Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

I don't understand what OP meant, because I don't think he even knows.. he's just an idiot. Where is he pulling this $1982 number from if PT is showing he has a $19 net win? Do you even have pokertracker? I also notice that he hasn't been back in this thread at all.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
I also notice that he hasn't been back in this thread at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you wonder why?

Jeez what is wrong with some of you guys. A simple post generates so much hated. PEACE - I'm off as well if people can't even be bothered to read my whole post before replying. Try engaging brain before ranting.

And consider why you are ranting at a simple post asking about the amount we all have to pay in rake.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

I'm pretty sure OP made it clear.

PT has him winning $19 and paying $186x in rake.

The number he quoted as his amount won was arrived at by adding his rake to the $19.

It is all on page 1.

As such I think Rek was correct.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

To offer a counter opinion on this briefly...

If you buy something in a shop using a credit card, the shop itself does not receive 100% of the money you are charged. Usually, a small percentage goes to a credit card processor - maybe 3%.

If you've bought plane tickets online (for example), you might have noticed that you're charged an extra few percent if you pay by credit card compared to debit card. That's the company trying to recover that money from you, because it represents a significant cost at the end of the year.

In online poker, it's the same, but depending on which payment processor is used, the fees can be much higher. Those of you who used NETeller InstaCash in the past might have been familiar with it's fee of 8.9% (which some sites reimbursed and some did not). Fees for deposits made with Western Union can exceed 30% in some cases.

Lets say you deposit $100. The poker site will give you the full $100, but might actually receive only $91. The way they recoup those losses is to charge entry fees and rake in cash games (it's no coincidence that the fee on a $100 tournament is $9 at many sites).

These are just example figures and might not be completely accurate, but you get the picture. I wanted to counter the argument that 'it only costs poker sites $0.01 to run a tournament, but they receive hundreds of dollars in rake'. In actual fact, a big online tournament may cost thousands of dollars to run when all costs are considered.

I should also point out that there used to be a poker site, RakeFree.com (I think that's the name) that offered a flat-rate option to players. However, it never took off, because it never got the casual players that feed a poker community. The best sites to play at are those that have lots of weak, recreational players - but to have lots of those players, it must be easy to deposit. Unfortunately, that costs money.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
To offer a counter opinion on this briefly...

If you buy something in a shop using a credit card, the shop itself does not receive 100% of the money you are charged. Usually, a small percentage goes to a credit card processor - maybe 3%.

If you've bought plane tickets online (for example), you might have noticed that you're charged an extra few percent if you pay by credit card compared to debit card. That's the company trying to recover that money from you, because it represents a significant cost at the end of the year.

In online poker, it's the same, but depending on which payment processor is used, the fees can be much higher. Those of you who used NETeller InstaCash in the past might have been familiar with it's fee of 8.9% (which some sites reimbursed and some did not). Fees for deposits made with Western Union can exceed 30% in some cases.

Lets say you deposit $100. The poker site will give you the full $100, but might actually receive only $91. The way they recoup those losses is to charge entry fees and rake in cash games (it's no coincidence that the fee on a $100 tournament is $9 at many sites).

These are just example figures and might not be completely accurate, but you get the picture. I wanted to counter the argument that 'it only costs poker sites $0.01 to run a tournament, but they receive hundreds of dollars in rake'. In actual fact, a big online tournament may cost thousands of dollars to run when all costs are considered.

I should also point out that there used to be a poker site, RakeFree.com (I think that's the name) that offered a flat-rate option to players. However, it never took off, because it never got the casual players that feed a poker community. The best sites to play at are those that have lots of weak, recreational players - but to have lots of those players, it must be easy to deposit. Unfortunately, that costs money.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about just passing those fees along to those that are depositing?

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

Also,

what about the money poker sites (like Stars) make in interest off of all of our monies in their bank account? That has to be a huge amount in and of itself.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

It kind of makes me want to withdraw/deposit more. Even though this option would cost me a little bit more, it would cost the poker sites a whole lot more. Is that spiteful or what?

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you've bought plane tickets online (for example), you might have noticed that you're charged an extra few percent if you pay by credit card compared to debit card.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any business charging extra to customers who pay with a credit card is breaking visa and mastercard merchant guidelines and should be reported (http://www.mastercard.com/us/persona...iolations.html or 1-800-VISA-911).

They can offer a discount for paying by cash but they cannot flat out charge extra for using credit.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To offer a counter opinion on this briefly...

If you buy something in a shop using a credit card, the shop itself does not receive 100% of the money you are charged. Usually, a small percentage goes to a credit card processor - maybe 3%.

If you've bought plane tickets online (for example), you might have noticed that you're charged an extra few percent if you pay by credit card compared to debit card. That's the company trying to recover that money from you, because it represents a significant cost at the end of the year.

