The rake is unacceptable

[kindling]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so you need to learn to play well enough to have something left over after the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

This should be the indelible take away from this thread. Not holding my breath, but...

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. Isn't this like Gambling 101? If you can't beat the rake, you don't play, even if you're the best player at the table.

IMHO, a company deserves to make a profit. Otherwise, why are you in business?

[MicroBob]

Seriously. They could flat charge $100 a hand if they wanted to for all I care. I'll just choose to play somewhere else.

I've weighed the pros and cons of the various sites with their rake and game selection and software and RB/FPP programs and I have chosen to play at Stars so obviously I find it to be an overall better deal compared with other options.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
I have many times thought of different rake models.

1. No rake is taken out of pots during play. Only when a
player leaves the table, the site will then take a
given percent of the net win of that player, e.g. 10%?

If a player buys in for total of $200 on a 100nl table,
and leaves with $190, he will not pay any rake.
If he leaves with $350 he will pay 10% rake of the net
win of $150 = $15.

I think this model is vey fair to the fishes, because
if they are losing players they will pay "no" rake
(only the few occasions they manage to leave the table
with a tiny profit).
Of course the given percent (10) can vary, it was just
an example.

2. Weekly rake of net win.
Once a week the site will take 10% of the net win
during that week.
Of course the given percent (10) can vary, it was just
an example.

This way the losing players will not pay much rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice thinking out of the box. I am firmly of the mind that when (not if MGM et al ) US facing poker is fully legitimate, you will see many variants of rake.

Tuff

[MicroBob]

Fish of tuffness - That obviously could be great for everybody.
More rake-free models or subscription type sites where you pay even just $20/mth or whatever could have a ton of potential. And if they were allowed to legally operate out of the U.S. as well as advertise their real-money games in the U.S. there truly could be something of a rake-revolution.

Lots of potential there and I agree that legalization and legitimacy within the U.S. could make a big difference for something like this and it could indeed end up being REALLY freaking cool.

[Tuff_Fish]

OK,

For all of you who don't like the rake, try this.

Buy your self some servers, get some poker software, set up a bank account easily accessible by everyone, start it all up..... and play rake free "homegame" poker.

Non raked poker games are legal almost everywhere, internet or otherwise.

About the expense? Oh, just take up a voluntary collection now and then.

I suspect that you will find it to not be a cheap and easy as a lot of you make it out to be.

Tuff << Really liking the idea of a rakefree internet "homegame".

[freecard4all]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing against a fish, with all the aids available, is like fishing with dynamite.

[/ QUOTE ]
you are right, GhostOfMiltonFreedman... maybe you retained some piece of his intelligence after all [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Does 10% rake keep the games growing as fast as possible?

[/ QUOTE ]
no

[ QUOTE ]
Does a 10% rake even make the sites the most $??

[/ QUOTE ]
no

[ QUOTE ]
WHAT INFO DO U HAVE THAT I DONT?

[/ QUOTE ]
none.

But we are winning players willing to keep the games going. We want soft games. We want be winners before rakeback.

Also - do you know this?
Don't change a thing that is working!
That's all.

[freecard4all]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do some sites offer rakeback deals in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]
People's understanding of rakeback is really freaking warped in some situations.
People are dumb.
People get rakeback because they know they can get $200 or whatever at the end of the month. It doesn't even occur to them that they 'spent' $800 in rake to get that $200 back.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't refer nor reply to me but I respond why I play only when I get rakeback (I consider PS VPPs as a rakeback).
I consider it as a permanent bonus. I see it like "hey guys, you wanna me to play at your site? Then you'll have to treat me better than you average fish. Gimme some reason to play at your site."

The reason can be rakeback if and only if I the both sites have about the same fish. Since no-one is able to know the difference let's say between Party and PS but you know there are difference between various groups of sites. Then you pick up just the one with the best deal.

It's not about rakeback - it's about "hey, in case I decide to play your tables at last ... are you going to gimme something back"?

If not then I'm not gonna try them. Because when I try a site/network for the first time I really don't care about rake. I wanna know how the games are going. And in case I decide I like that site I want to have the rake as low as possible on that given site.

Get it? I care about rake at the site I choose. I do NOT want the site to lose money or do some shity things that will potentionaly hurt the games (like lowering rake).

I only want to get as low rake as possible. That's my reason for rakeback. In case I ever have accounts on all sites that have rakeback ... then and only then I'm gonna try the other. Because I have no reason to try it till then.

[freecard4all]

[ QUOTE ]
If stars came out in there ads and said," Full Tilt is ripping you off, come to stars where we take half as much for you to play the game."

[/ QUOTE ]
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOL
Yes I definitely want all the FTP rocks to play at Stars [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

No new players will be attracted by this "wonderful" advertisement. We (EVERYBODY - SITES AND REGULARS) want to attract new players. No one wants to move rocks back and fort.

[freecard4all]

[ QUOTE ]
Stars was tough when internet games across the board were fishy. So in a way Stars has never been a good deal for the winning player or losing player.

[/ QUOTE ]
OMFG if I've ever started sooner! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Im asking for a number cuz i think that stars makes say 90-99% profit off their fee and i find this ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you are way way off. (especially that 99 is really insane).

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to know if we differ on opinion because you think the 90-99% profit on the fee is acceptable or because you think the profit is more like 30-40% which is perfectly reasonable

[/ QUOTE ]

bolded FTW

[flight2q]

Hmm. Isn't there a Swedish state-run poker site with around 2% rake? I wonder what their finances look like

Svenska Spel (no free info, but note that 3% of Swede disposable income spent on gambling recreation)