The rake is unacceptable

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I love how whenever someone makes a post like this complaining about high rake they are automatically a loser who deserves ridicule. I personally believe that the rake at most major sites could be cut by 30% or so without any major loss in revenue for the site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stopped reading here.

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually, I did too.
Very few players make their choice of games or even sites based on the rake.
If Stars or FT or whatever other site reduced their rake by 30% their loss of revenue would be very close to that same 30%. They might attract some rake-aware and nitty players who to make up for some of that deficit though. So I guess it's possible that a 30% reduction of rake across the board at a given site would only lead to a 25% loss of revenue.

How anyone can think that a 30% cut in rake would not lead to a loss of revenue for that site is somewhat beyond me. You do realize that the site's make their revenue from the rake alone for the most part, right?

[JamieO]

"Stopped reading here."

Why?
Oh wait, i see. A site would never grow their games 30% or more by cutting the rake 30%. That just impossible. No need to read further. You are so smart. Great post. Keep up the good work.

[rakemeplz]

[ QUOTE ]
"You are basing how much rake you are willing to pay on how long you can play rather than how much you can make."

They are the same thing DUCY? Longer play means more hands means more of an edge. Of course roi is greater at MTTs.
Im sorry but i didnt think anyone here would need further expantion of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm, never thought of it like that, good point.

[JamieO]

"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.

[kleath]

[ 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 ]

WSEX has no one there and even they had to raise their rake.

Pretty much every site has rakeback/rakeback equivalent, if they lowered the rake incentives would be the first thing to go, no thanks.

[bigblackbuddha]

Why haven't you posted your PT screenshot yet?

[JamieO]

"WSEX has no one there and even they had to raise their rake. "

wsex was not a major site that then dropped their rake. Its a completely different situation.

"Pretty much every site has rakeback/rakeback equivalent, if they lowered the rake incentives would be the first thing to go, no thanks."

I dont get y this would be a bad thing? Y do u need rakeback/fpps/ whatever if you are paying less rake to begin with? Wont they even out or better?

My whole point is everyone is accepting the current rake as at least "good enough," while no one is offering any proof that it is optimal, and anyone who questions the level of the rake is just a poor player and an idiot.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally believe that the rake at most major sites could be cut by 30% or so without any major loss in revenue for the site.

[/ QUOTE ]

[bigblackbuddha]

[ QUOTE ]

My whole point is everyone is accepting the current rake as at least "good enough," while no one is offering any proof that it is optimal, and anyone who can't overcome the level of the rake is just a poor player and an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[jukofyork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I love how whenever someone makes a post like this complaining about high rake they are automatically a loser who deserves ridicule. I personally believe that the rake at most major sites could be cut by 30% or so without any major loss in revenue for the site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stopped reading here.

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually, I did too.
Very few players make their choice of games or even sites based on the rake.
If Stars or FT or whatever other site reduced their rake by 30% their loss of revenue would be very close to that same 30%. They might attract some rake-aware and nitty players who to make up for some of that deficit though. So I guess it's possible that a 30% reduction of rake across the board at a given site would only lead to a 25% loss of revenue.

How anyone can think that a 30% cut in rake would not lead to a loss of revenue for that site is somewhat beyond me. You do realize that the site's make their revenue from the rake alone for the most part, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
What I find very strange is that the sites do not try to compete with each other. The donks waffle on endlessly about rigged flops, but how often does anybody consider that there may actually be some kind of evil price fixing monopoly at work here? Based on the service they provide the amount they take in rake is just robbery IMO.

The statement "I personally believe that the rake at most major sites could be cut by 30% or so without any major loss in revenue for the site." may not quite be correct, but does anybody disagree with:

"I personally believe that the rake at most major sites could be <font color="red">cut by 90%</font> <u>and still leave a viable and profitable business for the site.</u>"

A simple comparison of with online MMORPG games makes it blindingly obvious the sites are making vastly more than they deserve or need. Think of all the skilled coders, artists, story developers, modelers, mods, etc, etc needed to make and run a modern MMORPG. If WOW wanted to use the same rippoff pricing model as poker sites do and considering the fact that they need to employ many times more skilled workers; I think a weekly subscription to WOW would be about $10,000!

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