Discriminating consumer
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just pulled up a 6 max 3-6 game on fulltilt. They are getting about a hundred hands an hour and the rake is up to $3. So they are taking off about $150/hror $25/hr for each player. If you don't think this is a joke, you are a fool or on the payroll. FOOLS! THIS IS WHY ONLINE SUCKS.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, the main reason you're not getting much in terms of serious replies, isn't that no one here takes rake issues seriously, but because of the ton of idiocies you surround this complaint with. That said, here's a serious reply:

Let's take the SNGs. If you're going to play tons of them, and you know you're working an hourly wage, the rake becomes a big factor. The reason I pulled up SNGs here, is because the differences in charges are more obvious and easier to compare.

A $3 SNG at Party takes $0.60 from that ($2.40 + 0.60), or 20%. Compare that to the $6 tables where the rake is $1 or 16.7%. Now jump to the $11 tables, also charging $1, and the cut drops to 9%. So, obviously this 'minimum charge' bell curve tapers out a bit after a while.

This is hardly new, and while the occasional player may not blink an eye at this, any small-stakes multi-tabling pro will have long since calculated this, and asked themselves if the softness of the Party tables makes up for the rake compared to Stars tables (for example).

At Stars, a $6.50 (turbo) table will charge you $0.50 or 7.7% and the $16 turbos even less, 6.25%. There are other factors of course, such as the average time a table lasts, availability, etc. but this is an example.

Cash games are subject to the same scrutiny, and the solution is the same: <u>game selection</u>. Game selection means selecting the site(s) you play at according to a number of factors:

- strength of opposition (obviously). You can either ask around for advice, or use some of the sites that collect this sort of info based on pot size and flops seen.

- rake AND rakeback. For example, suppose two sites have similarly tough games and availability, but one has rakeback, and the other doesn't. If you still play at the wrong one, blame yourself, not the site.

- Reload bonuses: For the low-stakes player these can make a big difference. The low-stakes I'm referring to aren't 1-cent/2-cent games BTW. Be serious. Play them to learn or have fun, but complaining about revenue will earn deserved laughs.

All this means that players have the same weapons ANY discriminating consumer has with any product, whether it be where they eat, which mobile phone provider they choose, or where they play poker online:

If you're not happy, you take your money elsewhere!

Also remember, the above discusses purely site-dependent factors. You can have all the factors to perfection, and not be break even. They won't help you play better, nor protect you from tilt. In the end, whether it be the site chosen, or the playing ability brought to the table, it's still up to you.

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The primary reason games are "dead" (which I disagree with) is because online players are EXTRAORDINARILY better than they were a couple of years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never denied that the players who play 30-60 hold'em are better than a few years ago. But what is the explanation? Books,in part, but rake more so. If the rake where lower, these players would be playing 100-200 hold'em because there would be more fish working their way up.

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hey stop, while i dont agree with a lot of what youve said, i do agree that the rake is far too high in most online games.

However, its not even worth arguing about it on here. Awhile ago, I merely brought up the point that IMO the "standard" rake that is common online today is not optimal for the growth of the games and the future of online poker. For this i was flamed repeatedly.

This forum is full of shills who will try to make you feel stupid for questioning the profit margin of the major poker sites. They feel that the rake is great the way it is for two reasons. Either they are affiliated with some site, or they make a living playing on a site and think that those who complain about the rake are just poor players. Then they talk about rakeback and try to equate rakeback or fpps with a lower rake which is just stupid.

You will not be able to have a constructive conversation on this forum about this subject. No one seems to care that the low limits are where beginners start out and that right now it is harder than ever for them to win. They just say "move up limits then you will hardly notice the rake... blah blah blah." Nevermind the fish who are getting picked apart by the rake at the lower limits. These fish have a far smaller chance of going on a hot streak winning a little bit, and then donking it off at the bigger tables.

Anyways IMO the combination of the high rake and the better players is making for a far lower percentage of winning players at the lower levels. AND THIS IS VERY BAD FOR THE GAME.

FLAME ON SHILLS.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is really a shill swamp isn't it here isn't it?

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
About 4 years ago I could beat online poker, people learning hand rankings probably had more of an impact than the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the(censored) unfortunate (censored) truth. There were people on party playing 5/10 limit who didn't know whether a flush or a straight was the winner. Well, the unfortunate part is they either went broke or got better.

