Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
I love how whenever someone makes a post like this complaining about high rake they are automatically a loser who deserves ridicule. I personally believe that the rake at most major sites could be cut by 30% or so without any major loss in revenue for the site.

Some games are worse than others in terms of rake though. I dont play cash games much anymore, but the rake is actually pretty bad if u dont have a rakebake deal or dont play enough volume to reach plat-plus at stars.

Rake on Mtt's is acceptable to me, 10% or less of your buyin gives you a whole tourneys worth of play, but still i could see it go lower.

The worst rake IMO is on STT's. The whole reason i stopped playing STT's is that my roi was only like 11% at the 27s and i just hated the idea that stars was making as much off my play as i am. STT's fee should be 5% not 10% that is a big problem.

Really the bottom line is that it costs stars less than $0.01 to run a tourney that makes them $100s. There is a lot of room for improvement in terms of the price we pay to play a game.

Remember, poker is a skill game. We are not gambling. There is no reason for the rake to be so high. Who decided that 5% was the magic number anyways? Why is there no room for discussion/negotiation here? I can go play any play money game for free so what is the rake for?

It obviously doesnt pay for the play of the game itself. It pays for your assurance that when you win you will actually get your $. So it costs $1 everytime i put in $10 just so i can be sure i will be paid when i win. Why on earth should it cost that much? Does it cost you 10% everytime you transfer $ to another player? All we are doing is playing a game and transfering $. Where is the high cost of providing us a place to play at? Advertising? Security? Customer support? I dont think so.

How did stars decide on thier rake/fee structure in the begining? It has stayed the same for as long as i can remember so obviously it is big enough for them to stay in business and make a HUGE profit. So what profit is TOO BIG?

Why does questioning the price you are getting to play make you a bad player? If you dont question the rake you are a moron.

That said, I will still play at stars as its my only source of income, but i will never be happy with the rake as it is. The rake is not unacceptable, but it is higher than optimal. I will deal with it for now as it seems there is nothing i can do about it if i wanna chase the fishes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Everybody seems to want to flame your post, but I for one think it was a good post and makes some good points. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Why the heck does everyone care so much about the profits of the sites??? Would everyone be happy to pay twice as much for petrol just to make sure we don't hurt the profits of the oil giants? WTF, who cares if the sites are forced to compete - it's WHY they are not competing that is the important thing!

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

I don't think anyone is anyone saying that less rake wouldn't be great. Of course we would love it if every site cut rake by 30%. Everyone is jumping on OP because of how he stated his opinion. Would he have made this post if he was better than a breakeven player? Probably not.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

BTW. if fact, the rake is 10% - it's not 5%. Because if you put in 10 dollars and the fish 10 dollars then the rake is 1 dollar (what's 10% of your bet). It's even more when there's wider competition (but you get more money for your bet also).


[ QUOTE ]
Why wouldn't he be paying that much? He could be a break even player.

[/ QUOTE ]
then he should play tighter.

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the high cost of providing us a place to play at? Advertising? Security? Customer support? I dont think so.

[/ QUOTE ]
yes yes yes
Don't get me wrong. I would love to play rake-free. But I can (WPEX) and I don't. Why? Because they don't earn enough money to get the fish into the pond there...



[ QUOTE ]
So what profit is TOO BIG?

[/ QUOTE ]
profit that allows competition to gain an advantage.
As 100% of WPEX wasn't enough ... and you cannot rake less than 100% less ... I'm afraid the Stars rake structure is widely accepted. What's more: it's accepted by fish and that's what I really care. As long as I can beat the rake I don't care.


[ QUOTE ]
I will deal with it for now as it seems there is nothing i can do about it if i wanna chase the fishes.

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
If Stars or FT or whatever other site reduced their rake by 30% ..They might attract some rake-aware and nitty players who to make the games even tighter and making less for both regulars and site.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP.

Maybe some high-rollers could make it better but after all this could be bad for the games.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
it's WHY they are not competing that is the important thing!

[/ QUOTE ]

dude, they are competing. They are competing by getting the fish in. That's the deal. It's the most important part in this business and it's the core business. Not competing by price. do you chose your food by price or do you accept the price of bear and you just buy the one you like?

