The rake is unacceptable

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So if WPEX is losing in the other areas why does this prove that a lower rake cant work? WTF? Do you see how you are contradicting yourself. You are right that WPEX is unsuccessful because of software, customer service, and advertising issues.

WHY DOES THIS SHOW THAT LOWER RAKE DOESNT WORK? You are saying that WPEX failed for reasons other than their rake so why does this mean that their rake wont work?? Does this make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

His post said that WPEX doesn't prove anything about lowering the rake. He said WPEX isn't doing well because they aren't as good as the other sites in other areas. He then went on to say that marketing "We give back more to our players" is better than "We take less from our players" which isn't proven but seems fairly obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]
EXACTLY my point, well said.

[ QUOTE ]
The argument here is over how much people are affected by changes in the rake. Without considering other factors, changes in rake structure has had very little effect on the size of the player pool.

When Pacific changed to a $4 max rake, their player base didn't suffer.
When Party started the Monster Jackpot tables their numbers went up.
When Absolute made nearly every table a BBJ table and killed their bonus structure their numbers continued to climb.

These are 3 instances of major sites changing their rake structure for the worse and INCREASING their playerbase. We then have the example of a startup site, WPEX, offering no rake poker and being unsuccessful.

Given the information we have, those stating matter of factly that "if you cut the rake the players will come" are stating groundless assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Excellent points, and they are simple, indisuptable fact. Although we don't have numbers to prove the following point, it seems pretty logical to conclude that lower rake wouldn't easily increase the player bases, since increased rake didn't decrease them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The player rewards are all illusions to distract you from the high rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they are. Which draws players in more easily, thoughts of phantom savings on rake(which is difficult to explain anyway) or the idea the just for playing on Poker Stars they can get that shiny Aston Martin or at least a few sweatshirts?

[/ QUOTE ]
Right.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Y not just have a lower rake? In the end they are the same thing except for a couple of important points:

[/ QUOTE ]

They're not even close to being the same. They both save players money but only one of them gives an incentive for increased play(which is clearly in the sites' best interest). Fish squeeze in extra hands to make silverstar on Stars and play a few hundred hands daily to make Iron Man on Full Tilt just like grinders try to make it to SNE or increase their RB payment.

[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed, they are not the same. To the player receiving the incentives the effect is the same. However, to the site, incentives are much more powerful. They can be targeted to high volume players, low-limit players, high-limit players, wherever a site feels it would help their player base. Player-specific bonuses can be used for target markets such as losing players, players who haven't played in a long time, high-volume players, whatever a site likes.

Lower rake can't be targetted nearly as easily. Also, marketing lower rake requires educating players about rake in the first place. Again, what's an easier sell: "We take less" or "We give more"?