot of tourneys, cashed in a lot too (biggest cash was 10 grand in a Reeses Charity event in Ohio).

For the most part however, I've only recently been taking playing for a profit seriously. Prior to that it was mostly entertainment for me, so I enjoyed what ever wins I got.

That's changing for me, so hence why I asked the question about what the big deal was for high juice events, if you still made a profit (a profit bigger than the wages one would get in one's day job (and I make good money too at my day job I might add)) playing in them.

[CincyLady]

Zack, yours is the best explanation yet. I had never thought of it in that mannor. Now it all makes sense, and I get it now why it's not good if some events charge too much juice, because it eats into your long term profits.

Thank you for explaining it that way. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cry Me A River]

When you go to the store, would you rather buy a quart of milk for $1 or for $5? They are the exact same quart of milk.

When you go play in a tournament, would you rather pay the casino $20 to host it or $50?

Do you like giving money away?

[Bonified]

[ QUOTE ]
I've played in a lot of tourneys, cashed in a lot too (biggest cash was 10 grand in a Reeses Charity event in Ohio).


[/ QUOTE ]

Cincy, you're a little sensitive sometimes. I wasn't in any way questioning your experience or record. I was just trying to get you to see how extra rake adds up over time. Zack did it better than me though, so no problems.

[Nicok7]

How did this post get many intelligent responses so far?

[RoundTower]

what if you were in sweepstakes to make money, but the price of postage stamps went up from $0.50 to $25? It's still pretty sweet when you win a car.

[Todd Terry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but the ratio of rake/cost has to be way, way higher for any Internet tournament than it is for any live tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's true Todd. There are plenty of small live tournaments out there raking 18-20% when you add everything up. And that's not even including the CEO poker tour :-).

8-10% is standard online, with the sole exception that I can think of, $5+1 SNGs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was a bit unclear in my post. I meant the ratio of rake/cost to the casino, not the ratio of rake/buy-in. The marginal cost of hosting a tournament to the online sites is virtually zero, the average fixed cost isn't much higher. As opposed to casinos, who always have the costs of dealers, floorpeople, cashiers, cards, etc. If some multiple of the cost to the provider of the tournament is how the rake should be determined, then the online sites are raking us over the coals.

[rwesty]

If you play 1,000 $200+20 tournaments and cash for $300,000. You will profit $80,000. If these tourneys had been $200+10 you would have profited $90,000.

You don't notice it right away because the amount you profit is only $10 different than what it would have been. But in the long run it makes a huge difference.

[Bonified]

[ QUOTE ]
I was a bit unclear in my post. I meant the ratio of rake/cost to the casino, not the ratio of rake/buy-in. The marginal cost of hosting a tournament to the online sites is virtually zero, the average fixed cost isn't much higher. As opposed to casinos, who always have the costs of dealers, floorpeople, cashiers, cards, etc. If some multiple of the cost to the provider of the tournament is how the rake should be determined, then the online sites are raking us over the coals.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. In that case, understood and agreed.

[Synergistic Explosions]

Catfish love smelly bait.

[DesertCat]

Everyone gets upset about "The Juice" in tournament poker because they think he will be bad for the game because he was convicted of murder (in a civil court). But I think if he shows up at my tournament his notoriety would just attract more fish, so wouldn't he be good for tournament poker?

Unless of course he decapitates someone after they give him a bad beat, which probably would be bad for tournament poker. But not necessarily, if it's one of those fish who call big raises with 75o, like Negreaneu, didn't they really deserve it?

[ibluffoldladies]

You must get a lot of junk mail huh Cincylady.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone gets upset about "The Juice" in tournament poker because they think he will be bad for the game because he was convicted of murder (in a civil court). But I think if he shows up at my tournament his notoriety would just attract more fish, so wouldn't he be good for tournament poker?

Unless of course he decapitates someone after they give him a bad beat, which probably would be bad for tournament poker. But not necessarily, if it's one of those fish who call big raises with 75o, like Negreaneu, didn't they really deserve it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not the most educational reply, but definitely the most entertaining. NH. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[CincyLady]

[ QUOTE ]
You must get a lot of junk mail huh Cincylady.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean for sweepstakes, no, I don't, because for the most part, I seldom do onlines (and when I do, I have a special e-mail addy for them that I use), and the snail mail ones, they don't want to spend that kind of money to send me stuff.