[ QUOTE ]
"I personally believe that the rake at most major sites could be <font color="red">cut by 90%</font> <u>and still leave a viable and profitable business for the site.</u>"

[/ QUOTE ]

My belief is capitalism so I'm the last one who would protest against competition. But there are more important things that we should force the sites to compete in.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

The rake will always be whatever people are prepared to pay.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone is anyone saying that less rake wouldn't be great. Of course we would love it if every site cut rake by 30%. Everyone is jumping on OP because of how he stated his opinion. Would he have made this post if he was better than a breakeven player? Probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can sympathise with his point about being a 11% ROI winning player in STTs but being peeved that he had to pay the same as what he won in fees.

If the sites were to half the SNG entry fees like he suggested then perhaps this would again makes SNGs almost as profitable as cash games (for the top players). A quick peek at SharkScope shows that the high level turbo SNGs are not really profitable anymore with only a few having tiny ROIs (post-rake).

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

I agree with the original poster too. And, I'd like to add that I think it's ridiculous that the internet sites have a higher rake for an average sized pot then the Bellagio does. For $15-30 limit hold 'em, fulltilt takes a flat 5% up to $3 max. Bellagio has a stepped system of something like $1 at $30, $1 at $90, and so forth. Bellagio goes to $4 max, but that only happens for the large pots. On average, you're paying more on fulltilt. Also, Bellagio will cut the rake to $2 max for 5 handed play. Fulltilt still charges the $3 for 5 handed play. Finally, I'd just like to mention Borgata in AC charges a flat $10 per hour for $10-20 and they give you back $1 per hour of you have a comp card, which I believe is a better deal then the per pot rakes at Bellagio or on the internet sites...

I find it hard to believe an internet site has a higher cost of doing business than a B&amp;M. I think WSEX never became popular because the UI was so horrible to use. I really wish a site with a decent UI would compete on rake.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

agent87,

Do you realize that the Bellagio makes truckloads of money from the other games in the casino? While I don't have the books of any B&amp;M casino on me, from my understanding, poker is essentially a loss-leader.

On the other hand, Full Tilt is only a poker room. Obviously, Full Tilt's overhead isn't what the Bellagio's is, but Full Tilt doesn't have acres of slot machines, either.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
agent87,

Do you realize that the Bellagio makes truckloads of money from the other games in the casino? While I don't have the books of any B&amp;M casino on me, from my understanding, poker is essentially a loss-leader.

On the other hand, Full Tilt is only a poker room. Obviously, Full Tilt's overhead isn't what the Bellagio's is, but Full Tilt doesn't have acres of slot machines, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok first of all poker rooms in brick and mortar casinos are not "loss leaders". The profit produced is larger then the expense. Sure that space if occupied with slot machines or table games would make more money for the casino, it does not mean they are necessarily losing money by having such a venue.

There are suckers in poker just like in any game. I am sure that when these fish have losing sessions they don't hesistate to walk up to the blackjack or craps tables trying to recoup their losses. These are customers the casino would not have had the opportunity of making profit from, if it were not for the lure of a poker room.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Very few players make their choice of games or even sites based on the rake."

So if tommorow stars became 30% cheaper you think they would not take a significant amount from the other sites?

Not to mention that the fish would still lose their $ it would just take longer.

What proof do you have that if a major site dropped its rake, they would not gain players?

And WSEX is not proof.

[/ QUOTE ]


I have no proof...just a belief.

Most players don't care about rake or have much of an awareness of it.
Some site bragging that they take only $2 on a given pot instead of $2.50 in the same size pot will have very little impact. Most players think, "Big deal. It's 50 freaking cents. If 50 cents makes that much difference to you then maybe poker isn't your game."

Stars already has significantly better rake at many stakes and games for example. And even most of the people who play there don't realize they are getting a better deal on the rake than they would at FT.

Same thing happens in live games. Most people don't think $3 or $4 being taken out of a pot is a big deal. You're winning a $60 pot...so the house taking out $4 is insignificant.

That is how most people view the rake.

FT taking $1 out of a $10 pot when Stars takes only $0.50 out of the same pot is simply something that a vast majority of players aren't even aware of nor would care about if they were made aware.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

Plz stop with this bs.
OP would have won 2k$ last month hadnt it been for the rake.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

I would have made over 100k if not for taxes. Can't governments AND poker sites learn to give us their services while asking next to nothing in return?

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]

Really the bottom line is that it costs stars less than $0.01 to run a tourney that makes them $100s. There is a lot of room for improvement in terms of the price we pay to play a game.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's the continual use of unsubstantiated assertions like this which make me think that threads whining about the rake are completely pointless.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

"Most players don't care about rake or have much of an awareness of it.
Some site bragging that they take only $2 on a given pot instead of $2.50 in the same size pot will have very little impact. Most players think, "Big deal. It's 50 freaking cents. If 50 cents makes that much difference to you then maybe poker isn't your game.""

