The rake is unacceptable

[zen_rounder]

i was in oz recently and star city in sydney charged an unreal amount of rake 20% on tournys and tablre charges+rake on cash. i think online with rakebaCK IF YOU CAN GET IT IS SUPER VALUE COMPARED
[ QUOTE ]
agent87,

Do you realize that the Bellagio makes truckloads of money from the other games in the casino? While I don't have the books of any B&M casino on me, from my understanding, poker is essentially a loss-leader.

On the other hand, Full Tilt is only a poker room. Obviously, Full Tilt's overhead isn't what the Bellagio's is, but Full Tilt doesn't have acres of slot machines, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

[aos08]

I won $19 after paying $1963 in rake. What more do you want to know? My preflop raise percentage?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I won $19. And raked $1963. And I did the not so complicated math myself that if I had played without rake taken I had won 19+1963=$1982.
Less than 1% of what I won to me, and over 99% to Ftp.

[/ QUOTE ]
PT screenshot please

[/ QUOTE ]

[Choparno]

[ QUOTE ]
I won $19 after paying $1963 in rake. What more do you want to know? My preflop raise percentage?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I want to unravel your playing style so I can take that $19! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[homanga]

I would just like to point out like no one has yet that the OP's math his horribly off. If he had 1963 in rake that doesn't mean it all went into pots he won. I.E. its prolly like 1/6th of 1963

[aos08]

lol I did the very complicated math myself that if I won $19 and payed $1963 in rake that makes it $1982. Understand?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what OP meant, because I don't think he even knows.. he's just an idiot. Where is he pulling this $1982 number from if PT is showing he has a $19 net win? Do you even have pokertracker? I also notice that he hasn't been back in this thread at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Rek]

aos08, give it up - people like prodonkey can only understand if it is written in 1 particular way. They can't understand the simplicity of what you are saying.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if tommorow stars became 30% cheaper you think they would not take a significant amount from the other sites?

Not to mention that the fish would still lose their $ it would just take longer.

What proof do you have that if a major site dropped its rake, they would not gain players?

And WSEX is not proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Major sites MAY gain players by dropping their rake, but IF this results in more players, their costs will also increase (support staff / hardware / etc) As such they would probably end-up making only marginally more money if any at all, so why do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that could be argued to death...and either side could be right. Really depends on "how many" players they gain and "how much each player costs on average."

My guess is shortterm it wouldn't help, but longterm it would.

Also....I agree, WPEX shouldn't count, they failed because of HORRIBLE management.

[/ QUOTE ]


Come to PokerStars!!
20% Reduction of our already low rake!
Every time we WOULD have raked $1 we'll only take $0.80!!!


Do you really think this would attract the players?
Seriously? Players just don't care about $0.20.

The sites pretty much prefer to remain quiet about their rake. They don't want the players to think about how much is getting taken out of each pot or how much the site is making.
Highlighting the aspect of, "We will rake less" means that they are talking about, "We take money out of every pot" which they would just prefer you forget about. Plus, it acknowledges raking 'less than' their competitors and they really don't want to acknowledge their competitors. They want you to only think about them.


And in a rake-reduction like this it's one of those things where the consumer who is saving on cost can't even see or tell that they are saving on cost.
After they play 1 table and win 5 pots that are raked $0.20 less each they are NOT going to be sitting there thinking, "Well, I won $1 more than I would have if they hadn't done that rake-reduction."

All they are thinking about is how the cards ran, how many times they got bad-beat, and whether they won $100 or lost $100 in that session. That extra $1 doesn't even occur to them.


Think about the situation as it is RIGHT NOW.
There is already a couple of fairly significant rake-differences between FT and Stars.
All these players on Stars at the low-stakes tables can say the exact same thing.
"Well, I won a $62 pot in my 6-handed game. On Stars that's only raked $2 and on FT it's raked $3. I just won an extra dollar by winning this pot on Stars!!"

Nobody thinks that. Most people don't even know about it or care. And even the people who are aware of it don't think that.

[MiltonFriedman]

It is simple. What you have done is single out a marginal cost of doing business as "unacceptable". In its place you propose a fixed cost of $500.

Fixed costs, by their nature, can and usually are paid up front, like rent, internet service et cetera. So, if you want to discuss a fixed cost of $500, do you realize it would be payable upfront ?

I may not be the genius you think I am, I have only one Nobel Prize.

[1p0kerboy]

Bob-

Not every casual/recreational player is a complete moron. Certainly some are, but I would tend to think that at some point most players are going to wonder just how much of their losses are going down the tube to the house. After all, everyone always wants to blame someone/something else for their losses (other than themselves).

We're certainly seeing less and less terrible players and more and more of the average players that were doing well before are losing money now. And they are the ones that are looking at the rake.

I think part of the answer is in rakeback or rewards similar to the VIP program at Stars.

I don't think just busting out the average players is the best solution for the industry.

[MicroBob]

I don't think it is either but telling the players that they will save big and/or bust-out less quickly with 20% rake-reduction isn't going to accomplish anything.

As mentioned before, you already HAVE a fairly significant rake difference between sites. And nobody gives a crap...not even the people who are playing at those sites now...not even most of your 2+2'ers who you would expect to care the most about these things. Even THEY don't care that much.


Look, I would love to see lower rake too. Think it would be great for me and for many players trying to hang in there.
But that's not necessarily the question.

Will lower-rake actually influence revenues for the site?
I think it would hurt the site's bottom-line because they aren't going to get significantly more action to make up for the amount they are NOT taking out in each hand.

Will it bring in more players by announcing, "We have lower rake than the other guys"?
I just don't think it will.