One things for sure, when friends and family get something in the mail or are telemarketed for something where supposedly they won a 'prize' guess who is the first person they call?

Yep, me. Most time those kinds of things are scams, and I can spot them a mile away simply because I know sweepstakes law and so on.

Ever wonder why the Casinos when they have drawings, give you the first one for free? It's not out of the goodness of their hearts.

It's because its the law that when a drawing is held, they (the sponsor) can not require you to purchase anything from them, in order for you to be able to enter a drawing.

If say they required you (the casinos) to get x amount of points on your players card in order to get your first entry, then they'd be in violation of the law, because in effect, you'd have to make a 'purchase' (aka pay some money to play the slots or table games) to enter.

There are even some states, where the state requires you to put up a bond if you are a sponsor, in the amount of the prize value in order to run that promotion in that state (Florida and NY). Hence why you sometimes see on a drawing, Void in FL and NY, because the sponsor doesn't want to post that bond with those states.

California doesn't allow for liquor sweeps, hence why when Miller light recently ran a promotion giving away seats to a WPT event, it was void in California, and anywhere else where liquor sweeps are not allowed.

I've won some very nice prizes over the years, and I hope to win more in the years to come (like a seat to the WSOP or something).

Did you know that recently Blue Diamond Nuts, was giving away a seat to the WPT? I was entering that one every day, and while I didn't win it, someone did (I sure wish I had been that someone, but heck, maybe next time).

Thus, if you search the internet, you can find sweepstakes that give away seats to the WPT and WSOP Main events, if you wanted to take the time to find them, and all it costs you is a few stamps, or in the case of those you can enter online, a few moments of your time.

[jaydub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You must get a lot of junk mail huh Cincylady.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean for sweepstakes, no, I don't, because for the most part, I seldom do onlines (and when I do, I have a special e-mail addy for them that I use), and the snail mail ones, they don't want to spend that kind of money to send me stuff.


[/ QUOTE ]

Until this post I figured you were old and naive, now my vote goes to young and oblivious.

[ QUOTE ]

One things for sure, when friends and family get something in the mail or are telemarketed for something where supposedly they won a 'prize' guess who is the first person they call?


[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully not the same person they call for advice on real life problems that require critical thinking.

Just an awful, trolling OP (even by WSOP standards).

J

[CincyLady]

Jay,

I suspect you have your hobbies, and this one is one of mine. I'm sure there are hobbies that are more wierd than mine, and some that are less as well.

For the record, I'm almost 49yrs of age, and far from naive, and it's not any worse than playing the slots, or the lottery.

I have been sweepstaking for almost 35 years now, but have only been playing poker for 4 years, and only in the last 6 months or so, have started to take it (poker) more seriously. Something to potentially make money with, instead of just for fun, hence my reason for asking the question in the first place.

BTW, I like the name Jay, it's my (grown) son's name as well. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Spook]

[ QUOTE ]
what if you were in sweepstakes to make money, but the price of postage stamps went up from $0.50 to $25? It's still pretty sweet when you win a car.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a really bad example.

Would you play in a 100+500 if there was an overlay larger than the juice?

[ICallHimGamblor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You must get a lot of junk mail huh Cincylady.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean for sweepstakes, no, I don't, because for the most part, I seldom do onlines (and when I do, I have a special e-mail addy for them that I use), and the snail mail ones, they don't want to spend that kind of money to send me stuff.


[/ QUOTE ]

Until this post I figured you were old and naive, now my vote goes to young and oblivious.


[/ QUOTE ]

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g16/grasshopp3r/IMG_0001.jpg

[The Hag]

[ QUOTE ]
How did this post get many intelligent responses so far?

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more, I don't know why people are entertaining such a ridiculous question.

[CincyLady]

It's only ridiculous to someone who's been playing (seriously) a long time. There are some of us (namely me), who have not been, and wanted to know what the big deal was. Now after this, I understand why.

[JP OSU]

[ QUOTE ]
It's only ridiculous to someone who's been playing (seriously) a long time. There are some of us (namely me), who have not been, and wanted to know what the big deal was. Now after this, I understand why.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's just common sense, how could someone not get that paying the casino more money means that you will get back less?