Then y do sites offer rakeback deals in the first place? Are the sites losing $ off of these deals? of course not. They bring in players that wouldnt be there otherwise.

"FT taking $1 out of a $10 pot when Stars takes only $0.50 out of the same pot is simply something that a vast majority of players aren't even aware of"

I agree

"nor would care about if they were made aware."

I disagree. If stars dropped there rake and started stating in every ad they did that they have the lowest rake of the top 5 sites that would attract a lot of players.

Come play pokerstars where we charge you less than full tilt, etc.... Easy sell.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

"It's the continual use of unsubstantiated assertions like this which make me think that threads whining about the rake are completely pointless."

Please then give me a guess at how much it costs stars to run a $11+1 180 man turbo tournament.
Is there $180 worth of advertising, security, and customer support in that tournament? A tournament that will last less than 2 hours that will take up an extremely tiny amount of server space gets them $180.
My guess is it costs them about a penny. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW WE ARE GETTING A GOOD DEAL HERE. otherwise your post was just as pointless as the op's whining

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Most players don't care about rake or have much of an awareness of it.
Some site bragging that they take only $2 on a given pot instead of $2.50 in the same size pot will have very little impact. Most players think, "Big deal. It's 50 freaking cents. If 50 cents makes that much difference to you then maybe poker isn't your game.""

Then y do sites offer rakeback deals in the first place? Are the sites losing $ off of these deals? of course not. They bring in players that wouldnt be there otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
A recent post in the Software forum about 24-tabling purely to get FPPs makes me wonder if rakeback is the worst of both worlds for good players... It attracts and keeps nitty breakeven players playing and at the same time lets the site fleece the fish at a faster rate.

[ QUOTE ]
Come play pokerstars where we charge you less than full tilt, etc.... Easy sell.

[/ QUOTE ]
Every other business is run like this so why should it be any different for poker sites?

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

Sites, for the most part, don't offer and advertise rakeback, affiliates do.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I won $19. And raked $1963. And I did the not so complicated math myself that if I had played without rake taken I had won 19+1963=$1982.
Less than 1% of what I won to me, and over 99% to Ftp.

[/ QUOTE ]
PT screenshot please

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

I make my opponents pay my rake.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Most players don't care about rake or have much of an awareness of it.
Some site bragging that they take only $2 on a given pot instead of $2.50 in the same size pot will have very little impact. Most players think, "Big deal. It's 50 freaking cents. If 50 cents makes that much difference to you then maybe poker isn't your game.""

Then y do sites offer rakeback deals in the first place? Are the sites losing $ off of these deals? of course not. They bring in players that wouldnt be there otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
A recent post in the Software forum about 24-tabling purely to get FPPs makes me wonder if rakeback is the worst of both worlds for good players... It attracts and keeps nitty breakeven players playing and at the same time lets the site fleece the fish at a faster rate.

[ QUOTE ]
Come play pokerstars where we charge you less than full tilt, etc.... Easy sell.

[/ QUOTE ]
Every other business is run like this so why should it be any different for poker sites?

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Link to that post?

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
it's 1:1 on your winnings (salary for your work) and rake (salary for the FTP's work - as CS, gathering fish etc. etc. et.c). I think it's a good deal.

[ QUOTE ]
The rake actually is acceptable. I've accepted it as have many other players.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol @fulltilt gathering fish

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

I'm pretty sure the "amount raked" in poker tracker is the amount of rake from all the hands you played, even if you didn't win them. So that is the rake the whole table payed, divide that by the number of players to find how much each player paid. And thats not going to be exactly right as players play different styles and win more pots then others.

And im sure full tilt or pokerstars could lower their rake but players still play there with the rake as it is so they see no reason to change it.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Most players don't care about rake or have much of an awareness of it.
Some site bragging that they take only $2 on a given pot instead of $2.50 in the same size pot will have very little impact. Most players think, "Big deal. It's 50 freaking cents. If 50 cents makes that much difference to you then maybe poker isn't your game.""

Then y do sites offer rakeback deals in the first place? Are the sites losing $ off of these deals? of course not. They bring in players that wouldnt be there otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
A recent post in the Software forum about 24-tabling purely to get FPPs makes me wonder if rakeback is the worst of both worlds for good players... It attracts and keeps nitty breakeven players playing and at the same time lets the site fleece the fish at a faster rate.