[/ QUOTE ]

And couldn't the rake be a big part of the reason that bad players are forced to give up online?

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey stop, while i dont agree with a lot of what youve said, i do agree that the rake is far too high in most online games.

However, its not even worth arguing about it on here. Awhile ago, I merely brought up the point that IMO the "standard" rake that is common online today is not optimal for the growth of the games and the future of online poker. For this i was flamed repeatedly.

This forum is full of shills who will try to make you feel stupid for questioning the profit margin of the major poker sites. They feel that the rake is great the way it is for two reasons. Either they are affiliated with some site, or they make a living playing on a site and think that those who complain about the rake are just poor players. Then they talk about rakeback and try to equate rakeback or fpps with a lower rake which is just stupid.

You will not be able to have a constructive conversation on this forum about this subject. No one seems to care that the low limits are where beginners start out and that right now it is harder than ever for them to win. They just say "move up limits then you will hardly notice the rake... blah blah blah." Nevermind the fish who are getting picked apart by the rake at the lower limits. These fish have a far smaller chance of going on a hot streak winning a little bit, and then donking it off at the bigger tables.

Anyways IMO the combination of the high rake and the better players is making for a far lower percentage of winning players at the lower levels. AND THIS IS VERY BAD FOR THE GAME.

FLAME ON SHILLS.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am not affiliated to anything and I would like to see rake as low as possible. All players would benefit by greater profit or less losses. The vast majority of all posters here would like the same thing.

If you want a sensible discussion then post your view but be open minded as to the responses you get, especially when they don't agree with you.

Poker sites are there for one reason - to make profit for the sites owners. They are not a charity and noboby forces you to play there. As with any business there is a cost to pay for their services or goods. The art of a good business is to find the optimum level to charge their customers. Poker sites seem to have decided that their rake structure achieves their aims. Judging by the amount of traffic on poker sites I think they are probably right with the rake structure.

Would I like it cheaper? of course - then again I want cheaper car insurance, travel, food, drink, houses, clothes, mobile phones, internet connection, furntiture........................................ ........etc. It is a never ending list - apart from cheap women. I don't like them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm open minded, but most of the people who disagree take uncharitable interpretations of every thing you say, appear to be on the payroll and start in with the insults. lol.

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Play live if you think online rake it too high.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, a number of people have made this point, most quite snidely. Here is the response: GAMES ARE A LOT BETTER LIVE. A higher rake per hand is a lot more tolerable.

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

Here is a question for all of the defenders of the status quo? When did 6max become the norm and why? Here is my answer: about 3 years ago and to increase the rake that every player pays by almost 100%. Let's see if you can answer this question without getting distracted by your own greedy venom.

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Play live if you think online rake it too high.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, a number of people have made this point, most quite snidely. Here is the response: GAMES ARE A LOT BETTER LIVE. A higher rake per hand is a lot more tolerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh noes you might have to improve to beat the online games!

Since November 1st, I've paid $5,600 in rake over 46,000 hands. I don't think that's too out of hand.. I mean.. they gotta make money somehow.

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

I proposed a zero rake site, but nobody liked that idea.

Tough crowd,..... hard to please.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Tuff

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

I wish Mason would start a site. I think he's one of the very few who could do a good job.

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

[ QUOTE ]

I prithee sir, what is the solution to the "rake greed" "problem"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Play live if you think online rake it too high.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, a number of people have made this point, most quite snidely. Here is the response: GAMES ARE A LOT BETTER LIVE. A higher rake per hand is a lot more tolerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh? But wasn't your claim that the high rake is the reason why the games are so hard now? You seemed to be saying the the high rake has the main responsibility for driving the poor players out and in that way toughening the games. But live games have higher rake, so how can they be softer than online?

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I proposed a zero rake site

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really.

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Play live if you think online rake it too high.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, a number of people have made this point, most quite snidely. Here is the response: GAMES ARE A LOT BETTER LIVE. A higher rake per hand is a lot more tolerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh? But wasn't your claim that the high rake is the reason why the games are so hard now? You seemed to be saying the the high rake has the main responsibility for driving the poor players out and in that way toughening the games. But live games have higher rake, so how can they be softer than online?