[CincyLady]

Think of it this way, if someone is looking at playing cards the same as playing the slot machines (for entertainment value), then its not something that I had really considered in the past.

I figured if I ever got anything over and above my buy in, I was a winner, and I never (until now) looked at it any further than that.

[RarocASP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what's a sweepstaker?

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone who failed statistics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I LOLed!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How did this post get many intelligent responses so far?

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more, I don't know why people are entertaining such a ridiculous question.

[/ QUOTE ]

[jogsxyz]

You claim you've been playing for 35 years. Do you know why casinos started running tournaments?

[CincyLady]

[ QUOTE ]
You claim you've been playing for 35 years. Do you know why casinos started running tournaments?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest you go back and re-read. I said I've been sweepstaking for 35 years. I've only been playing poker for 4 years.

[PhilHelmet]

[ QUOTE ]


Thus, if you spend 100, cash for 100, didn't you just double your money? Why does it matter what the house takes, if you doubled your money (or made even more than double your money)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't you rather get back 120, 150 or even 200 instead of that 100?

Man, this is a stupid thread /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[JooWish622]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to ask this, as I hear ppl get upset about this a lot, and have read in many threads, how some get really torked when they feel that too much 'juice' is being charged for a tourney.

I mean if you pay 100 bucks for a tourney, cash for anything above that, are you not making money? IMO, its like if you buy a lotto ticket for a buck, and win 1k, that's still more in a day than you'd make at most day jobs.

I've been a sweepstaker now for 35 years (since I was 14), and I've heard the same kind of comments from ppl about taxes. I've never understood it, because you are still making money. I like it (as a sweepstaker or a lotto player), when I have to pay taxes, because that means I won money, and all for either a buck (for the lottery), or the price of a stamp, envelope, and 3x5 paper or card.

Casino's and poker tour directors/companies are in it to make money, and I don't think we would do it for free (or for next to free), so why should they?

Can anyone explain it to me what the issue is why ppl get so upset about events that charge high 'juice' for them, when if you cash, many times you'll make more in a few days than you would in your day job?

[/ QUOTE ]

your words "still making money" as justification for high juice is retarded and suggests you don't understand basic math.

[JooWish622]

"For the most part however, I've only recently been taking playing for a profit seriously. Prior to that it was mostly entertainment for me, so I enjoyed what ever wins I got.

That's changing for me, so hence why I asked the question about what the big deal was for high juice events, if you still made a profit (a profit bigger than the wages one would get in one's day job (and I make good money too at my day job I might add)) playing in them. "

god woman, just think about it in long-run or basic ev calculations.

are you from the midwest?

[JooWish622]

[ QUOTE ]
Think of it this way, if someone is looking at playing cards the same as playing the slot machines (for entertainment value), then its not something that I had really considered in the past.

I figured if I ever got anything over and above my buy in, I was a winner, and I never (until now) looked at it any further than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

my 12 year old cousin laughed at this.

[CincyLady]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Suppose you enter twenty $100 + 10 tournaments and you cash five times for:

120
120
210
320
1500

Your cost to enter the tournaments was 2200 dollars and you won 2270. Who-hoo, you're in the black.

Suppose instead that the tournaments were 100 + 20. Now you have the same prize pools and the same cashes and you win the same 2270, but it now cost you 2400 to enter. Boo-hoo, now you're in the red.

Ok, suppose the 1500 cash were actually now a 15k cash. I suppose your point is that, having made so much money, you don't care about the extra 200 dollars in entry fees. Fair enough, I suppose, but everybody else's point is that, huge cashes are few and far between, and over the long term, extra juice can really eat into your returns.

Think of it this way, suppose you only entered one tournament, and you didn't cash, would you rather be out 110 bucks or 120 bucks?

You can do the same type of calculation with juice taken out instead of added on, the effect is the same: i.e. suppose you entered a tourney with a hundred dollar entry fee with 10 percent taken out vrs 20% taken out. Although in this case the size of the entry doesn't vary, the size of prize pool goes does, with the same type of effect on your results. With less less money in the prize pool, either fewer places get paid out or less money goes to the players that do get paid out. The higher the juice, the bigger the effect on your results (assuming you do occaissionally cash, of course).