[ QUOTE ]
Come play pokerstars where we charge you less than full tilt, etc.... Easy sell.

[/ QUOTE ]
Every other business is run like this so why should it be any different for poker sites?

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Link to that post?

[/ QUOTE ]
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...page=&amp;vc=1

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure the "amount raked" in poker tracker is the amount of rake from all the hands you played, even if you didn't win them. So that is the rake the whole table payed, divide that by the number of players to find how much each player paid. And thats not going to be exactly right as players play different styles and win more pots then others.

[/ QUOTE ]
On the General Info tab, the Total Rake figure is the amount of money taken out of pots that you personally have won. What you say above is only true for the Total Rake figure on the Summary tab.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

a couple of years ago someone made a post of the rake on each poker site. can somebody post this please?

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Stopped reading here."

Why?
Oh wait, i see. A site would never grow their games 30% or more by cutting the rake 30%. That just impossible. No need to read further. You are so smart. Great post. Keep up the good work.

[/ QUOTE ]

omg stop posting you are wrong. learn math plz

if a sites rake is only 70% and the player base is 130% of original size thats only 91% of original revenue. they have to increase player base by 43% to be make more. no way that happens

.7 * 1.3 = .91

1 / .7 = .4285

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
a couple of years ago someone made a post of the rake on each poker site. can somebody post this please?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like someone said earlier most players dont know or give a [censored] about what the rake is. I couldnt tell you the top 10 sites rake comapirsons.. i know stars is decent, ft blah, and absolute is terrible they say...

further i dont mind paying rake to stars/ft as i see their commericals on tv everyday bringing in new boatload of fish... advertising takes money, as does security etc. if you dont like fish go play wpx.

if you like b&amp;m cause you say "it has less rake" go 1 table live and play a a much bigger stake where variane will affect you more. I prefer to 8 table and im fine with the rake. It is what it is...

Saying lowering rake will bring in more players is simply retarded... less rake = less advertising $ = less players... This coupled with the fact that virtually all sites rake are nearly similar will encourage no site to drop its rake. I gaurentee you stars/FT has prolly spent about 1M$+ continually weighing the cost:benift ratio of this situation.

I cant stop trying cause this post is retarded... Why do you think a gas station doesnt lower the price 30%, but maybe only 1-2% of total cost vrs a competitor... Because people need gas...(just like people "need" to player poker).

cliffnotes.
1)this thread sux
2)Lowering rake wont be affetive b/c most player dont know/care what the rake is anyhow.
3)the rake pays for advertising and fish, if u dont like rake go play wpx.
4)i dont care if b&amp;m has "less rake" (its also slower hands and you can only 1 table...
5) a big summation of everything i said in first few points; expect i expand to say that sites have alreay weighed cost:benifit ratio of lowering rake and it wont happen.
6)one last example why its not worth it to a site to lower rake.

*this is a ramble i know you nits will pick it apart, but i prolly wont read this thread again. just get better at poker or go play live or wpex

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

Ummm When the [censored] did B&amp;M have lower rake than online. When I play in B&amp;M the $50 tourneys have like a $15 rake. And they rake $4-$5 from the cash game pots. I guess if you are playing micro limits the rake can be a bit unreasonable, but other than that it's way better than B&amp;M. And what kind of rakeback do you get playing live? A dollar an hour comp?

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

and thank you too film cannister

geez people, if you don't like it, don't play....if I run a business I'm going to do what I can to maximize profit. Explain to me what incentive the sites have to cut rake. That's absolutely ridiculous. Supply and demand folks. If people are willing to pay it, they'll charge it.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

OP, you seem familiar with this theory:

http://investor.verisign.com/common/glossary/6431.gif

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

Well, the OP has taken some stick here for simply posting that he thinks the sites rake is too much. Also lots of questions about what net $19 mean. Come on guys, we all knew what he meant by winning only $19 - give him some slack. Basically he is a breakeven player that would win a lot more with lower rake.

OP, I assume you get 27% rakeback that is not included here. If you are not getting rakeback, don't play FTP.

Rake should be much lower IMHO but I am not holding my breath as it won't happen any time soon. Sites (in fact all businesses) will charge as much as people are prepared to pay for their products and I think online poker has found their optimum rake structure for maximum profits. Just have to accept it until a site like WPEX really takes off and forces prices down.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
So if tommorow stars became 30% cheaper you think they would not take a significant amount from the other sites?

Not to mention that the fish would still lose their $ it would just take longer.

