The rake is unacceptable
 

”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.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

Get better at poker?

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

Dear Aos,

Yes, we will certainly allow you to pay us 75% less rake next month because you've asked so nicely. Thank you for showing us the error of our ways.

Regards,
FTP.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

Get rakeback and learn how to play

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
The last month I won $1982. I payed $1963 in rake. So the netto was $19.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't know what netto means but if you think you only made $19 last month then you are wrong.

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

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
The last month I won $1982. I payed $1963 in rake. So the netto was $19

[/ QUOTE ] please re-read your post. if u won $19 and paid 20,000 in rake, then your net is only $19. u netted 1982 this month, not $19.

I hope that one day i get to pay $25K a month in rake.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

I agree
But when the WSEX guys made rake free poker - everyone said WTF, this will only attract bots, whatever, and noone played there.

-- Greed will take them all in the end ...

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

I won $1982

I raked $1963

The amount of money won after rake taken is $19.

What part is it that you don´t understand?

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

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 ]
-dtto-

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
I won $1982

I raked $1963

The amount of money won after rake taken is $19.

What part is it that you don´t understand?

[/ QUOTE ]

wpx has 75% rakeback. thats the best/cheapest deal you will find for rake.

enjoy the games.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
I won $1982
I raked $1963
The amount of money won after rake taken is $19.
What part is it that you don´t understand?

[/ QUOTE ]
that part where you took your numbers.
1) you have to count your rake as contributed (you should only count the hands you won).
2) PT doesn't show "net won without rakeback" - either you misread or you calculated it yourself.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
I won $1982

I raked $1963

The amount of money won after rake taken is $19.

What part is it that you don´t understand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Rake is taken pre-winnings, not post-winnings. You won $1982 AFTER paying rake. DUCY?

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

Well if he had won $1982 he'd have noticed that his account had an extra $2k in it. So I'm thinking that he won $19 and paid $1963 in rake but then added the two number together and is calling that what he won.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
I won $1982

I raked $1963

The amount of money won after rake taken is $19.

What part is it that you don´t understand?

[/ QUOTE ]

How did you calculate these figures? It also sounds to me like you won $1982. Show us a screenshot of your PT or something.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well if he had won $1982 he'd have noticed that his account had an extra $2k in it. So I'm thinking that he won $19 and paid $1963 in rake but then added the two number together and is calling that what he won.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm, then he's completely wrong because he wasn't paying that much.
Especially if he
- is tighter than average
- encountered many bad beats
- won many pots preflop (thus paid no rake)

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

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.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
hmm, then he's completely wrong because he wasn't paying that much.
Especially if he
- is tighter than average
- encountered many bad beats
- won many pots preflop (thus paid no rake)

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

The solution is only playing via sites with free gift/extra cash deals on top of a sign-up bonus.
Bonuses: $2.5k
Rake: $1.4k
My stats so far...

Would you pay that $500 flat rate upfront before playing any hands ?
 

Overhead versus marginal costs:

It is worse than that .... You forgot to include the monthly amount your internet provider took from your winnings, the amount the electric company took from your winnings, the amount you pay for rent/mortgage which was taken from your winnings, all the money you paid for food during the month which was taken from your winnings .... Jesus, why bother to get up in the morning, you will only lose your winnings.

Did the concept of the "marginal cost of doing business" ever enter your analysis ?

Fixed Cost Pricing:

A flat rate plan might work. After all, you probably pay your rent, internet bill and a host of other costs by a flat rate. However, would you be willing to pay it upfront, before playing ? If not, you are asking a site to stake your play. You don't ask yopur landlord or the internet provider to do so.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

Is this thread one giant level??????

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ 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

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

play for bonuses/rakeback op?

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ 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

Re: Would you pay that $500 flat rate upfront before playing any hands ?
 

You are a genius.

[ QUOTE ]
Overhead versus marginal costs:

It is worse than that .... You forgot to include the monthly amount your internet provider took from your winnings, the amount the electric company took from your winnings, the amount you pay for rent/mortgage which was taken from your winnings, all the money you paid for food during the month which was taken from your winnings .... Jesus, why bother to get up in the morning, you will only lose your winnings.