[/ QUOTE ]

The high rake has driven the live one down more than out. If he can't play live where he lives, he has been driven down in stakes. He's got his 2k a month to lose and he gets to have his 20 hours of gambling only by playing lower where he doesn't lose it as fast. But where almost all of it goes down the drop.

Why are brick and mortar games better? All kinds of reasons. There are home games that are even better than brick and mortar casinos. I'm not trying to give a general explanation of how good games are. But it is easier to compare online now with online before the NOv2005-6max-$3ization. Some say everybody read books. That is certainly part of the explanation. But the overriding factor has been the rake.

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

It sounds to me like you're complaining more that online games are too fast. Online rakes a lot less than live on a per-hand basis, and that's what matters, for the most part.

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds to me like you're complaining more that online games are too fast. Online rakes a lot less than live on a per-hand basis, and that's what matters, for the most part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rake per hand is only one way to compare games. A better way is pot size. "that's what matters, for the most part."

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

I like online poker [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

In my previous thread, which was semi serious about a no rake site, someone mentioned Dutch Boyd and a membership site. I looked around a bit and read a little history about the demise of PokerSpot and the possible start of a site called Rakefree Poker.

Rakefree Poker apparently stalled before getting very far, and whether that was due to Dutch Boyd's unfortunate history, the subsequent arrival of the UIGEA, or both is not totally clear.

But let me ask the question. Why wouldn't you guys support a membership site? Say $49/month or some such number?

Bear in mind, such a site would not be any more legal in the current US climate than a rake site. But if the UIGEA suddenly went poof and US poker sites were explicitly allowed, wouldn't a "rakefree" site akin to what Dutch Boyd had in mind be a good thing?

Tuff &lt;&lt; doesn't play much poker anymore so doesn't pay much rake.

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I like online poker [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


keikiwai who's that girl on your picture? Please share!!!

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

[ QUOTE ]
When did 6max become the norm and why? Here is my answer: about 3 years ago and to increase the rake that every player pays by almost 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again. 6 max became the norm because it was demanded by the players. As 6 max gained popularity players started gravitating towards the sites that offered these shorthanded games. The action junkies gravitated towards these tables making them much more profitable than full ring.

There were many threads on this forum (where the GMs of poker sites often participated) when 6 max tables first emerged. Lots of pressure was put on sites that did not offer short handed tables.

More hands = more rake of course but it was never the sites who forced 6 max tables upon the players - it was definitely the other way around.

I'm all for lower rake but posts like yours will never result in serious discussion. You make up facts (such as rewriting history on the birth of 6 max) to fit your argument. You don't offer any solutions and everything you have stated was already stated by the crazy who preceded you.

You offer nothing new or constructive to the discussion.

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

FullTiltPoker Game #4321822343: Table Darling (6 max) - $2/$4 - No Limit Hold'em - 1:59:06 ET - 2007/11/28
Seat 1: cardiffgiant1 ($400)
Seat 2: ungar2000 ($813.10)
Seat 3: czplaya ($480.10)
Seat 4: Erik Bloodaxe ($515), is sitting out
Seat 5: whiteyholdem ($430.20), is sitting out
Seat 6: ilovemypuppy ($400)
czplaya posts the small blind of $2
ilovemypuppy posts the big blind of $4
5 seconds left to act
cardiffgiant1 is sitting out
Time has expired
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to ilovemypuppy [Ad Ah]
ungar2000 folds
czplaya raises to $12
ilovemypuppy calls $8
*** FLOP *** [4s 7h 8s]
czplaya bets $18
ilovemypuppy raises to $64
czplaya calls $46
*** TURN *** [4s 7h 8s] [3d]
czplaya checks
ilovemypuppy bets $124
czplaya raises to $404.10, and is all in
ilovemypuppy calls $200, and is all in
czplaya shows [Th Td]
ilovemypuppy shows [Ad Ah]
Uncalled bet of $80.10 returned to czplaya
*** RIVER *** [4s 7h 8s 3d] [4h]
czplaya shows two pair, Tens and Fours
ilovemypuppy shows two pair, Aces and Fours
ilovemypuppy wins the pot ($799) with two pair, Aces and Fours
whiteyholdem has returned
whiteyholdem is sitting out
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $800 | Rake $1
Board: [4s 7h 8s 3d 4h]
Seat 1: cardiffgiant1 is sitting out
Seat 2: ungar2000 (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 3: czplaya (small blind) showed [Th Td] and lost with two pair, Tens and Fours
Seat 4: Erik Bloodaxe is sitting out
Seat 5: whiteyholdem is sitting out
Seat 6: ilovemypuppy (big blind) showed [Ad Ah] and won ($799) with two pair, Aces and Fours

How am I gonna eat tonight?!

