|
|
#31
12-16-2006, 12:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Sit and Gos- Is the rake fair?
Exspecially BECAUSE every site has the same amount of rake, they should lower it...unless they don`t wanna open a battle with FTP etc...
But thats exactly the reason why suspicious characters assume that there is some kind of gentlemen`s agreement. As far as i know, most poker sites are running pretty well, thus there is no reason to really fight each other... But as blackize said, maybe they don`t see that they can loose 60-80% of their business... 
|
|
#32
12-16-2006, 01:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sit and Gos- Is the rake fair?
I think you may have misunderstood me. The US law has a fair chance of decreasing their business 60-80%. They're better off getting what they can now than trying to get more down the line.
Hippo was on to something though. Lowering the rake doesn't bring in new players it only serves to increase volume for multitablers and possibly cause fish to go broke less quickly. Bonuses aren't really an option since they would have to be open to clearing on cash games as well and that would end up lowering the already relatively low cash game rake. Increasing the number of FPPs given per dollar of tournament fees seems like the best way to go as you can market it to pull in the fish and it serves to keep the multitablers happier.
|
|
#33
12-16-2006, 01:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sit and Gos- Is the rake fair?
[ QUOTE ]
Exspecially BECAUSE every site has the same amount of rake, they should lower it...unless they don`t wanna open a battle with FTP etc... But thats exactly the reason why suspicious characters assume that there is some kind of gentlemen`s agreement. As far as i know, most poker sites are running pretty well, thus there is no reason to really fight each other... But as blackize said, maybe they don`t see that they can loose 60-80% of their business... [/ QUOTE ] yea but fish dont care about rake. which is why they wont notice if stars has lower rake than other sites. because of this, they need to have "bonuses" that reduce rake like WPEX
|
|
#35
12-16-2006, 01:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sit and Gos- Is the rake fair?
Well just to give you an example, when I play a $60 turbo at the supernova level, I actually pay $3.60 in rake since I get $1.40 in FPP money.
Just thought I'd point this out since nobody mentioned it.
|
|
#36
12-16-2006, 02:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sit and Gos- Is the rake fair?
[ QUOTE ]
Well just to give you an example, when I play a $60 turbo at the supernova level, I actually pay $3.60 in rake since I get $1.40 in FPP money. Just thought I'd point this out since nobody mentioned it. [/ QUOTE ] we all knew this. we are suggesting either getting more Fpps, or a different system altogether.
|
|
#37
12-16-2006, 03:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sit and Gos- Is the rake fair?
Is the FPP actually worth real money?! I mean is there something like a "trading place"...Afaik you can use them in their shop...and only there...so how do you get exact $ numbers on FPP?
Thx for help...
|
|
#39
12-16-2006, 03:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sit and Gos- Is the rake fair?
It obviously doesn't matter whether they lower the "rake" by actually reducing the buy in or by adding FPP points. It equals the same money for us. I would like to point out though that PokerStars loses alot, and I mean a [censored], of money each time a sng player switches to cash games. For example, I pay close to 50k in rake a month. Players like Good2cu, etc who have switched to cash games now pay like 10k in rake a month, maybe less. Good2cu mightve never quit sngs if the rake was 50% less because he would be making 25k more a month, and even though PokerStars only got 25k in rake instead of 50k if they hadnt lowered the rake 50%, thats still 15k more than they get once he switches. Sng pros are huge cash cows for these sites, and having them all switch to cash would cost them millions a year.
Its in their best interest to lower the rake.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
