Re: Why not WSEX?
The problem with no rake sites is that it predominantly attracts the sharks, for whom lower rake is pure positive. What would be the point for the fish to come to rock gardens to save on rake when they're going to be demolished on the table, and lose 10x what they saved on rake?
For the losing player, lower casino rake may or may not be a good thing. Losing players pay two kinds of rake: one to the casino, and another to sharks (by losing to them). Those two kinds have an inverse relationship with each other. In a certain range, higher casino rake actually helps the fish, since it drives out the sharks, and the decrease in "shark rake" more than offsets the increase in the casino rake.
I predict that if at some point sites would openly compete on rake, and fish would rationally choose their sites based on that information, the softest games would be at the site with the highest rake.
|