--Zetack

EDIT:

Think of it another way. Suppose instead this were a juiceless lottery. 100 players get together and put 100 dollars in the prize pool and they draw lots to see who wins it (perhaps there are multiple places, whatever) But all the money gets paid out. If you participated in this enough times you would expect to break exactly even.

However, suppose the organizer took 10% out to pay for his time and effort to run this lottery -- now you expect to lose money playing this lottery over time. The more the organizer takes out, the more you expect to lose, over time.

In poker, of course, its not a lottery, you, as a good player, expect to have an edge over the field so you expect to make money, not break even. If your edge is large enough, you can make money even if the organizer takes money out. But in poker your edge over the field is relatively small, so the more the organizer takes out the harder it is to have a positive expectation and the smaller your positive expectation is, i.e. the less money you expect to make. If the organizer takes out more than your corresponding edge over the field, you are like the guy in the lottery, over time you will expect to lose money.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Zetack, yours is the best explanation yet. I had never thought of it in that mannor. Now it all makes sense, and I get it now why it's not good if some events charge too much juice, because it eats into your long term profits.

Thank you for explaining it that way. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the fact, that 2 or 3 pages ago, after Zetack explained it, I said I got it, hmm?

Anything after that, is beating a dead horse.

Unlike the many of you 'perfect poker players', I didn't come out of the womb knowing everything there is about poker, and unlike the many of you, I didn't play perfect poker (and for that matter, if I'm honest about it, I still don't play perfect poker, and I never will, because I'm human, and humans make mistakes) and understand everything about poker from day one, unlike it seems, many of you, I make mistakes as I learn more about poker (and I'm not done making mistakes either, I'm sure there are more to come as I continue to learn and perfect my game).

It never ceases to amaze me how much poker players, who've been playing a lot longer than I have, forget what it was like when they were first learning how to play, and are quick to run someone else down, for making many of the same mistakes they made, when they themselves were new to playing poker.

I already have said that before Zetack;s wonderful description (thank you Zetack), until only just recently I had only been playing for fun, and as such, I basically was looking only at the short term results/profits, instead of how high juice can affect ones long term profits.

I obviously asked the question, since it was a new concept to me, and Zetack graciously explained it to me (as well as to anyone else who might of been wondering, but didn't ask because they didn't want to be attacked for asking).

In any case, I got it a few pages back, and now understand why if a player is playing for profit instead of just for fun, that high juice can impact your long term profits.

I can only hope, that in time, I can attain the 'pefection' of all the perfect players here (who's [censored] don't stink, well, at least in their own minds that is), who never make mistakes, ask all the right questions, at all the right times, worded perfectly, and who came out of their mother's wombs knowing how to play perfect poker. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
I can only hope, that in time, I can attain the 'pefection' of all the perfect players here (who's [censored] don't stink, well, at least in their own minds that is), who never make mistakes, ask all the right questions, at all the right times, worded perfectly, and who came out of their mother's wombs knowing how to play perfect poker. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been following this thread Cincy and thinking the problem with the majority of posters in this thread is that it's only been about 15 years since they came out of the womb as perfect poker players. Zetack of course is one of several exceptions. Once he replied there didn't seem a reason for anyone to reply except to show their class, or lack thereof.

[Nicok7]

This is not the beginner's forum, hence beginners questions should not be asked/answered in here.

Also OP sounded like a troll whose purpose is to have fun by asking candid questions on an internet forum. Why would anyone find this entertaining I don't know but fact is trolls are a common thing on the internet.

If you think that's a lack of class on my part to ask people to dismiss such threads in the future then I am sorry, but I think this would be better for everyone sanity. OP is welcome to ask such things in the beginner's forum.

No I will leave this thread before "The Juice" comes back and decapitates me.

[CincyLady]

Nick, Point taken, I guess I didn't consider myself to be a beginner (more like someone who is in many areas, an intermediate player), but in this area, I guess I kind of am a beginner.

So, I guess you are right, this was indeed kind of a beginner type question, and in the future, I will ask such questions in that forum instead.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not the beginner's forum, hence beginners questions should not be asked/answered in here.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's reasonable. And a reasonable response might have been for a mod to move the thread to the beginner's forum. That happens all the time in other forums when the mod feels it is appropriate (including forums moderated by some of the same people who moderate here). Apparently they didn't feel the question was inappropriate for here.