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

[ QUOTE ]
But let me ask the question. Why wouldn't you guys support a membership site? Say $49/month or some such number?

[/ QUOTE ]

Tuff,

It isn't that I wouldn't support it, I would in the right conditions. I know it's a good idea but how are you going to convince the recreational player that it's worth the investment. The guy who plays a couple of Friday nights a month isn't going to see the value in making this monthly payment. If you figure out how to stock your pond I'm there in a heartbeat.

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

[ QUOTE ]
FullTiltPoker Game #4321822343: Table Darling (6 max) - $2/$4 - No Limit Hold'em - 1:59:06 ET - 2007/11/28
Seat 1: cardiffgiant1 ($400)
Seat 2: ungar2000 ($813.10)
Seat 3: czplaya ($480.10)
Seat 4: Erik Bloodaxe ($515), is sitting out
Seat 5: whiteyholdem ($430.20), is sitting out
Seat 6: ilovemypuppy ($400)
czplaya posts the small blind of $2
ilovemypuppy posts the big blind of $4
5 seconds left to act
cardiffgiant1 is sitting out
Time has expired
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to ilovemypuppy [Ad Ah]
ungar2000 folds
czplaya raises to $12
ilovemypuppy calls $8
*** FLOP *** [4s 7h 8s]
czplaya bets $18
ilovemypuppy raises to $64
czplaya calls $46
*** TURN *** [4s 7h 8s] [3d]
czplaya checks
ilovemypuppy bets $124
czplaya raises to $404.10, and is all in
ilovemypuppy calls $200, and is all in
czplaya shows [Th Td]
ilovemypuppy shows [Ad Ah]
Uncalled bet of $80.10 returned to czplaya
*** RIVER *** [4s 7h 8s 3d] [4h]
czplaya shows two pair, Tens and Fours
ilovemypuppy shows two pair, Aces and Fours
ilovemypuppy wins the pot ($799) with two pair, Aces and Fours
whiteyholdem has returned
whiteyholdem is sitting out
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $800 | Rake $1
Board: [4s 7h 8s 3d 4h]
Seat 1: cardiffgiant1 is sitting out
Seat 2: ungar2000 (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 3: czplaya (small blind) showed [Th Td] and lost with two pair, Tens and Fours
Seat 4: Erik Bloodaxe is sitting out
Seat 5: whiteyholdem is sitting out
Seat 6: ilovemypuppy (big blind) showed [Ad Ah] and won ($799) with two pair, Aces and Fours

How am I gonna eat tonight?!

[/ QUOTE ]

Its because its 4-handed?

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When did 6max become the norm and why? Here is my answer: about 3 years ago and to increase the rake that every player pays by almost 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again. 6 max became the norm because it was demanded by the players. As 6 max gained popularity players started gravitating towards the sites that offered these shorthanded games. The action junkies gravitated towards these tables making them much more profitable than full ring.

There were many threads on this forum (where the GMs of poker sites often participated) when 6 max tables first emerged. Lots of pressure was put on sites that did not offer short handed tables.

More hands = more rake of course but it was never the sites who forced 6 max tables upon the players - it was definitely the other way around.

I'm all for lower rake but posts like yours will never result in serious discussion. You make up facts (such as rewriting history on the birth of 6 max) to fit your argument. You don't offer any solutions and everything you have stated was already stated by the crazy who preceded you.

You offer nothing new or constructive to the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

ooooooooo PWNED!!!!!! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

[ QUOTE ]


Its because its 4-handed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but my highest rake/hand paid is only ever $3.

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

[ QUOTE ]

I am also of the belief that I should be provided with free lawyers, guns, and money

[/ QUOTE ]

in order, no, because I like my salary. No, because anarchy man. And LDO, especially if it's paid in Nigerian Gold held in trust from some long lost prince.