Did the concept of the "marginal cost of doing business" ever enter your analysis ?

Fixed Cost Pricing:

A flat rate plan might work. After all, you probably pay your rent, internet bill and a host of other costs by a flat rate. However, would you be willing to pay it upfront, before playing ? If not, you are asking a site to stake your play. You don't ask yopur landlord or the internet provider to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

thank you film cannister

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

obvious solution: play less

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

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.

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stopped reading here.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are basing how much rake you are willing to pay on how long you can play rather than how much you can make. That tells me all I need to know.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

"You are basing how much rake you are willing to pay on how long you can play rather than how much you can make."

They are the same thing DUCY? Longer play means more hands means more of an edge. Of course roi is greater at MTTs.
Im sorry but i didnt think anyone here would need further expantion of that.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stopped reading here.

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually, I did too.
Very few players make their choice of games or even sites based on the rake.
If Stars or FT or whatever other site reduced their rake by 30% their loss of revenue would be very close to that same 30%. They might attract some rake-aware and nitty players who to make up for some of that deficit though. So I guess it's possible that a 30% reduction of rake across the board at a given site would only lead to a 25% loss of revenue.

How anyone can think that a 30% cut in rake would not lead to a loss of revenue for that site is somewhat beyond me. You do realize that the site's make their revenue from the rake alone for the most part, right?

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

"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.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
"You are basing how much rake you are willing to pay on how long you can play rather than how much you can make."

They are the same thing DUCY? Longer play means more hands means more of an edge. Of course roi is greater at MTTs.
Im sorry but i didnt think anyone here would need further expantion of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm, never thought of it like that, good point.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

"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.

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 ]

WSEX has no one there and even they had to raise their rake.

Pretty much every site has rakeback/rakeback equivalent, if they lowered the rake incentives would be the first thing to go, no thanks.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

Why haven't you posted your PT screenshot yet?

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

"WSEX has no one there and even they had to raise their rake. "

wsex was not a major site that then dropped their rake. Its a completely different situation.

"Pretty much every site has rakeback/rakeback equivalent, if they lowered the rake incentives would be the first thing to go, no thanks."

I dont get y this would be a bad thing? Y do u need rakeback/fpps/ whatever if you are paying less rake to begin with? Wont they even out or better?

My whole point is everyone is accepting the current rake as at least "good enough," while no one is offering any proof that it is optimal, and anyone who questions the level of the rake is just a poor player and an idiot.

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/492/kittyvm9.png

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]

My whole point is everyone is accepting the current rake as at least "good enough," while no one is offering any proof that it is optimal, and anyone who can't overcome the level of the rake is just a poor player and an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Re: The rake is unacceptable
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stopped reading here.

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually, I did too.
Very few players make their choice of games or even sites based on the rake.
If Stars or FT or whatever other site reduced their rake by 30% their loss of revenue would be very close to that same 30%. They might attract some rake-aware and nitty players who to make up for some of that deficit though. So I guess it's possible that a 30% reduction of rake across the board at a given site would only lead to a 25% loss of revenue.

How anyone can think that a 30% cut in rake would not lead to a loss of revenue for that site is somewhat beyond me. You do realize that the site's make their revenue from the rake alone for the most part, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
What I find very strange is that the sites do not try to compete with each other. The donks waffle on endlessly about rigged flops, but how often does anybody consider that there may actually be some kind of evil price fixing monopoly at work here? Based on the service they provide the amount they take in rake is just robbery IMO.

The statement "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." may not quite be correct, but does anybody disagree with:

"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>"

A simple comparison of with online MMORPG games makes it blindingly obvious the sites are making vastly more than they deserve or need. Think of all the skilled coders, artists, story developers, modelers, mods, etc, etc needed to make and run a modern MMORPG. If WOW wanted to use the same rippoff pricing model as poker sites do and considering the fact that they need to employ many times more skilled workers; I think a weekly subscription to WOW would be about $10,000!

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