[ QUOTE ]
Also OP sounded like a troll whose purpose is to have fun by asking candid questions on an internet forum. Why would anyone find this entertaining I don't know but fact is trolls are a common thing on the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can even see someone unfamiliar with OP's posting history in this forum having this impression initially. However it was obvious from OP's responses that this wasn't her intent. If she's a troll then she isn't very good at it. Once the question received a serious answer and OP pretty much said "of course, I should have realized that" then piling on seemed childish to me. That was the point of my comments. Now I'm done too. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

If you think that's a lack of class on my part to ask people to dismiss such threads in the future then I am sorry, but I think this would be better for everyone sanity. OP is welcome to ask such things in the beginner's forum.

No I will leave this thread before "The Juice" comes back and decapitates me.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, back to the topic at hand here.

I know of no casino that takes a 100 percent rake, anywhere.

Thus, if you spend 100, cash for 100, didn't you just double your money? Why does it matter what the house takes, if you doubled your money (or made even more than double your money)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't even know what to say here....

Imagine that at your job you make $60K/year. Now imagine that your boss announces you're making $5K less next year with no reasonable explanation. Do you just say "Oh well, I'm getting $55k so I can't really complain"?

Money is being taken from us by these higher rakes, and is some cases they are absurdly high. Why should we be okay with that just because we're earning money with our wins?

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
If the rake were 0, your ROI would also be 0, since there would be no tournaments. If the casino which ran the WSOP charging a lower rake went bankrupt (which of course actually happened), your ROI for the WSOP would be 0.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone somewhere would find a way to host it even if they weren't profitting off of it. Poker is simply too big for the WSOP to just stop happening.


[ QUOTE ]
I happen to believe that the amount of the rake should be set by the market forces of supply and demand.

[/ QUOTE ]
For the first time in recent memory, the number of WSOP ME entries went down this year compared to last. The rake isn't the only thing people are starting to hate Harrah's for either, and there are soon going to be a lot more competitors. I agree with your point, and I think you are seeing(and will soon see even more) the market not stand for Harrah's BS.


[ QUOTE ]
I've never heard any public complaints about the rake charged by Internet sites, but the ratio of rake/cost has to be way, way higher for any Internet tournament than it is for any live tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thats because we don't care about their bottom line. We care about our bottom line, and our bottom line says that the cheaper internet rake is better for us regardless of what it may cost the site/hosting casino.


Furthermore, one second later you say:

[ QUOTE ]
The costs of airfare, hotel rooms and meals each have a greater effect than rake on the ROI of a live tournament player, but no one complains about them.


[/ QUOTE ]

while ignoring the fact that the casinos are profitting off of all this as well.



[ QUOTE ]
While there probably is a point at which the rake would be too high to play extremely profitably, we are nowhere near that point, and I can't imagine we'll ever get there.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thats not the point. Every extra dollar raked comes directly out of our pockets. Similar to my last post above to the OP, I fail to see why we should be okay with losing money simply because we're making it somewhere else.


[ QUOTE ]
Right now, there's a huge amount of money being made in the poker business by everyone. Winning players are getting a huge chunk of it, and really can't be heard to complain. The ROI of top players is still pretty high compared to the ROI from pretty much any other investment or activity in America.


[/ QUOTE ]
And we want to keep it that way! I can guarantee you that poker will never die because the hosts "only" charge a 10% rake. However, poker is severely hurt every time a significant amount of money is taken out of the poker economy, which is what a big rake does.

[xxx]

http://server5.pictiger.com/img/1256287/picture-hosting/oj-flush.jpg

[bballwiz]

I think that the bigger problem when a place is charing a high rake is the tipping that is basically required if you cash. I think it makes people mad when they see such an overpriced rake and are still expected to give dealers a tip on top of it. You would think that your rake that you are paying goes towards covering the dealers. I don't mind tipping at all in cash games, but I think the amount of money people are supposed to tip in tournaments is way too much and many times absurd.

[illegit]

[ QUOTE ]
When you go to the store, would you rather buy a quart of milk for $1 or for $5? They are the exact same quart of milk.

When you go play in a tournament, would you rather pay the casino $20 to host it or $50?


[/ QUOTE ]
LOL. Seriously. OP makes no sense.