Why online poker sucks.

[Albert Silver]

[ QUOTE ]
I just pulled up a 6 max 3-6 game on fulltilt. They are getting about a hundred hands an hour and the rake is up to $3. So they are taking off about $150/hror $25/hr for each player. If you don't think this is a joke, you are a fool or on the payroll. FOOLS! THIS IS WHY ONLINE SUCKS.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, the main reason you're not getting much in terms of serious replies, isn't that no one here takes rake issues seriously, but because of the ton of idiocies you surround this complaint with. That said, here's a serious reply:

Let's take the SNGs. If you're going to play tons of them, and you know you're working an hourly wage, the rake becomes a big factor. The reason I pulled up SNGs here, is because the differences in charges are more obvious and easier to compare.

A $3 SNG at Party takes $0.60 from that ($2.40 + 0.60), or 20%. Compare that to the $6 tables where the rake is $1 or 16.7%. Now jump to the $11 tables, also charging $1, and the cut drops to 9%. So, obviously this 'minimum charge' bell curve tapers out a bit after a while.

This is hardly new, and while the occasional player may not blink an eye at this, any small-stakes multi-tabling pro will have long since calculated this, and asked themselves if the softness of the Party tables makes up for the rake compared to Stars tables (for example).

At Stars, a $6.50 (turbo) table will charge you $0.50 or 7.7% and the $16 turbos even less, 6.25%. There are other factors of course, such as the average time a table lasts, availability, etc. but this is an example.

Cash games are subject to the same scrutiny, and the solution is the same: <u>game selection</u>. Game selection means selecting the site(s) you play at according to a number of factors:

- strength of opposition (obviously). You can either ask around for advice, or use some of the sites that collect this sort of info based on pot size and flops seen.

- rake AND rakeback. For example, suppose two sites have similarly tough games and availability, but one has rakeback, and the other doesn't. If you still play at the wrong one, blame yourself, not the site.

- Reload bonuses: For the low-stakes player these can make a big difference. The low-stakes I'm referring to aren't 1-cent/2-cent games BTW. Be serious. Play them to learn or have fun, but complaining about revenue will earn deserved laughs.

All this means that players have the same weapons ANY discriminating consumer has with any product, whether it be where they eat, which mobile phone provider they choose, or where they play poker online:

If you're not happy, you take your money elsewhere!

Also remember, the above discusses purely site-dependent factors. You can have all the factors to perfection, and not be break even. They won't help you play better, nor protect you from tilt. In the end, whether it be the site chosen, or the playing ability brought to the table, it's still up to you.

[STOPRAKEGREED]

[ QUOTE ]
The primary reason games are "dead" (which I disagree with) is because online players are EXTRAORDINARILY better than they were a couple of years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never denied that the players who play 30-60 hold'em are better than a few years ago. But what is the explanation? Books,in part, but rake more so. If the rake where lower, these players would be playing 100-200 hold'em because there would be more fish working their way up.

[STOPRAKEGREED]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey stop, while i dont agree with a lot of what youve said, i do agree that the rake is far too high in most online games.

However, its not even worth arguing about it on here. Awhile ago, I merely brought up the point that IMO the "standard" rake that is common online today is not optimal for the growth of the games and the future of online poker. For this i was flamed repeatedly.

This forum is full of shills who will try to make you feel stupid for questioning the profit margin of the major poker sites. They feel that the rake is great the way it is for two reasons. Either they are affiliated with some site, or they make a living playing on a site and think that those who complain about the rake are just poor players. Then they talk about rakeback and try to equate rakeback or fpps with a lower rake which is just stupid.

You will not be able to have a constructive conversation on this forum about this subject. No one seems to care that the low limits are where beginners start out and that right now it is harder than ever for them to win. They just say "move up limits then you will hardly notice the rake... blah blah blah." Nevermind the fish who are getting picked apart by the rake at the lower limits. These fish have a far smaller chance of going on a hot streak winning a little bit, and then donking it off at the bigger tables.

Anyways IMO the combination of the high rake and the better players is making for a far lower percentage of winning players at the lower levels. AND THIS IS VERY BAD FOR THE GAME.

FLAME ON SHILLS.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is really a shill swamp isn't it here isn't it?

[STOPRAKEGREED]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

And couldn't the rake be a big part of the reason that bad players are forced to give up online?

[STOPRAKEGREED]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey stop, while i dont agree with a lot of what youve said, i do agree that the rake is far too high in most online games.

However, its not even worth arguing about it on here. Awhile ago, I merely brought up the point that IMO the "standard" rake that is common online today is not optimal for the growth of the games and the future of online poker. For this i was flamed repeatedly.

This forum is full of shills who will try to make you feel stupid for questioning the profit margin of the major poker sites. They feel that the rake is great the way it is for two reasons. Either they are affiliated with some site, or they make a living playing on a site and think that those who complain about the rake are just poor players. Then they talk about rakeback and try to equate rakeback or fpps with a lower rake which is just stupid.

You will not be able to have a constructive conversation on this forum about this subject. No one seems to care that the low limits are where beginners start out and that right now it is harder than ever for them to win. They just say "move up limits then you will hardly notice the rake... blah blah blah." Nevermind the fish who are getting picked apart by the rake at the lower limits. These fish have a far smaller chance of going on a hot streak winning a little bit, and then donking it off at the bigger tables.

Anyways IMO the combination of the high rake and the better players is making for a far lower percentage of winning players at the lower levels. AND THIS IS VERY BAD FOR THE GAME.

FLAME ON SHILLS.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am not affiliated to anything and I would like to see rake as low as possible. All players would benefit by greater profit or less losses. The vast majority of all posters here would like the same thing.

If you want a sensible discussion then post your view but be open minded as to the responses you get, especially when they don't agree with you.

Poker sites are there for one reason - to make profit for the sites owners. They are not a charity and noboby forces you to play there. As with any business there is a cost to pay for their services or goods. The art of a good business is to find the optimum level to charge their customers. Poker sites seem to have decided that their rake structure achieves their aims. Judging by the amount of traffic on poker sites I think they are probably right with the rake structure.

Would I like it cheaper? of course - then again I want cheaper car insurance, travel, food, drink, houses, clothes, mobile phones, internet connection, furntiture........................................ ........etc. It is a never ending list - apart from cheap women. I don't like them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm open minded, but most of the people who disagree take uncharitable interpretations of every thing you say, appear to be on the payroll and start in with the insults. lol.

[STOPRAKEGREED]

[ QUOTE ]
Play live if you think online rake it too high.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, a number of people have made this point, most quite snidely. Here is the response: GAMES ARE A LOT BETTER LIVE. A higher rake per hand is a lot more tolerable.

[STOPRAKEGREED]

Here is a question for all of the defenders of the status quo? When did 6max become the norm and why? Here is my answer: about 3 years ago and to increase the rake that every player pays by almost 100%. Let's see if you can answer this question without getting distracted by your own greedy venom.

[thac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Play live if you think online rake it too high.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, a number of people have made this point, most quite snidely. Here is the response: GAMES ARE A LOT BETTER LIVE. A higher rake per hand is a lot more tolerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh noes you might have to improve to beat the online games!

Since November 1st, I've paid $5,600 in rake over 46,000 hands. I don't think that's too out of hand.. I mean.. they gotta make money somehow.

[Tuff_Fish]

I proposed a zero rake site, but nobody liked that idea.

Tough crowd,..... hard to please.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Tuff

[STOPRAKEGREED]

I wish Mason would start a site. I think he's one of the very few who could do a good job.