The rake is unacceptable

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
"Very few players make their choice of games or even sites based on the rake."

So if tommorow stars became 30% cheaper you think they would not take a significant amount from the other sites?

Not to mention that the fish would still lose their $ it would just take longer.

What proof do you have that if a major site dropped its rake, they would not gain players?

And WSEX is not proof.

[/ QUOTE ]


I have no proof...just a belief.

Most players don't care about rake or have much of an awareness of it.
Some site bragging that they take only $2 on a given pot instead of $2.50 in the same size pot will have very little impact. Most players think, "Big deal. It's 50 freaking cents. If 50 cents makes that much difference to you then maybe poker isn't your game."

Stars already has significantly better rake at many stakes and games for example. And even most of the people who play there don't realize they are getting a better deal on the rake than they would at FT.

Same thing happens in live games. Most people don't think $3 or $4 being taken out of a pot is a big deal. You're winning a $60 pot...so the house taking out $4 is insignificant.

That is how most people view the rake.

FT taking $1 out of a $10 pot when Stars takes only $0.50 out of the same pot is simply something that a vast majority of players aren't even aware of nor would care about if they were made aware.

[Komodo]

Plz stop with this bs.
OP would have won 2k$ last month hadnt it been for the rake.

[aoFrantic]

I would have made over 100k if not for taxes. Can't governments AND poker sites learn to give us their services while asking next to nothing in return?

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]

Really the bottom line is that it costs stars less than $0.01 to run a tourney that makes them $100s. There is a lot of room for improvement in terms of the price we pay to play a game.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's the continual use of unsubstantiated assertions like this which make me think that threads whining about the rake are completely pointless.

[JamieO]

"Most players don't care about rake or have much of an awareness of it.
Some site bragging that they take only $2 on a given pot instead of $2.50 in the same size pot will have very little impact. Most players think, "Big deal. It's 50 freaking cents. If 50 cents makes that much difference to you then maybe poker isn't your game.""

Then y do sites offer rakeback deals in the first place? Are the sites losing $ off of these deals? of course not. They bring in players that wouldnt be there otherwise.

"FT taking $1 out of a $10 pot when Stars takes only $0.50 out of the same pot is simply something that a vast majority of players aren't even aware of"

I agree

"nor would care about if they were made aware."

I disagree. If stars dropped there rake and started stating in every ad they did that they have the lowest rake of the top 5 sites that would attract a lot of players.

Come play pokerstars where we charge you less than full tilt, etc.... Easy sell.

[JamieO]

"It's the continual use of unsubstantiated assertions like this which make me think that threads whining about the rake are completely pointless."

Please then give me a guess at how much it costs stars to run a $11+1 180 man turbo tournament.
Is there $180 worth of advertising, security, and customer support in that tournament? A tournament that will last less than 2 hours that will take up an extremely tiny amount of server space gets them $180.
My guess is it costs them about a penny. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW WE ARE GETTING A GOOD DEAL HERE. otherwise your post was just as pointless as the op's whining

[jukofyork]

[ QUOTE ]
"Most players don't care about rake or have much of an awareness of it.
Some site bragging that they take only $2 on a given pot instead of $2.50 in the same size pot will have very little impact. Most players think, "Big deal. It's 50 freaking cents. If 50 cents makes that much difference to you then maybe poker isn't your game.""

Then y do sites offer rakeback deals in the first place? Are the sites losing $ off of these deals? of course not. They bring in players that wouldnt be there otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
A recent post in the Software forum about 24-tabling purely to get FPPs makes me wonder if rakeback is the worst of both worlds for good players... It attracts and keeps nitty breakeven players playing and at the same time lets the site fleece the fish at a faster rate.

[ QUOTE ]
Come play pokerstars where we charge you less than full tilt, etc.... Easy sell.

[/ QUOTE ]
Every other business is run like this so why should it be any different for poker sites?

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[DMoogle]

Sites, for the most part, don't offer and advertise rakeback, affiliates do.

[SoCalRugger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I won $19. And raked $1963. And I did the not so complicated math myself that if I had played without rake taken I had won 19+1963=$1982.
Less than 1% of what I won to me, and over 99% to Ftp.

[/ QUOTE ]
PT screenshot please

[/ QUOTE ]

[MataWispar]

I make my opponents pay my rake.