Why online poker sucks.

[STOPRAKEGREED]

Why does online poker suck? One reason often given is that the players are better. This is true, but this is in turn due to the extremely high rake. Consider a .01-.02 PLO game on UB. If a big pot comes down, say $16 bucks, the site takes $1 or 50 times the big blind. FIFTY TIMES THE BIG BLIND!!! And other sites and other limits you see much the same. On full tilt, they will rake $3 in a .50-1 PLO game. This in a game where most matchups are 60-40. Stars the same crap. So obviously the sites have decided that they are going to take all of the low-mid limit money for themselves. Better to satisfy their own shameless greed and seemingly better to avoid having to scramble to find middle men to cut too many checks and draw attention. (Was perhaps cowardice the main reason Party left the US market?) I've been playing online poker since the days of Planet Poker and I've watched the tide rise and fall. I've played millions of hands of poker online. I've seen truly great players move from brick and mortar to online, crush online, struggle and then give up online. Really, look at all the full tilt pros who have been all over the magazines playing at what, especially now, are extremely modest stakes. If they are so good, why don't the play bigger? Many of them are actually quite good, but the games suck so they have to play low. If you don't say that the humongous rake destroyed mid-limit online poker then you are either a fool or on the payroll.

[Rek]

Feel better after getting that off your chest?

[STOPRAKEGREED]

lol. best response. marginally. i'll go have a smoke now.

[sethypooh21]

Oh Noes! Poker Sites make money providing a service people are willing to pay for.

Where is the Film Cannister for god's sake, OP?

[LateNiteRush]

All I can say is "wow"

[DMoogle]

You've played millions of hands online and you're talking about rake at nanolimits?

Hi FGators.

[STOPRAKEGREED]

.5-1 plo is not nano limit. David Chiu plays 1-2

[Komodo]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does online poker suck? One reason often given is that the players are better. This is true, but this is in turn due to the extremely high rake. Consider a .01-.02 PLO game on UB. If a big pot comes down, say $16 bucks, the site takes $1 or 50 times the big blind. FIFTY TIMES THE BIG BLIND!!! And other sites and other limits you see much the same. On full tilt, they will rake $3 in a .50-1 PLO game. This in a game where most matchups are 60-40. Stars the same crap. So obviously the sites have decided that they are going to take all of the low-mid limit money for themselves. Better to satisfy their own shameless greed and seemingly better to avoid having to scramble to find middle men to cut too many checks and draw attention. (Was perhaps cowardice the main reason Party left the US market?) I've been playing online poker since the days of Planet Poker and I've watched the tide rise and fall. I've played millions of hands of poker online. I've seen truly great players move from brick and mortar to online, crush online, struggle and then give up online. Really, look at all the full tilt pros who have been all over the magazines playing at what, especially now, are extremely modest stakes. If they are so good, why don't the play bigger? Many of them are actually quite good, but the games suck so they have to play low. If you don't say that the humongous rake destroyed mid-limit online poker then you are either a fool or on the payroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats were the NIT come from. They undrestand that due to the high rake normal poker cant be played, so you simply avoid these situations and stick to the nuts.

[STOPRAKEGREED]

the live ones pay more rake online every month for their 20 hours of fun.

[thac]

[ QUOTE ]
the live ones pay more rake online every month for their 20 hours of fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not entirely convinced that's true.