The rake is unacceptable

[CAMEL1111]

[ QUOTE ]
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)

[/ QUOTE ]

I seriously doubt it is 2 percent.

[freecard4all]

[ QUOTE ]
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%?

[/ QUOTE ]
just a GREAT IDEA dude!

- the fish could play "for free"
- tilting players would be forced to play longer session because "now we play for free!"
- loosing players in general would be forced to play longer (now we play for free)
- "I want it back" players would be forced to play even longer.
- some stupid regulars would be forced to play longer bad tables
- ... would be forced to play longer ... in bad conditions.
- edit// it would kill the rat-holers (what is positive for everybody except them
------------------------------------------------------------
GUSHING CASH for both sites and regulards!

[freecard4all]

[ QUOTE ]
I seriously doubt it is 2 percent.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.svenskaspel.se/pl.aspx?Pa...;parentid=5157

[Phildo]

[ QUOTE ]
"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.

[/ QUOTE ]
also bmw should start charging 30% less for their cars. they could make up the difference by selling more cars

[JamieO]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"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.

[/ QUOTE ]
also bmw should start charging 30% less for their cars. they could make up the difference by selling more cars

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a horrible analogy not even close to making any sense.

[sethypooh21]

Supply Side Jesus is in the building...

[JamieO]

"If the rake-structure and other factors are such that I find the games to be worthwhile then I will play there."

You obviously havent been reading my posts. I have said that I still find the games to be worthwhile at stars despite the rake. I dont think anyone here besides the OP has said the rake would make them stop playing. Im trying to say that the rake IS NOT IDEAL. NOT FOR US OR THE SITES.

Lower rake=more wining players=better word of mouth=more players in general=fish staying around longer

I dont know how many times ive talked to people at non-poker forums who wont give up the idea that "online poker is rigged, you cant win." I know a lot of people who like the game but wont play online because they think no one wins online. Maybe its because only like 8% (just a guess, i have to state this explicitly or BOB will post about it 8 times) of players actually do win in the long run, and only like 0.25% make any real money.

Lower rake would create more winning players and GROW THE GAMES FASTER. Good for us and the site. Why cant some people just admit that there is a possibility that a lower rake is good for EVERYONE? Not a certainty but a possibility. There is an IDEAL rake out there, one that will make the sites more money and grow the games faster. Maybe it is the standard rake, but i dont think so.

Why had this point been totally ignored?

Im not saying that sites would get a huge boost in revenue over night, im saying that a lower rake is good for the game in general and anything good for the game in general has to be good for the sites eventually. Id go as far as to say that a substantial reduction in rake is inevitable, because the legal situtation in the US will change eventually. When it does i think we will see a second poker boom.

POKER IS JUST A GAME. IF I THOUGHT I WAS PAYING TO MUCH TO ENTER A PING-PONG TOURNEY I WOULD COMPLAIN.

WE ARE PARTNERS WITH THE SITES WE OWE THEM NOTHING. JUST BECAUSE U MAKE A LIVING AT A SITE DOESNT MEAN YOU OWE THEM ANYTHING.

And as ive said before i still love stars.

[sethypooh21]

Do you really think that lowering the rake from 10% (max 3) to 8% (max 3) would really 'grow the games?' Do you really think that lowering the rake by this amount would grow the games enough that .08y = .10x? If people were really THAT responsive to small changes in rake, one would expect the poker marketplace to look vastly different than it does.

8% rake won't make any of your friends who think no one wins online into anything more than marginal winners anyway.

[freecard4all]

[ QUOTE ]
Lower rake would create more winning players and GROW THE GAMES FASTER.

[/ QUOTE ]
first good point I see that supports the "lower rake" idea.

The problem is you have no numbers. Even more you have no experience with it. You only guess. But the sites pay real $$$ for men trying to find the best solution (for them).
But anyway this really is the first good point of lowering rake in this thread.


After all I still think that $100.000 in TV advertisement will bring in more fish than same amount randomly distributed among all players.

[JamieO]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lower rake would create more winning players and GROW THE GAMES FASTER.

[/ QUOTE ]
first good point I see that supports the "lower rake" idea.

The problem is you have no numbers. Even more you have no experience with it. You only guess. But the sites pay real $$$ for men trying to find the best solution (for them).


[/ QUOTE ]

Do they really though? I would think that if this was true you would see changes in the rake structure over time. I have played on stars for several years now and there havent been any changes. ( at least in the games i play)

And i really think that if this was true the rake for sit and gos would have gone down. I think its pretty obvious that the rake for sngs is too high for the good of the games. It has never changed.