In online poker, it's the same, but depending on which payment processor is used, the fees can be much higher. Those of you who used NETeller InstaCash in the past might have been familiar with it's fee of 8.9% (which some sites reimbursed and some did not). Fees for deposits made with Western Union can exceed 30% in some cases.

Lets say you deposit $100. The poker site will give you the full $100, but might actually receive only $91. The way they recoup those losses is to charge entry fees and rake in cash games (it's no coincidence that the fee on a $100 tournament is $9 at many sites).

These are just example figures and might not be completely accurate, but you get the picture. I wanted to counter the argument that 'it only costs poker sites $0.01 to run a tournament, but they receive hundreds of dollars in rake'. In actual fact, a big online tournament may cost thousands of dollars to run when all costs are considered.

I should also point out that there used to be a poker site, RakeFree.com (I think that's the name) that offered a flat-rate option to players. However, it never took off, because it never got the casual players that feed a poker community. The best sites to play at are those that have lots of weak, recreational players - but to have lots of those players, it must be easy to deposit. Unfortunately, that costs money.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about just passing those fees along to those that are depositing?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The best sites to play at are those that have lots of weak, recreational players - but to have lots of those players, it must be easy to deposit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

Do sites pay fees when you cash out or only when you deposit?

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

i was in oz recently and star city in sydney charged an unreal amount of rake 20% on tournys and tablre charges+rake on cash. i think online with rakebaCK IF YOU CAN GET IT IS SUPER VALUE COMPARED
[ 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&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 ]

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

I won $19 after paying $1963 in rake. What more do you want to know? My preflop raise percentage?

[ 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
 

[ QUOTE ]
I won $19 after paying $1963 in rake. What more do you want to know? My preflop raise percentage?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I want to unravel your playing style so I can take that $19! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

I would just like to point out like no one has yet that the OP's math his horribly off. If he had 1963 in rake that doesn't mean it all went into pots he won. I.E. its prolly like 1/6th of 1963

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

lol I did the very complicated math myself that if I won $19 and payed $1963 in rake that makes it $1982. Understand?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what OP meant, because I don't think he even knows.. he's just an idiot. Where is he pulling this $1982 number from if PT is showing he has a $19 net win? Do you even have pokertracker? I also notice that he hasn't been back in this thread at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

aos08, give it up - people like prodonkey can only understand if it is written in 1 particular way. They can't understand the simplicity of what you are saying.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]


Come to PokerStars!!
20% Reduction of our already low rake!
Every time we WOULD have raked $1 we'll only take $0.80!!!


Do you really think this would attract the players?
Seriously? Players just don't care about $0.20.

The sites pretty much prefer to remain quiet about their rake. They don't want the players to think about how much is getting taken out of each pot or how much the site is making.
Highlighting the aspect of, "We will rake less" means that they are talking about, "We take money out of every pot" which they would just prefer you forget about. Plus, it acknowledges raking 'less than' their competitors and they really don't want to acknowledge their competitors. They want you to only think about them.


And in a rake-reduction like this it's one of those things where the consumer who is saving on cost can't even see or tell that they are saving on cost.
After they play 1 table and win 5 pots that are raked $0.20 less each they are NOT going to be sitting there thinking, "Well, I won $1 more than I would have if they hadn't done that rake-reduction."

All they are thinking about is how the cards ran, how many times they got bad-beat, and whether they won $100 or lost $100 in that session. That extra $1 doesn't even occur to them.


Think about the situation as it is RIGHT NOW.
There is already a couple of fairly significant rake-differences between FT and Stars.
All these players on Stars at the low-stakes tables can say the exact same thing.
"Well, I won a $62 pot in my 6-handed game. On Stars that's only raked $2 and on FT it's raked $3. I just won an extra dollar by winning this pot on Stars!!"

Nobody thinks that. Most people don't even know about it or care. And even the people who are aware of it don't think that.

What don\'t you get ? It does not take a genius.
 

It is simple. What you have done is single out a marginal cost of doing business as "unacceptable". In its place you propose a fixed cost of $500.

Fixed costs, by their nature, can and usually are paid up front, like rent, internet service et cetera. So, if you want to discuss a fixed cost of $500, do you realize it would be payable upfront ?

I may not be the genius you think I am, I have only one Nobel Prize.

Re: What don\'t you get ? It does not take a genius.
 

Bob-

Not every casual/recreational player is a complete moron. Certainly some are, but I would tend to think that at some point most players are going to wonder just how much of their losses are going down the tube to the house. After all, everyone always wants to blame someone/something else for their losses (other than themselves).

