Why is SNG rake so high?

[DCJ311]

I revisit this topic every once in a while, since it enrages me to think how much I am cheated out of per year in these things, yet I continue to play them because they are the most exciting form of poker to me and I still somehow manage to grind out a small profit.

This summer I played quite a few live WSOP STTs with a winner take all format. The buyin for a LIVE $325 sng was $312+13, for about 4.1% rake. On Pokerstars, the rake on a $315 buyin turbo SNG is $20, for 6.3% rake. This is an absolute joke when you consider the actual manpower/fixed cost that goes into the live tournament.

Yet no one ever complains as the pool of SNG players lowers due to the increasing strength of the games!! Not one online site has taken a chance by reducing the rake just a small bit to see if the volume of SNGs played goes up as a result.

The main issue I have with SNG rake is that it's virtually the same as in a MTT tournament. The Sunday $200+15 tournament takes roughly 12 hours to complete; the $210+15 turbo SNGs take roughly 50 minutes. Shouldn't there be some cost of table/hr ratio here that in this case seems grossly out of proportion?

During the WSOP, a $1000 buyin SNG had $13 rake, yet a $1000 buyin MTT had roughly $100 rake. Makes sense, because of the fixed costs/hr. So why aren't we seeing the same thing in online tournaments?

Furthermore, why does an online site want people playing 6-12 hour long tournaments when they could be playing 8-16x more SNGs during that time? It drives me insane thinking about how ludicrous this is. I have the capacity to play 16 SNGs at once if the games are good, do poker sites really want me to play 16 MTTs instead? Illogical.

The SNG forum obviously has a lot of intelligent minds, perhaps someone can explain to me once and for all why this system doesn't need to be changed.

[blowbubbles]

[ QUOTE ]
The SNG forum obviously has a lot of intelligent minds, perhaps someone can explain to me once and for all why this system doesn't need to be changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

It takes more than my intelligence to explain this.

I totally agree with you DCJ.

The sites doesn't expect us pokerplayers to unite to fight for lower sng-rakes, and they seem to be right?

[Paul B.]

Sites charge what they can get and fish don't care about rake.

[ryanghall]

It is absolutely mind boggling. Why do we SNG players, the people who give the sites the most rake by far already, have to pay so much relative to the stakes we're playing while people playing 25/50 NL are paying essentially nothing compared to their stake.

Maybe all the big players should organize a one day boycott or something to show what an effect it can have. We're also all the ones who register first for all the SNGs so I think it would have a big effect.

I'm honestly not sure if anything $555+ on Stars is even beatable. Some $225s may not even be.

Ryan

[kurti]

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe all the big players should organize a one day boycott or something to show what an effect it can have. We're also all the ones who register first for all the SNGs so I think it would have a big effect.


[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's a good idea. I play at party and I think even the mid-games >= $33 would be dead without the 2+2 regs.

[DCJ311]

[ QUOTE ]
Sites charge what they can get and fish don't care about rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, but the optimal business model is one that maximizes profits by finding the equilibrium point between supply and demand- very basic.

My point is not only are they screwing loyal players, they're screwing themselves by reducing the amount of volume they're getting due to absurdly high prices!

If a site can get 2 $1050+50 SNGs per day or 20 $1050+10 SNGs per day which do you think is closer to achieving market equilibrium? Notice that they wouldn't be catering to 'fish' in this case, they're catering to mostly savvy players who have the means to put a lot of $ into action.

Furthermore I'd venture that at the $27s and up we are seeing a lot less 'fish' than before. Many of these players are aware of the absurd rake being charged, and even though these players are in the overall minority, they are the ones putting the most money into action.

If rake were cut in half I think we'd see WAY more than 2x the # of SNGs being played as of current, and I'd lay a big chunk of my bankroll on that if I could wager.

The proper solution is to flood Stars (Full Tilt, etc) management with emails addressing the issue, then give them an opportunity to comment, and if nothing happens we organize boycotting their site(s) for a week or something just so they get the point. It's a freeroll that can save each of us thousands of dollars a year.

[ryanghall]

Something is sure driving the fish away from the 114s+ and this seems as good an explanation as any.

Ryan

[Uniqueuponhim]

Another issue I kind of have is, why does the rake decrease so much at the low stakes, then jump way up at the medium stakes, actually increasing as stakes do until high stakes are reached, where they finally start decreasing again, and not getting as low as the rake at the $16s again until the $335s

[DCJ311]

[ QUOTE ]
Another issue I kind of have is, why does the rake decrease so much at the low stakes, then jump way up at the medium stakes, actually increasing as stakes do until high stakes are reached, where they finally start decreasing again, and not getting as low as the rake at the $16s again until the $335s

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. It makes no sense that the $15+1s have a better rake (6.6%) than a $210+15 (7.1%), yet that system has been in place for well over a year. I have confronted Pokerstars on this blatant inconsistency several times and they have still yet to comment!

It's all very absurd that they haven't realized the ineffiiciency of their business model by now, but the only way to get them to listen is to bitch and possibly even boycott.

[K䲰䮥n]

Who will lead us to freedom?


or

or

or

or


man, there are many freedom fighters out there...