The house takes all the money.

[mookboi]

[ QUOTE ]
How can any of you argue against this and support the poker sites?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it allows us to make easy money that we couldn't otherwise at regular jobs?

[futuredoc85]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote
"Because some of us don't suck at poker."

HU?

[/ QUOTE ]

site/stakes?

[IWINORIDIE]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can any of you argue against this and support the poker sites?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it allows us to make easy money that we couldn't otherwise at regular jobs?

[/ QUOTE ]

90% are losing, you phucking idiot.

[mused01]

and I care because? as long as I'm part of the 10% making ridiculous money for my age, what's there to complain about?

just because house takes a rake doesn't mean it's unbeatable.

I don't get it, why are you calling mookboi an idiot?

[TheChad]

[ QUOTE ]
i stop playing live because of the rake/tip/food/gas/wait. Nobody can make a living play 1/2nl or less.

[/ QUOTE ]

you probably shouldn't be playing for a living if you can't beat anything higher than 1/2nl. shot in the dark. I wouldn't consider it for anything less than 5/10nl.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
10 people buy-in for $200 each in a $1-$2 no limit game. Collectively, that is $2000.00. 30 hands are raked a maximum
of $3 an an hour, plus a bunch of other pots are raked say an average of $1. We'll say $100 an hour is coming off the table. After 6 hours, the house has $600.00. About 1/3rd of the money. Lets say a bunch of them have rebought for another $200. So the players have put a total of $4000 up. And they play another 6 hours. After 12 hours, the house has over 25% of their money. PLAYING DAY IN DAY OUT, THE HOUSE ENDS UP WITH ALLLLLLLL THE MONEY. CAN I BE ANYMORE CLEAR????? HOW DO HALF OF YOU NOT SEE IT???



[/ QUOTE ]

Only if the new money coming in dries up. Taking your own numbers, 4000 on the table today, the house takes 25%. Tomorrow there's another 4000 on the table, the house takes 25%. 3rd day, 4000 on the table, house takes 25%. Rinse and repeat and repeat and repeat. Now whether this is fair or unfair, beatable or unbeatable is its own question, but the house never gets all the money.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
All World Poker Exchange needs to do is sell a % of the site to: Nick Schulman, Tom Dwan, Prahlad Friedman, Krantz, Jman, TheBryce, Taylor Caby, Sbrugby, the guys over at stoxtrader without endorsement deals, a few more high profile 20 something year old pros, have them invest a million dollars for software as good as full tilt and pokerstars, and then they all play a ton of world poker tour and worlds series of poker events wearing logos for the site. And the rest of us will sport World Poker Exchange t-shirts and hats etc. Theyll charge max rake $1 per pot on low limit games, standard rake on high stakes games, cut the tournamets and sit n go fees to 2.5%. These guys will easily make their investment back oncee the site takes off. They'll each make millions of dollars infact. And this will all happen before Full Tilt or Pokerstars dares to compete on rake and lower theirs. Once this occurs , it wil be so easy for everyone to make much more $$$$. And so many bad players will last longer and end up making it to higher stakes where we can all feast on them. I'm the man with the plan, lets make it happen. People who know these guys contact them. Set the wheels in motion.

Or they could all get together and start their own site. World Poker Exchange sucks anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a good thing wpex as currently configured is a highly profitable business opportunity for those poker superstars to invest in and not a loss leader for a sports book. I'm sure charging no rake or much lower rake would enable them to support an adverstising budget, a software upgrade, and a twenty plus player roster including several highly intelligent, business-savvy people who will require return on their investment and who are aware of the same market forces that enable Stars and Full Tilt to charge what they do. It is particularly fortunate that the individuals named are all as well known among the general public as Full Tilt's pros, and that all of them are eager to travel the tournament circuit full-time to promote their new highly profitable business!

[LearnedfromTV]

For the record, of course I would love to play less rake. Instead of winning money, I would win more money. This would be better. I would certainly play at a rake free site with comparable game selection, support, and software. But a market in which it is not necessary to compete on price is not likely to start competing on price. The poker economy runs on fish, not winners or breakeven players who would win if there were no rake. Fish play based on advertising and inertia and are indifferent to price. If a site has advertising that works and an established player pool, they will charge rake that makes the game sustainable and nothing less. It sucks, but it's the reality.

[SuperMxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can any of you argue against this and support the poker sites?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it allows us to make easy money that we couldn't otherwise at regular jobs?

[/ QUOTE ]

90% are losing, you phucking idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd have a point if the the 90% had equal skill to the 10%. I'd estimate that among the top 10% skill-wise, 90% are WINNING players, even with the rake. Skill also involves bankroll management.

[IWINORIDIE]

World Poker Exchange max rake: $.75 $3.75 an hour/person
Full Tilt Poker max rake: $3.00 $15 an hour/person
Pokerstars max rake: $3.00 $15 an hour/person
Ultimate Bet max rake: $3.00 $15 an hour/person

Im out, peace...spread the word..hollllaaaaaa