Sit and Gos- Is the rake fair?

[DCJ311]

[ QUOTE ]

So why are these sites not competing?! I don`t wanna bring up silly conspiracy theories. I am just rational business-like thinking. Do they have a kind of gentleman`s agreement?!



[/ QUOTE ]

Not every business model is 100% perfect. Pokerstars' is very good, though. We can at least give them credit for having lower vig than most other sites, but the fact of the matter is that they could be doing better.

Rake in online poker is WAY too high and it is a matter of time before rake will go down in all games. The point is that it is especially highest in SNGs and HU matches, although I haven't addressed the latter specifically.

The fewer players in a tournament, the more of an edge you will need to break even. It is that simple. SNGs are now too competitive for the rake to be where it is. Some of us pay enough rake a year for sites to pay attention.

Pokerstars is my favorite site by far in terms of what they offer, but they fact of the matter is that players will only get what they want if they make an effort to do so. Lee is a fair man, he will listen. His job is to make the players happy without putting his site at expense.

I recommend all sng players to write to pokermanager@pokerstars.com with your feedback. You guys are right, it is not just the higher limit players getting a raw deal. Even if you play $15 sngs you can make a difference. I gave Lee a link to this thread, maybe he will pop up in it if we're lucky. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] In the meantime keep posting as I'm pretty impressed with the responses so far.

[Schmitty 87]

With the increased difficulty of sngos across the board, I have attempted the move to playing cash games two or three times. However, I am still much more comfortable playing sngos, with Stars being my favorite site by far. Eventually though, I will HAVE to move to cash games. I've made 5 figures playing sngos and probably a 10th of that playing cash games, but it's just too hard to beat higher limit sngos (with the rake certainly a large factor).

With the lack of rakeback, Stars is not and will not be the site where I play cash games. Full Tilt is simply more profitable. However, if Stars were to reduce rake on sngos, there's no doubt that my move to cash games on another site would be delayed if not altogether stopped.

[Hercules]

[ QUOTE ]
With the increased difficulty of sngos across the board, I have attempted the move to playing cash games two or three times. However, I am still much more comfortable playing sngos, with Stars being my favorite site by far. Eventually though, I will HAVE to move to cash games. I've made 5 figures playing sngos and probably a 10th of that playing cash games, but it's just too hard to beat higher limit sngos (with the rake certainly a large factor).

With the lack of rakeback, Stars is not and will not be the site where I play cash games. Full Tilt is simply more profitable. However, if Stars were to reduce rake on sngos, there's no doubt that my move to cash games on another site would be delayed if not altogether stopped.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets pray that Lee reads that...IMO they would be everything but not smart, if they don`t lower the rake significantly...Its dangerous to loose customers, since it is very hard to win them back...

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
no.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes?

[ryanghall]

I've always thought the rake was quite high in SNGs. I love PokerStars and I'm certainly not referring to just them - but the rake really should be lowered for the health of SNGs. As it is, anything 225 and up is virtually unbeatable right now (seemingly) except by the very best players in the world and winning at lower levels is tough at times as well. It would be wonderful to see a lowering of rake at Stars (the only site that would actually consider it).

Ryan

[SlackerMcFly]

Great post by the OP.

The interesting (and costly) thing about Stars is that the rake is the same for their 9 player tourneys as is the rake for Party's 10 player tourneys.

The math would seem to indicate that since you are paying a higher percentage of rake on Stars (multiply by the large numbers of tourneys we play), and you have a much smaller edge on Stars when you factor in no rake-back.

Thus, I have most of my money elsewhere right now.... But love Stars.

Slacka

[graydot]

I dont think stars really cares about the rake at the $1-$225 level. There is just too many players playing for them to care really.

[Hercules]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think stars really cares about the rake at the $1-$225 level. There is just too many players playing for them to care really.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don`t agree. What do you think is better for the future of a company?
a)Same big,big win like last month, but with a potential to drop if not analyzing the market
b)Little less win, but a prospering tendency and happy customers


Just think about how much more people might play if they could earn more. Lets take Flourescinthippo as an example...he said he made like 90k with paying 85k rake...I think you don`t wanna loose a guy like him as a customer. He`s is still playing right now, but the statistics don`t show his mood and his willingness to keep playing. I better keep guys like him in a good mood and sweeten his play, even if my company runs pretty well right now...he might even consider to play more [like many of us would, i believe], cause its so fun to win twice as before etc...

[blackize]

They have a good chance at losing 60-80% of their business in the next 6 months. With a good chance that they will never realize the profit on the "long run" decision to lower rake they are better off trying to get every dime they can now.

[fluorescenthippo]

someone else mentioned it but they need to have better bonuses and the same rake. like world poker exchange (WPEX) or whatever its called. this way, the fish get more "bonuses" because they dont care about rake in the first place. so maybe increase the FPPs points by like 3 times as much or added a $$$ bonus of some sort very frequently. lowering the rake is not the best option for them right now, especially since most sites have the same amount of rake.