We're certainly seeing less and less terrible players and more and more of the average players that were doing well before are losing money now. And they are the ones that are looking at the rake.

I think part of the answer is in rakeback or rewards similar to the VIP program at Stars.

I don't think just busting out the average players is the best solution for the industry.

Re: What don\'t you get ? It does not take a genius.
 

I don't think it is either but telling the players that they will save big and/or bust-out less quickly with 20% rake-reduction isn't going to accomplish anything.

As mentioned before, you already HAVE a fairly significant rake difference between sites. And nobody gives a crap...not even the people who are playing at those sites now...not even most of your 2+2'ers who you would expect to care the most about these things. Even THEY don't care that much.


Look, I would love to see lower rake too. Think it would be great for me and for many players trying to hang in there.
But that's not necessarily the question.

Will lower-rake actually influence revenues for the site?
I think it would hurt the site's bottom-line because they aren't going to get significantly more action to make up for the amount they are NOT taking out in each hand.

Will it bring in more players by announcing, "We have lower rake than the other guys"?
I just don't think it will.

Re: What don\'t you get ? It does not take a genius.
 

Dear MGM:

"My statistics on my cocktail napkin showed this: The last month I won $1982. I payed $1963 in rake, $675 to cocktail waitress, blew $500 in the slots waiting for tables, spent $200 on greasy hotdogs in the deli, and 1 whole dollar tipping a chip runner. I don't think it's acceptable to pay these enourmous fees. My suggestion: Give me the alternative of paying a monthly fee of $500 instead of paying rake. I don't think anyone should pay more than $500 a month for their hobby, regardless of what Ping, Callaway, Titlest, Brunswick, K2, Salomon, or my local golf club/bowling alley/ski hill think."


Sheesh, where do they get off with their whole free market ideology anyway?

Re: What don\'t you get ? It does not take a genius.
 

[ QUOTE ]
As mentioned before, you already HAVE a fairly significant rake difference between sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't actually agree with this.

In the games I play, the rakes are identical amongst almost every site. At least the major sites. In fact, this is true as far as ANY no-limit game goes, and no-limit is far the most popular game. So almost everybody pays the same rake on either Stars or Tilt.

[ QUOTE ]
And nobody gives a crap...not even the people who are playing at those sites now...not even most of your 2+2'ers who you would expect to care the most about these things. Even THEY don't care that much.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't necessarily agree with this either.

The industry leader, PokerStars, probably has the lowest rake when figuring all games across the board. I think this may actually be a small reason they are as popular. (Obviously advertising and signing the WSOP winners are much bigger reasons)

[ QUOTE ]
Will lower-rake actually influence revenues for the site?
I think it would hurt the site's bottom-line because they aren't going to get significantly more action to make up for the amount they are NOT taking out in each hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. They might. Higher rakes bust out players quicker. If they kept losing players in action longer, I think they would be less likely to leave the game altogether.

[ QUOTE ]
Will it bring in more players by announcing, "We have lower rake than the other guys"?
I just don't think it will.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not. But you've heard the adage "it's better to fleece the sheep than to skin 'em".

Re: What don\'t you get ? It does not take a genius.
 

Post deleted by David Sklansky.

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

[/ QUOTE ]
you won't believe me but there are worse sites there (WPEX e.g.) than FTP (in terms of amount of fish)

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

I haven't read this whole thread yet, just skimmed.

But I'll put in my 2cents.

Fish don't care if rake goes down, because they won't notice!! What poker sites need to do instead is give out more and more bonuses that is equivalent to lower rake. Look at party poker, they kept giving out mini- bonuses that was basically nothing but in the fish's eyes, it was alot.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
hmm if he calculated rake only from won hands that's fine. But he never confirmed that. Plus every time I see a "look how much I lost on rake" it almost always means:
- 5/0 (or 10/3 at best) player
- counting dealt method of all posts
- a nitty folding flop too much (means you pay less because it's not your rake when you fold flop). Especially counts when it comes to blind stealing and these people apply strategy "first raise and then fold if called/raised" = lots of pre-flop won hands but almost no rake.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

Congratulations on your $19 win.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

lol OP probably has never played live ...the rake is twice as bad ...and you have to TIP the dealers cause if not they treat you like shyt ..

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]
because if you hit your 1-outer they actually think that they won you the hand [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I also notice that he hasn't been back in this thread at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
same here. Either he was pissed off and needed to share his anger of it was a FTP/PS guy and now he's laughing how we supported him in his idea of a new rake level.
Next month prepare for 10% rake up to $100 [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
What about just passing those fees along to those that are depositing?

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL I see the wonderful advertisement: for every $100 you send to us we match your deposit with 50% first deposit bonus and then you can play with totalling $90 (bonus included)

[ QUOTE ]
Do sites pay fees when you cash out or only when you deposit?