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When did 6max become the norm and why? Here is my answer: about 3 years ago and to increase the rake that every player pays by almost 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again. 6 max became the norm because it was demanded by the players. As 6 max gained popularity players started gravitating towards the sites that offered these shorthanded games. The action junkies gravitated towards these tables making them much more profitable than full ring.

There were many threads on this forum (where the GMs of poker sites often participated) when 6 max tables first emerged. Lots of pressure was put on sites that did not offer short handed tables.

More hands = more rake of course but it was never the sites who forced 6 max tables upon the players - it was definitely the other way around.

I'm all for lower rake but posts like yours will never result in serious discussion. You make up facts (such as rewriting history on the birth of 6 max) to fit your argument. You don't offer any solutions and everything you have stated was already stated by the crazy who preceded you.

You offer nothing new or constructive to the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is naive to think that the sites did this because of player pressure. Did they also raise the rake from $2-$3 because of player pressure? Put up the links where the GM's are getting pressured if you can. Also, as this very thread shows, the sites have plenty of lackies to post there point of view. LOL. There was more short action on Party Poker before the 6-max games arrived. Some of us remember when you could see 20 or so 2-4 handed games. So YOU my friend are WRONG AGAIN.

Really, answer this: Don't you think that the sites will try to manipulate the discussion on here? Answer no to that. I dare you. Then will see who gets flamed.

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

[ QUOTE ]
FullTiltPoker Game #4321822343: Table Darling (6 max) - $2/$4 - No Limit Hold'em - 1:59:06 ET - 2007/11/28
Seat 1: cardiffgiant1 ($400)
Seat 2: ungar2000 ($813.10)
Seat 3: czplaya ($480.10)
Seat 4: Erik Bloodaxe ($515), is sitting out
Seat 5: whiteyholdem ($430.20), is sitting out
Seat 6: ilovemypuppy ($400)
czplaya posts the small blind of $2
ilovemypuppy posts the big blind of $4
5 seconds left to act
cardiffgiant1 is sitting out
Time has expired
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to ilovemypuppy [Ad Ah]
ungar2000 folds
czplaya raises to $12
ilovemypuppy calls $8
*** FLOP *** [4s 7h 8s]
czplaya bets $18
ilovemypuppy raises to $64
czplaya calls $46
*** TURN *** [4s 7h 8s] [3d]
czplaya checks
ilovemypuppy bets $124
czplaya raises to $404.10, and is all in
ilovemypuppy calls $200, and is all in
czplaya shows [Th Td]
ilovemypuppy shows [Ad Ah]
Uncalled bet of $80.10 returned to czplaya
*** RIVER *** [4s 7h 8s 3d] [4h]
czplaya shows two pair, Tens and Fours
ilovemypuppy shows two pair, Aces and Fours
ilovemypuppy wins the pot ($799) with two pair, Aces and Fours
whiteyholdem has returned
whiteyholdem is sitting out
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $800 | Rake $1
Board: [4s 7h 8s 3d 4h]
Seat 1: cardiffgiant1 is sitting out
Seat 2: ungar2000 (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 3: czplaya (small blind) showed [Th Td] and lost with two pair, Tens and Fours
Seat 4: Erik Bloodaxe is sitting out
Seat 5: whiteyholdem is sitting out
Seat 6: ilovemypuppy (big blind) showed [Ad Ah] and won ($799) with two pair, Aces and Fours

How am I gonna eat tonight?!

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you guys should "pressure" fulltilt to just offer 4 handed tables then.

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

I'd still like to see a PT shot. Honestly I've never seen a screenshot with millions of hands... most was FGators' 1.6 or so.

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd still like to see a PT shot. Honestly I've never seen a screenshot with millions of hands... most was FGators' 1.6 or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly does this add to the debate?

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

Oh, thank you OP for opening my eyes. Now I know, that I lost money at poker not because I suck, but because of high rake, awesome.

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd still like to see a PT shot. Honestly I've never seen a screenshot with millions of hands... most was FGators' 1.6 or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly does this add to the debate?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm just curious. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

My absolute FAVORITE thing about zoo threads is the tendency of bad OPs to instantly start accusing everyone disagreeing with them of being shills for the sites.

At least that's what the logical part of my brain says. The other point just says

http://web.tiscali.it/fabioracco2/images/Whois16.gif

Re: Why online poker sucks.
 

E PUR, SI SUCK is what Galileo would say.