Zero Rake Poker Business plan

[apefish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Revenue:
1. Donations. If there are 1,000 players with 1,000 hands per month, that is 1 million hands. If donations are $1 per hand, that is $1 million per month.

[/ QUOTE ]

why the hell would I pay $1 a hand I win, in order to play "free" poker.



[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I think it's really silly not to pay at least $2 per hand on a free site.

This is of course operating under the assumption I have this mythical business plan down cold.

I do. I'm just not going to tell you guys how I know I do.
You have to either trust me on this or go back to your multi-threading ways.

[twoblacknines]

[ QUOTE ]
From an earlier post:

[ QUOTE ]
There is a catch, but not an onerous one. And, more importantly, not a legal one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the legality of ads has not been in dispute, this sounds quite bad. So out of thin air, let me pull some speculation.

Minimum deposit with a timelimit on complete withdrawal. Allow players to only withdraw what they have won until timelimit is met; after that, no restrictions. In the meantime, site uses the players' money to invest in short-term, low-to-mediocre-risk bonds. Assets just need to be in easily liquidated form, so withdraws and expenses can be met.

Wouldn't that be effectively banking?

The only catch here is that the money deposited to such a site would be involved in a simple zero-sum game. Money just moves between players, and limited withdrawals ensure that the investment capital remains big enough. So, as long as the profit from investments is enough for all operational costs, they could cover for all the money in players' accounts.

This is pure speculation, remember. I have no idea how the site would actually cover its costs. But - since the ads were supposedly not the only source of income, this might be the most straightforward approach.

And I shiver at the thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this post got skipped over, and it makes the best sense out of everything I have read so far.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Revenue:
1. Donations. If there are 1,000 players with 1,000 hands per month, that is 1 million hands. If donations are $1 per hand, that is $1 million per month.

[/ QUOTE ]

why the hell would I pay $1 a hand I win, in order to play "free" poker. Thats worse than the rake for the vast majority of limits. And even the ones its better than, its not much better once you factor in rake back. For that price id rather play on a reputable site that has competent CS people who arent working pro bono, and who can afford to advertise otherplaces than the local cable access channel.


I dunno what tilts me worse, the amount of replies this completely worthless and total [censored] thread has recieved, or the fact I keep wasting my time replying to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you won't be multi-tabling so you might as well pay 6x as much rake on your single table.

But don't worry. Bill Gates is coming to the rescue. I hear he hates multi-tablers worse than Tuff, and is willing to spend billions to protect fishies from Hudbotting sharks.


This is a tuff fish post. If you aren't willing to play by tuff fish rules (complete suspension of all common sense, logic, the free market, and NO MULTITABLING, you might as well go home.

Tuff could care less if its free. Examine the case of Tuff fish v. WSEX, 123 Inane Ramblings 467 (2005-2006). He's still just trying to find an online game he can beat. WSEX provided him with a HUD prohibited rake -free site that he couldn't beat. He then trolled the WSEX thread for months claiming that the difference between 100% rakeback and rakefree was a horrendous affront. The truth is WSEX is a small underadvertised site with a very high % of 2+2ers that tuff couldn't beat. Hence the birth of the current "idea." Personally, I think he enjoys saying things that are moronic AND insult multi-tablers (which he perceives as the reason he can't beat an online game)so this thread is simply classic tuff. Enjoy the show; but don't get caught up in logic or proportion, Alice.

[Abbaddabba]

i have this burning anger inside of me every time i scroll by a quote of the original post. what's more tilting than the sheer stupidity of that someone as [censored] stupid as the op can be so arrogant.




is this the same guy from the youtube strategy/anger videos, or did he just pick the name as a joke? if it's actually him, it kind of relieves some of the anger.

[phiphika1453]

Tuff, your discontent for multitabling is ignorance at its finest.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
Benjamin

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, and Tuff Fish agreed, if we are using a non profit model, California is very hard assed on non profits. No cash games, tourneys that can only return 10% of the funds received as prizes, with the remaining 90% going back to the charity.


[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to make a clarification.

California is hell on using "controlled games" for charity work. The conditions you described are spelled out in no uncertain terms.

But charity organizations and a non profit organization are two totally different beasts. A non profit doesn't have to have any tie in whatsoever with charity, and the rules are completely different. (and complicated)

A non profit entity is not a magic bullet solution to our problem either.

Many problems, few solutions, but all we need is one.

Tuff

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]





is this the same guy from the youtube strategy/anger videos, or did he just pick the name as a joke? if it's actually him, it kind of relieves some of the anger.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is me, and I am glad you feel better.

Tuff

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who's going to work at a non-profit poker site???

[/ QUOTE ]

Non-profits hire people to work for them every day. Why would this non-profit poker site be any different?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because those organizations actually generate revenue and can pay staff a wage. Your ideas on how this site could actually generate revenue makes me think you live in Fantasy Land. Bill Gates?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most non-profits use exactly the business model I outlined to raise money. Whether Gates gets onboard with a small or large donation is beside the point. There are lots of wealthy poker players out there to ask for money.

You mean to tell me you would not donate $100 a year to make a site like this happen, if you had a solid foundation of a good board and bylaws? You don't think there are a lot of people who would donate $1,000? Or $25 dollars? Or just $10? Once the site were up and running, wouldn't you occasionally click a 'support the site, tip a buck' button and donate $1 after you won a pot?

The problem of paying transaction fees has already been demonstrated to be no problem. I fail to see the 'fantasy land' aspect of my ideas.

I never said it would be easy or quick, but it is not crazy.

As I said, you'd probably want to pick the single most favorable state to get started. You might well want to take the approach of 1 site per state, mentioned by others, to keep the legal costs down.

It would take a strong leader, and lots and lots of unpaid hours before there would be any chance of getting it off the ground, and I don't really see it happening, but it's an interesting idea, IMO.

[freecard4all]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't think there are a lot of people who would donate $1,000? Or $25 dollars? Or just $10? Once the site were up and running, wouldn't you occasionally click a 'support the site, tip a buck' button and donate $1 after you won a pot?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes I don't think someone would pay $1000 as a "donations" when he can pay 2000 in rake elsewhere (I assume this site won't be superior to those established)... so the rake will be the only reason to play there. (at least at the beginning)

[ QUOTE ]
It would take a strong leader, and lots and lots of unpaid hours...

[/ QUOTE ]
... where are those for free?

[Grasshopp3r]

This is a classic effort for the PPA. They already have the organization going and then they would really demonstrate that they are for the players, not just a few sites. The PPA would have a little more credibility, too.