[geormiet]

I actually agree with the people saying the rake is ridiculous.

I've made the world of warcraft comparison before. Before rakeback, I'm paying around $8k/month to play on software that is about 4 years dated. It's true that poker sites have operating costs that world of warcraft doesn't (as well as fewer customers) but $8k/month is beyond ridiculous for the service that I am receiving for playing around 25 hrs a week. If anyone disagrees with that, then we don't have a discussion.

RE: the $500 monthly idea. This would work if a site wanted it to. They wouldn't say "before you play, we need $500." Instead they could just rake like normal, but cap it at $500 per month. Or they could offer you the option of paying rake like normal, or paying $500 a month instead.

Both of which are unlikely to be welcomed by a site, because the huge cut in profits would probably nowhere near make up the players it attracts.


Listen, in the future when poker is legalized/regulated whatever, the rake will go down. Competition will do this. Yes, some fish are stupid. A lot of fish however aren't. Also, there are really easy ways for sites to make less rake appealing in recreational players' eyes. Namely, bonuses, raking and paying it back at the end of the week a la wsex, or clever marketing schemes that explain how much of an effect their lower rake makes.