Question: Why does everyone get so upset about 'The Juice' In tourney? - Page 2

MJBuddy · #11 08-10-2007, 03:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, if you spend 100, cash for 100, didn't you just double your money? Why does it matter what the house takes, if you doubled your money (or made even more than double your money)?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you pay 100 and win 100, you've broken even.

But the real meat is that if you pay 100+10 vs paying 100+15. You pay 115 and get the same prize pool as the 110 MTT.

Alex Jacob · #12 08-10-2007, 03:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you've ever walked into a store or something and they had a drop in box to win a trip, car or cash, that's sweepstaking...

For the small price of a stamp, an envelope, and in most cases, a 3" x 5" piece of paper or card with your details on it (name, address, phone number), you can win some really big prizes.

It is in a nutshell, just another form of gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

this comparison is a little insulting. did you think this through at all? how many people have gone broke from losing too many postage stamps?

Ray Zee · #13 08-10-2007, 03:16 PM

the more the rakeoff the less amount is returned to the players. as that rakeoff dissapears from the total pool of players and new players money, the games and tournaments must suffer. suffer from less entrants. less poor players entering. and less total money left to be won by the field of poker players in general.

it has happened a few times in the past where the games got very tough and smaller. but when poker expanded in california the money got a boost. then the internet and tv shot it up again. expect to see the downturn in money someday in the future. with it the marginal players that havent improved their game going broke.

skoldpadda · #14 08-10-2007, 03:59 PM

Go rent the movie "The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio" to see what a sweepstaker is.

Bonified · #15 08-10-2007, 04:22 PM

How many tournaments have you played in the last year ? Or ever ?

How much less money would you have right now if they had been raked an extra $5 each time ?

Does the fact that when you cashed, you made many times your buyin change this in any way whatsoever ?

Todd Terry · #16 08-10-2007, 04:30 PM

The more the rake, the lower your ROI. If the rake were 0, your ROI would also be 0, since there would be no tournaments. If the casino which ran the WSOP charging a lower rake went bankrupt (which of course actually happened), your ROI for the WSOP would be 0. I happen to believe that the amount of the rake should be set by the market forces of supply and demand. Direct costs of the host of the tournament go into the equation, as do other things such as how much players are willing to pay, and the opportunity costs to the host casino from the diversion of resources from other extremely profitable activities.

I've never heard any public complaints about the rake charged by Internet sites, but the ratio of rake/cost has to be way, way higher for any Internet tournament than it is for any live tourney. The costs of airfare, hotel rooms and meals each have a greater effect than rake on the ROI of a live tournament player, but no one complains about them.

While there probably is a point at which the rake would be too high to play extremely profitably, we are nowhere near that point, and I can't imagine we'll ever get there. Right now, there's a huge amount of money being made in the poker business by everyone. Winning players are getting a huge chunk of it, and really can't be heard to complain. The ROI of top players is still pretty high compared to the ROI from pretty much any other investment or activity in America.

daryn · #17 08-10-2007, 04:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]

How many tournaments have you played in the last year ? Or ever ?

How much less money would you have right now if they had been raked an extra $5 each time ?

[/ QUOTE ]

if the extra $5 rake was just taking $5 away from the prize pool for everyone then the question of "how much less money would you have right now?" is entirely dependent on her results.

Bonified · #18 08-10-2007, 04:36 PM

Yeah, I realised that after I posted it. For the purposes of the question, assume that, for example, $300+30 becomes $300+35 with the $300 still going into the prize pool.

Of course, if the $5 does come out of the pool, you'll still have less money, but, er, let's try to keep this as simple as possible ...

Bonified · #19 08-10-2007, 04:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
but the ratio of rake/cost has to be way, way higher for any Internet tournament than it is for any live tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's true Todd. There are plenty of small live tournaments out there raking 18-20% when you add everything up. And that's not even including the CEO poker tour :-).

8-10% is standard online, with the sole exception that I can think of, $5+1 SNGs.

Todd Terry · #20 08-10-2007, 04:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I realised that after I posted it. For the purposes of the question, assume that, for example, $300+30 becomes $300+35 with the $300 still going into the prize pool.

Of course, if the $5 does come out of the pool, you'll still have less money, but, er, let's try to keep this as simple as possible ...

[/ QUOTE ]

We're talking live, right? Around $500? Which I think is what the typical poker pro spends on a bottle of champagne at a club.