The rake is unacceptable

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

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 ]
EXACTLY my point, well said.

[ 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 ]
Excellent points, and they are simple, indisuptable fact. Although we don't have numbers to prove the following point, it seems pretty logical to conclude that lower rake wouldn't easily increase the player bases, since increased rake didn't decrease them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Right.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed, they are not the same. To the player receiving the incentives the effect is the same. However, to the site, incentives are much more powerful. They can be targeted to high volume players, low-limit players, high-limit players, wherever a site feels it would help their player base. Player-specific bonuses can be used for target markets such as losing players, players who haven't played in a long time, high-volume players, whatever a site likes.

Lower rake can't be targetted nearly as easily. Also, marketing lower rake requires educating players about rake in the first place. Again, what's an easier sell: "We take less" or "We give more"?

[aos08]

$1963...I pay almost as much in rake as my wages after taxes payed from my full time work. And the most absurd thing - the poker site will never show me how much I have payed. The poker sites must be forced to send the players at the end of every month a specification of how much they have payed in rake. If not, most players will never be aware of the enormous sums they are paying. It is very surprising this obvious fact hasn´t occured to anyone in this thread. If people don´t know what they pay, there will obviosly be no price competition.

[MicroBob]

"The poker sites must be forced to send the players at the end of every month"


Why?
My B&M casino doesn't do this for me.

[Rek]

aos08, why do you think the sites should be forced to send you the amount you have paid in rake? They offer you a service and charge rake for doing so. Nobody is forcing you to play their site and you are able to track the amount you pay in rake yourself - it is not some big secret.

[nineinchal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The last month I won $1982. I payed $1963 in rake. So the netto was $19.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't know what netto means but if you think you only made $19 last month then you are wrong.

The rake actually is acceptable. I've accepted it as have many other players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Netto was one of the puppets on the "Uncle Floyd Show."

[El_Hombre_Grande]

Let me say I think that I should pay less in rake. Just like I think I should pay less for gasoline and steak.

The problem is that the market with respect to poker doesn't appear to react substantially to price increases or decreases. In fact, the average player has only a nominal interest in the amount of rake paid. I submit that NO ONE has ever said, I was going to take up internet poker as a hobby, but I refuse to until rake falls down below $___. The market is quite imperfect.

And you post assumes that if your $2 K wasn't raked, then you would be up $2K. But that's not true. The major sites are using some of that rake to bring new and inexperienced players to you. Without rake, there wouldn't be 20 million ads promoting these sites everywhere. And this is necessary. Sharks live a long time. Fish get eaten. Without the rake, the pond does not get re-stocked. You may like to believe it will, but it won't. The reason that every single consumer product is peddled through mass market media advertisements is that it works. Your wishes aside, the rake is a necessary evil.

Besides, I would never consider the rake as anything other than a tangential consideration. I select sites based on how much I win. The relationship between how much you win and rake structure is not 1 to 1. For example, idiots play jackpot tables. I love playing idiots. Am I an idiot, for gladly paying a premium for the privilege of playing with guys who are dreaming of limp-checking their way to quads over quads? My poker tracker says otherwise.

My point is that the connection between your winrate and the rake is not zero-sum. You should think of the rake as the price the site charges you for sitting with the particular fish (or nonfish) that currenly reside at their tables. In short, your eye is on the wrong ball. Rake is tangential.

[MicroBob]

Good post.


"I should pay less for gasoline and steak."

This does not sound very appetizing.
I prefer potatoes with my steak.

[freecard4all]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't think that the Stars or AP Elite programs are generally designed to attract the good players?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think they are generally designed to attract the high volume players.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
at the very first beginning they don't know what it means. They only see they got $100 for free. Then they go through the bonuswhores grid.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL I don't know the exact %s but every level has majority of losing players. And I bet the % is increasing.
Meaning let's say at 1c/2c games there are 20% of winning players (more than 1 cent per month).
At 100/200USD I bet there's less than that % of winning players (more than 1 cent per month).