The rake is unacceptable

[I-Love-Poker]

Rake is fine for me.

[jimmytrick]

[ QUOTE ]
Rake is fine for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell no, the rake is too low, I am sick and tired of these donkeys calling me down against all odds and sucking out. Raise the rake so these bozo clowns go broke faster and then we can get the games back to some semblence of normalcy.

[BanZaY]

u r one of that fishes

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
This entire thread is rediculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Film cannister OP in the zoo. What did you expect?

[JamieO]

This is going to be my last post in this retarded thread. I only posted here to begin with because I feel that flaming anyone who doesnt love the current "standard" rake structure is wrong. SOOOOOOOO many people on here dont even think about it and just like to try and make other people feel stupid.

I dont think anyone on here has said that the games were unbeatable becuse of the rake, but so many people have responded as if they did. Maybe OP was a bit whiny, but still why can there not be a civil conversation about the price we pay to play a game online? So many [censored] on here flaming others for their opinion when they have no proof, just opinion themselves. Pretty lame.

[ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing...the poker sites have MANY levels on which they can compete: software, customer service, cashout options, player base, rake. The reason other sites aren't being crushed by WPEX is likely that they are being beaten in several other areas.

WPEX has proven that marketing "higher rakeback" doesn't work that well, and I think "lower rake" would be a poor idea as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if WPEX is losing in the other areas why does this prove that a lower rake cant work? WTF? Do you see how you are contradicting yourself. You are right that WPEX is unsuccessful because of software, customer service, and advertising issues.

WHY DOES THIS SHOW THAT LOWER RAKE DOESNT WORK? You are saying that WPEX failed for reasons other than their rake so why does this mean that their rake wont work?? Does this make sense?

On top of that, I was talking about a MAJOR site lowering their rake, not an unknown site offering 100% rakeback. There is a HUGE difference. Let WPEX go.

[ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that Stars is already exploring this with their SNE program. I would think they would prefer offering more player rewards if they were going to do anything.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they are. The player rewards are all illusions to distract you from the high rake. You say, "the rake may be high, but at least I get tons of fpps and this is just like rakeback." Y not just have a lower rake? In the end they are the same thing except for a couple of important points:
How many players reach SNE?
How many SNE players are fish?
Why is it good for the site to reward players who are already probably winning instead of the players who are losing?
Would their games grow more and become fishier if EVERYONE got a good rake reduction instead of just those who play a ton?
Of course. The fish just dont benefit much from the player reward progs. You gotta feed the fish to feed the sharks.

So why are player reward programs better than a lower total rake?
IMO player reward programs are just designed to distract you from the issue. Its pretty fishy to fall for that.

[JamieO]

"a mathematical market analysis of why lowering the rake would = long term profit. Until you can provide that, don't whine about a company making a large profit."

Then to be fair could you give me a mathematical market analysis of why lowering the rake would not = long term profit? You must have one since you are so convinced of your position, and that everyone who disagrees with you is retarded.
Until you do quit whining just because not everyone agrees with you.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]

So if WPEX is losing in the other areas why does this prove that a lower rake cant work? WTF? Do you see how you are contradicting yourself. You are right that WPEX is unsuccessful because of software, customer service, and advertising issues.

WHY DOES THIS SHOW THAT LOWER RAKE DOESNT WORK? You are saying that WPEX failed for reasons other than their rake so why does this mean that their rake wont work?? Does this make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Learn to read pal.

His post said that WPEX doesn't prove anything about lowering the rake. He said WPEX isn't doing well because they aren't as good as the other sites in other areas. He then went on to say that marketing "We give back more to our players" is better than "We take less from our players" which isn't proven but seems fairly obvious.

[ QUOTE ]

On top of that, I was talking about a MAJOR site lowering their rake, not an unknown site offering 100% rakeback. There is a HUGE difference. Let WPEX go.

[/ QUOTE ]

The argument here is over how much people are affected by changes in the rake. Without considering other factors, changes in rake structure has had very little effect on the size of the player pool.

When Pacific changed to a $4 max rake, their player base didn't suffer.
When Party started the Monster Jackpot tables their numbers went up.
When Absolute made nearly every table a BBJ table and killed their bonus structure their numbers continued to climb.

These are 3 instances of major sites changing their rake structure for the worse and INCREASING their playerbase. We then have the example of a startup site, WPEX, offering no rake poker and being unsuccessful.

Given the information we have, those stating matter of factly that "if you cut the rake the players will come" are stating groundless assumptions.

[ QUOTE ]
The player rewards are all illusions to distract you from the high rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they are. Which draws players in more easily, thoughts of phantom savings on rake(which is difficult to explain anyway) or the idea the just for playing on Poker Stars they can get that shiny Aston Martin or at least a few sweatshirts?

[ QUOTE ]
Y not just have a lower rake? In the end they are the same thing except for a couple of important points:

[/ QUOTE ]

They're not even close to being the same. They both save players money but only one of them gives an incentive for increased play(which is clearly in the sites' best interest). Fish squeeze in extra hands to make silverstar on Stars and play a few hundred hands daily to make Iron Man on Full Tilt just like grinders try to make it to SNE or increase their RB payment.

[freecard4all]

[ QUOTE ]
So if WPEX is losing in the other areas why does this prove that a lower rake cant work? WTF? Do you see how you are contradicting yourself. You are right that WPEX is unsuccessful because of software, customer service, and advertising issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

because software, customer service, and advertising issues cost $$$.
More over - high % of your rake is paid to the person who referred you (aka advertisement). (except PS which pays flat AFAIK but you have to earn for that flat - that means you have to rake at least $100 per each player you get!



[ QUOTE ]
IMO player reward programs are just designed to distract you from the issue. Its pretty fishy to fall for that.

[/ QUOTE ]
exactly. Reward programs are designed to attract fish. They aren't designed to attract sharks. It's supposed sharks will follow = means sharks don't need incentives by itself.

[MicroBob]

"They aren't designed to attract sharks. It's supposed sharks will follow = means sharks don't need incentives by itself."


Really don't know what this means exactly.
Although I guess it depends on your definition of "shark".
You don't think that the Stars or AP Elite programs are generally designed to attract the good players?

Most of the recreational players will look at the requirements for that and determine that it's way too much play for them to even be remotely interested in it.

But AP, FT and Stars have put together their various programs and incentives for high-volume players and it is logical that a high percentage of the players attracted to them will be winning players.
They are absolutely competing for winning players/sharks/high-volume players with their reward programs.

And the lower ends of the rewards programs...such as just making it to SuperNova but nowhere Elite...are attractive to a higher percentage of players which will include more fishy players.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
Any business charging extra to customers who pay with a credit card is breaking visa and mastercard merchant guidelines and should be reported (http://www.mastercard.com/us/persona...iolations.html or 1-800-VISA-911).

They can offer a discount for paying by cash but they cannot flat out charge extra for using credit.

[/ QUOTE ]

grunch - this is not the case in Australia at least. The Reserve Bank of Australia and/or the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission outlawed such clauses from American Express, MasterCard, Visa and others.