[/ QUOTE ]
it depends. If you use Neteller they pay both. If you use check you pay more. They of course pay for a wire (as any other subject).

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
lol I did the very complicated math myself that if I won $19 and payed $1963 in rake that makes it $1982. Understand?

[/ QUOTE ]
yes but we don't understand what the $1963 means. Please confirm/deny that it means "rake taken from pots you actually won" so we can finally close this issue.

Re: What don\'t you get ? It does not take a genius.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I may not be the genius you think I am, I have only one Nobel Prize.

[/ QUOTE ]
hope didn't get it for Peace [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] (because their decisions in this category are a real joke)
kidding.

Are you the "real" Milton Friedman? I thought you already died ...

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

I confirm that

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol I did the very complicated math myself that if I won $19 and payed $1963 in rake that makes it $1982. Understand?

[/ QUOTE ]
yes but we don't understand what the $1963 means. Please confirm/deny that it means "rake taken from pots you actually won" so we can finally close this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: What don\'t you get ? It does not take a genius.
 

Yes, I would prefer to pay $500 up front instead of paying $1963 in rake.

[ QUOTE ]
It is simple. What you have done is single out a marginal cost of doing business as "unacceptable". In its place you propose a fixed cost of $500.

Fixed costs, by their nature, can and usually are paid up front, like rent, internet service et cetera. So, if you want to discuss a fixed cost of $500, do you realize it would be payable upfront ?

I may not be the genius you think I am, I have only one Nobel Prize.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: What don\'t you get ? It does not take a genius.
 

Well, yeah ... but post-mortems are an integral part of poker.

Re: What don\'t you get ? It does not take a genius.
 

Vote with your feet, play where you get the best rake (taking rakeback into account). I stopped playing at Party completely when they got rid of my RB.

Re: What don\'t you get ? It does not take a genius.
 

The winning players are the ones holding the shears, not the sites.

Playing against a fish, with all the aids available, is like fishing with dynamite.

Coase wrote a long analysis of this tragedy of the commons.

Re: What don\'t you get ? It does not take a genius.
 

They usually get off at the front of the plane. They ain't flying coach.

Re: What don\'t you get ? It does not take a genius.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I would prefer to pay $500 up front instead of paying $1963 in rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your position is that PS would attract 4x (or more!) the number of players if it just charged a $500 admission fee?

Film Cannister FTW again!

Re: What don\'t you get ? It does not take a genius.
 

So when i enter a $11+1 180 man turbo sit and go tourney at stars how much profit does stars make? Someone give me a guess please. Does stars make $100, $150, or $179?

Are they putting out $40 worth of ads for that tourney? maybe $80 in security and $20 in customer support? That would give stars a profit of about $40 for a tournament like this. Plenty of $ to do good business with a good profit.

NOT A CHANCE THAT STARS MAKES THIS LITTLE. Im not gonna pretend like i know the real numbers but in you average 180 man tourney the customer support cost has got to be about 50c. Just think how often you have contacted customer support. For me thats 2 times and ive played over 5k tourneys.
Now how about security. How much does it cost stars to make these transactions secure and to prevent collusion, botting, and other cheating? With cheating not really a problem in mtts the only cost is making sure the cash transfers are secure. How much can this really cost? $5 maybe.
Advertising is the part that im not even going to guess at. But it would be ridiculous to think that stars is spending enough on ads to justify the cost of these tourneys. maybe 20% max.

PLEASE SOMEONE TELL ME WHERE MY $ GOES AND HOW I AM GETTING A GOOD DEAL. PLEASE.
I understand the sites need to profit, and i think they should make piles of cash. Guess what, the top sites are doing EXTREMELY WELL, but why is 10% the one and only true gospel rate that should be charged on online tournaments????????????????????????????
Why do you guys defend the sites without giving any sort of reason why 10% is optimal??
Does 10% rake keep the games growing as fast as possible?
How would you even know?
Does a 10% rake even make the sites the most $??
How would you know?
Somehow a whole lot of people seem to think they know this info. PLEASE EXPLAIN. WHAT INFO DO U HAVE THAT I DONT?


And BOB--
Why do some sites offer rakeback deals in the first place?
If no one cares about a 20% reduction in rake how do the rakeback affiliates stay in business? Do the sites only attract players that are multitable nits who make $ just by the rakeback? OF COURSE NOT. EVERYONE WANTS A DEAL NOT JUST WINNING PLAYERS.

Re: What don\'t you get ? It does not take a genius.
 

And op im sorry but the flat-fee idea will never work. It will just discourage the people who just wanna come play a little.

Really i dont see any changes in rake coming until the laws are changed and american casinos and cardrooms can compete.