View Single Post
  #256  
Old 11-23-2007, 11:45 AM
Tuff_Fish Tuff_Fish is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Diego
Posts: 980
Default Re: Zero Rake Poker Business plan

Here is the post I should have made in the first place.

I anticipated a bunch of crap from you guys about the single table, and, in the process of preemptively giving you crap back, precipitated the ongoing disagreement.

------------------------------------------


I have my perfect poker site in mind. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

This would be a totally legal US site with freely available funding, via debit card and other means, to all poker players. Winnings may be withdrawn by a timely US bank check taking a couple of days [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] instead of a couple of weeks (or months [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]).

All poker players are welcome and pay absolutely nothing, ever, to play. There is no rake of any kind, ever. (This is the key to it being legal, just like home games almost everywhere.)

The site would be vetted by the finest US accounting and auditing firms to be found. Players must be 21 and will be positively identified prior to being allowed to play.

The site will be well advertised. How many players do you suppose there would be at the tables?

Sorry, only one table per player. The model does not work otherwise. You will be free to play many tables at PokerStars or Full Tilt and one table here. No problem at all, there will be a reasonable clock put on you and we move on.

It is not adverstisement supported or a membership site. How the site works will be made known in due time. It is not important for this discussion. (I know you are curious, but patience please)

Interested?

Cheaters and colluders will be shot, survivors will be shot again. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Screen name changes allowed at will.

Who is in on these terms?

Anyone really excited? (Besides me)

-------------------------------------------

I believe this as an original post would have produced a more fruitful discussion.

My apologies,

Tuff
Reply With Quote