Why online poker sucks.

[costanza_g]

[ QUOTE ]

I prithee sir, what is the solution to the "rake greed" "problem"?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Gustav]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Play live if you think online rake it too high.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, a number of people have made this point, most quite snidely. Here is the response: GAMES ARE A LOT BETTER LIVE. A higher rake per hand is a lot more tolerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh? But wasn't your claim that the high rake is the reason why the games are so hard now? You seemed to be saying the the high rake has the main responsibility for driving the poor players out and in that way toughening the games. But live games have higher rake, so how can they be softer than online?

[edfurlong]

[ QUOTE ]
I proposed a zero rake site

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really.

[STOPRAKEGREED]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Play live if you think online rake it too high.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, a number of people have made this point, most quite snidely. Here is the response: GAMES ARE A LOT BETTER LIVE. A higher rake per hand is a lot more tolerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh? But wasn't your claim that the high rake is the reason why the games are so hard now? You seemed to be saying the the high rake has the main responsibility for driving the poor players out and in that way toughening the games. But live games have higher rake, so how can they be softer than online?

[/ QUOTE ]

The high rake has driven the live one down more than out. If he can't play live where he lives, he has been driven down in stakes. He's got his 2k a month to lose and he gets to have his 20 hours of gambling only by playing lower where he doesn't lose it as fast. But where almost all of it goes down the drop.

Why are brick and mortar games better? All kinds of reasons. There are home games that are even better than brick and mortar casinos. I'm not trying to give a general explanation of how good games are. But it is easier to compare online now with online before the NOv2005-6max-$3ization. Some say everybody read books. That is certainly part of the explanation. But the overriding factor has been the rake.

[DMoogle]

It sounds to me like you're complaining more that online games are too fast. Online rakes a lot less than live on a per-hand basis, and that's what matters, for the most part.

[STOPRAKEGREED]

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds to me like you're complaining more that online games are too fast. Online rakes a lot less than live on a per-hand basis, and that's what matters, for the most part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rake per hand is only one way to compare games. A better way is pot size. "that's what matters, for the most part."

[keikiwai]

I like online poker [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Tuff_Fish]

In my previous thread, which was semi serious about a no rake site, someone mentioned Dutch Boyd and a membership site. I looked around a bit and read a little history about the demise of PokerSpot and the possible start of a site called Rakefree Poker.

Rakefree Poker apparently stalled before getting very far, and whether that was due to Dutch Boyd's unfortunate history, the subsequent arrival of the UIGEA, or both is not totally clear.

But let me ask the question. Why wouldn't you guys support a membership site? Say $49/month or some such number?

Bear in mind, such a site would not be any more legal in the current US climate than a rake site. But if the UIGEA suddenly went poof and US poker sites were explicitly allowed, wouldn't a "rakefree" site akin to what Dutch Boyd had in mind be a good thing?

Tuff << doesn't play much poker anymore so doesn't pay much rake.

[batmanoflove]

[ QUOTE ]
I like online poker [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


keikiwai who's that girl on your picture? Please share!!!

[Wires]

[ QUOTE ]
When did 6max become the norm and why? Here is my answer: about 3 years ago and to increase the rake that every player pays by almost 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again. 6 max became the norm because it was demanded by the players. As 6 max gained popularity players started gravitating towards the sites that offered these shorthanded games. The action junkies gravitated towards these tables making them much more profitable than full ring.

There were many threads on this forum (where the GMs of poker sites often participated) when 6 max tables first emerged. Lots of pressure was put on sites that did not offer short handed tables.

More hands = more rake of course but it was never the sites who forced 6 max tables upon the players - it was definitely the other way around.

I'm all for lower rake but posts like yours will never result in serious discussion. You make up facts (such as rewriting history on the birth of 6 max) to fit your argument. You don't offer any solutions and everything you have stated was already stated by the crazy who preceded you.

You offer nothing new or constructive to the discussion.