The rake is unacceptable

[bxb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Listen, in the future when poker is legalized/regulated whatever, the rake will go down. Competition will do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm surprised nobody has commented on this yet.

I don't think rake dropping is likely. When poker is regulated, it is likely that it will be restrictively licensed and heavily taxed. This means that there won't be an influx of competition and that overhead costs will increase. Sure there will be a handful of new sites, but they are much more likely to offer big signup bonuses to draw people in rather than fight a price war on rake.

It's very conceivable that when poker is regulated, the rake will actually increase.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point.

Also, wrt the rake not being at the optimal level right now, it doesn't matter if it is at the optimal level. It is close enough to the optimal level that the company's risk in tampering with the rake outweighs the small amount they may gain by doing so. If the rake were way too high/low then they would stand to gain more by adjusting it.

It is hard to see cutting the rake by 30% as being a +ev move for the sites. They would need to increase the amount of play by 42% more than they could have increased it if they had kept the rake constant and spent the money on advertising/services/bonuses. Since all these sites with huge rackback deals are not nearly as big as full tilt and stars, it is unlikely that a decrease in rake would draw that many players.

[Komodo]

[ QUOTE ]


Those of you who used NETeller InstaCash in the past might have been familiar with it's fee of 8.9% (which some sites reimbursed and some did not). Fees for deposits made with Western Union can exceed 30% in some cases.

Lets say you deposit $100. The poker site will give you the full $100, but might actually receive only $91. The way they recoup those losses is to charge entry fees and rake in cash games (it's no coincidence that the fee on a $100 tournament is $9 at many sites).


[/ QUOTE ]

There is no way neteller charge 9%
Think it is 2,5% or maybe even lower.

[MicroBob]

neteller INSTAcash was indeed 8.9%. But it wasn't necessary for most people to use this option.
Some people would use this option accidentally without realizing they could make deposits for free just using 'regular' neteller without the instacash option.

[WarmonkEd]

[ 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 ]

PartyGaming had $212.5 mil total revenue for the first six months of this year.

$140.5mil of that was from poker. 75% of that is from ring games. $140.5*0.75 = $105.4mil

By cutting rake 30% they lose $31.6mil

So I guess if you think losing about 15% of their total revenue and 22% of poker revenue isn't a major loss in revenue then yes, you're right.

references:
http://www.partygaming.com/images/do...rim_Report.pdf
http://www.partygaming.com/images/do...ual_Report.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

Im guessing u read just far enough in the thread to get to that post right? Youre completely ignoring the ideas that have been expressed since that post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, the post was so stupid I had to stop and respond to it.

[sputum]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

PartyGaming had $212.5 mil total revenue for the first six months of this year.

$140.5mil of that was from poker. 75% of that is from ring games. $140.5*0.75 = $105.4mil

By cutting rake 30% they lose $31.6mil

So I guess if you think losing about 15% of their total revenue and 22% of poker revenue isn't a major loss in revenue then yes, you're right.

references:
http://www.partygaming.com/images/do...rim_Report.pdf
http://www.partygaming.com/images/do...ual_Report.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

Im guessing u read just far enough in the thread to get to that post right? Youre completely ignoring the ideas that have been expressed since that post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, the post was so stupid I had to stop and respond to it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've been here since 03.
You feel the need to respond to stupid posts
You only have 300 posts
Does not compute [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[DarkKnight]

[ QUOTE ]
So when i enter a $11+1 180 man turbo sit and go tourney at stars how much profit does stars make? Someone give me a guess please. Does stars make $100, $150, or $179?


[/ QUOTE ]

As a super rough estimate...
In 2006 Partypoker had sales (i.e. rake) of $1,104 million and Net Income (i.e. profit) of $128.4 million 11.6% of sales so my estimate would be that stars makes $180 * 11.6% = about $21 on that tournament.

[Hawklet]

Stars will almost certainly make more money when they double the rake and advertise it as being "casino-like".

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

JamieO and others who are soooo upset about this outrageous rake, I assume you must take a lot of your play to WPEX then?

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you have not read the thread much huh? we have already talked about wpex.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ummmm, wrong. I have read the entire thread. I didn't ask if you had discussed it, I asked if you were playing there since you're so unhappy about the rake elsewhere.

Here's the thing...the poker sites have MANY levels on which they can compete: software, customer service, cashout options, player base, rake. The reason other sites aren't being crushed by WPEX is likely that they are being beaten in several other areas. Stars doesn't need to offer 75% RB because players believe Stars is better than WPEX in many other areas. AP offers a much better RB/bonus combo than FT and Stars, but they are being buried...and this was previous to the cheating scandal. There is competition, and Stars is winning.

Of course you may argue that just because Stars is winning doesn't mean they couldn't do better. Perhaps if they lowered their rake in combination with all of their other competitive advantages they would do even better? It seems to me that Stars is already exploring this with their SNE program. I would think they would prefer offering more player rewards if they were going to do anything.

WPEX has proven that marketing "higher rakeback" doesn't work that well, and I think "lower rake" would be a poor idea as well. What sounds better to a fish: "we take less" or "we give you more"? Also, player reward programs allow sites to target the incentives where it makes them the most money. Lower rake does not. I think you'll see sites continue to compete by tweaking their reward systems, NOT by lowering their rake.

[IWINORIDIE]

ALL THE POSTERS THAT CRITICIZE PEOPLE WHO CRITICIZE THE RAKE ARE TOTAL [censored] MORONS, ESPECIALLY MILTON FRIEDMAN(the guy gets 70s on his exams, halfwit.) The house takes way toooooo much money. $3per pot every pot adds up to enormous amount of $$ $ $ $. And 1/11th of every prize pool in tournaments is [censored] too. These fees beat 90% + of the players. The house ends up with virtually allll the money. You put $300 in account 30 hours of play at one table u paid $300 in rake. THE RAKE REALLY NEEDS TO COME DOWN IN LOW LIMIT GAMES, LIKE $1-$2
You cant risk 20 to win 18 or 10 to win 9 and make any money. Thats a 5% disadvantage to overcome just to break even. You guys are all fool, original poster is 100% right.

[threeplusthree]

FWIW I recently joined a site where (for instance I play $.50/1 HU) there is no rake if the pot is less than $10 and capped at .50c upto a $30 pot.

I don't know how they make money but they must do?

Unfortuantely the network isnt open to americans so I'm not going to out it because it is THE FISHIEST site ever, so you know the saying is something like keeping things to yourself.

But just saying, you CAN beat the rake by finding these smaller sites, when I play on FT I feel like throwing up when I'm getting raked 10% at 10NL when i started off playing and like $2 a pot for a #20 pot HU 100NL.

It is a bad deal but as the largest and second largest site they can get away with it.

Just my 2 cents