What proof do you have that if a major site dropped its rake, they would not gain players?

And WSEX is not proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Major sites MAY gain players by dropping their rake, but IF this results in more players, their costs will also increase (support staff / hardware / etc) As such they would probably end-up making only marginally more money if any at all, so why do it?

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
”The statistics in poker tracker showed this: The last month I won $1982. I payed $1963 in rake. So the netto was $19. I don´t think it´s acceptable to pay this enormous amounts of money in rake every month. My suggestion: Give us the alternative of paying a montly fee of $500 instead of paying rake. I don´t think anyone should pay more than $500 a month for their hobby.”

I just sent this message to Full tilt poker. Please copy this, put in your own numbers and send to your poker site. The rake is unacceptable and something must be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

WOW!!! $19...Jackpot Nice win man [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Seriously, its a lot cheaper than the rake live

[/ QUOTE ]

live rake is RETARDED HIGH!!!! ZOMG!

$4 in vegas, plus $1 tip...and they always look at me funny when I'm playing 10/20 NL and tip $1 for a $5K pot...screw them...$1 hand is like $20+ a hour in tips..that's WAY MORE than their job deserves (doctors in Idaho only make $50-$80K a year, no idea why dealers in vegas think they "deserve" the same)

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if tommorow stars became 30% cheaper you think they would not take a significant amount from the other sites?

Not to mention that the fish would still lose their $ it would just take longer.

What proof do you have that if a major site dropped its rake, they would not gain players?

And WSEX is not proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Major sites MAY gain players by dropping their rake, but IF this results in more players, their costs will also increase (support staff / hardware / etc) As such they would probably end-up making only marginally more money if any at all, so why do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that could be argued to death...and either side could be right. Really depends on "how many" players they gain and "how much each player costs on average."

My guess is shortterm it wouldn't help, but longterm it would.

Also....I agree, WPEX shouldn't count, they failed because of HORRIBLE management.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
and they always look at me funny when I'm playing 10/20 NL and tip $1 for a $5K pot...screw them

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow - that might be the nittiest thing I've ever heard

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the OP has taken some stick here for simply posting that he thinks the sites rake is too much. Also lots of questions about what net $19 mean. Come on guys, we all knew what he meant by winning only $19 - give him some slack. Basically he is a breakeven player that would win a lot more with lower rake.

OP, I assume you get 27% rakeback that is not included here. If you are not getting rakeback, don't play FTP.

Rake should be much lower IMHO but I am not holding my breath as it won't happen any time soon. Sites (in fact all businesses) will charge as much as people are prepared to pay for their products and I think online poker has found their optimum rake structure for maximum profits. Just have to accept it until a site like WPEX really takes off and forces prices down.

[/ QUOTE ]


No you are wrong.. we don't know he meant he netted 19$ because the first line of his post "The statistics in poker tracker showed this: The last month I won $1982. I payed $1963" contradict this.. he won $1982, pt doesn't have a [censored] line for gross win and net win.. if he got that $1982 figure from pokertracker then that is how much he won, and he's just a moron and pulling this $19 figure out of his ass.. which is why people are giving him [censored].

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, the OP has taken some stick here for simply posting that he thinks the sites rake is too much. Also lots of questions about what net $19 mean. Come on guys, we all knew what he meant by winning only $19 - give him some slack. Basically he is a breakeven player that would win a lot more with lower rake.

OP, I assume you get 27% rakeback that is not included here. If you are not getting rakeback, don't play FTP.

Rake should be much lower IMHO but I am not holding my breath as it won't happen any time soon. Sites (in fact all businesses) will charge as much as people are prepared to pay for their products and I think online poker has found their optimum rake structure for maximum profits. Just have to accept it until a site like WPEX really takes off and forces prices down.

[/ QUOTE ]


No you are wrong.. we don't know he meant he netted 19$ because the first line of his post "The statistics in poker tracker showed this: The last month I won $1982. I payed $1963" contradict this.. he won $1982, pt doesn't have a [censored] line for gross win and net win.. if he got that $1982 figure from pokertracker then that is how much he won, and he's just a moron and pulling this $19 figure out of his ass.. which is why people are giving him [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything I said was wrong? You need to chill

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

I don't know.. I quit reading after everything you said in the first paragraph was incorrect.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know.. I quit reading after everything you said in the first paragraph was incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]


Thought so.

If you can't understand what the OP meant thats fine. If you can't read more than 1 sentance thats fine as well.