Why online poker sucks.

STOPRAKEGREED · #1 11-27-2007, 10:29 PM

the number of people beating the game for anything significant has dropped by about 80%

DMoogle · #2 11-27-2007, 10:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the number of people beating the game for anything significant has dropped by about 80%

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you back this up? Most people who beat the game "for anything significant" play at stakes where the rake is a much smaller percentage of the average pot size.

STOPRAKEGREED · #3 11-27-2007, 10:43 PM

yeah, i'll back it up. about 4 years ago almost all of the top san francisco pros were playing online. now about 80%, roughly 40 out of 50, have given it up. online is now just a bad joke unless you are one of the very best players.

edfurlong · #4 11-27-2007, 10:47 PM

About 4 years ago I could beat online poker, people learning hand rankings probably had more of an impact than the rake.

Wires · #5 11-27-2007, 10:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
About 4 years ago I could beat online poker, people learning hand rankings probably had more of an impact than the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true, ed. I started back in 2001 (maybe 02) with a PokerRoom account. Poker wasn't all over television yet and people had no clue about what constituted a good starting hand - players were splashing around with anything. I spent most of that time playing 5/10 and 10/20 LimitLHE and I don't think things were ever better.

I'm a much better player now than I was back then but I don't make as much. I'm getting all misty eyed just thinking about it.

The OP's assertion rake is killing the .01/.02 game is awesome though.

STOPRAKEGREED · #6 11-27-2007, 11:02 PM

OF course people got better. Of course they read books and learned. But that doesn't explain why the games really suck bad. The amount of rake that any player pays online for an hour is considerably more than a casino. The live one has say $2000 to blow a month and maybe 20 hours to do it. Live he'll lose $350 in rake in 20 hours. Online, he'll lose more like half in rake if he plays two games at once. That is $650 less for the pro to make.

STOPRAKEGREED · #7 11-27-2007, 11:05 PM

A point that I made originally that none of the name callers has picked up on is the point about having to cut a lot of checks. This is probably the biggest headache for the sites. UB sends checks from several different banks. Much easier to just keep the rake high.

El_Hombre_Grande · #8 11-28-2007, 07:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
About 4 years ago I could beat online poker, people learning hand rankings probably had more of an impact than the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the(censored) unfortunate (censored) truth. There were people on party playing 5/10 limit who didn't know whether a flush or a straight was the winner. Well, the unfortunate part is they either went broke or got better.

El_Hombre_Grande · #9 11-28-2007, 08:08 AM

Rek hit the nail on the head.

I want free rake. I'm not an affiliate, I'm a winning player (to be distinguished from "whining player.)It doesn't take a genius to understand that lower rake is better than higher rake, but careful. That money is spent to promote and advertise games, and find fish.

You offer a "theory" (I'm being kind) with no evidence and no solution. You are being flamed (rightfully) for this, not because anyone wants to pay more rake rather than less.

I am also of the belief that I should be provided with free lawyers, guns, and money but thusfar the bar associations, gun dealers and US Treasury seem to feel different. Why should you expect an offshore poker site to be any more charitable?

OnYourBike · #10 11-28-2007, 08:51 AM

Play live if you think online rake it too high.