|
|
#91
11-17-2007, 06:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Zero Rake Poker Business plan
[ QUOTE ]
I think the problem is still going to be found in funding. UIGEA targetted payment processors, for some reason just because your room is not taking rake does not mean the payment processors were used for players to gamble against each other. There is a difference between bringing a roll of quarters to a home game, and wiring in 50k to play high stakes online. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think tuff plays high stakes, so why would there be any high stakes games on the site? 
|
|
#92
11-17-2007, 06:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Zero Rake Poker Business plan
TY MICROBOB. It had bad a while lol. Always brightens my day!
|
|
#93
11-17-2007, 06:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Zero Rake Poker Business plan
[ QUOTE ]
. . Trying to limit it to one table like a real poker room is stupid as Live poker without the interaction of other people at your table would be the most unenjoyable thing ever. Setting it to 3 or 4 tables max would still greatly serve your cause of trying to preserve your fishy clients. . . If the lake can be maintained in a healthy state with 2 or 3 tabling, fine. By a healthy state, I mean no drop off in the number of rec players and a consequent overabundance of grinders. Like what was happening at Party even without the UIGEA. I don't know what the optimum number is for keeping a good fishy site vs the number of tables allowed. I am pretty sure ONE works well. And if the site is running well and there are lots of rec players there, ONE or two will be the number. . . Lastly, A rakefree site is nice and all but the only people that have that high on their list when shopping for a poker site to play on is the very people you don't want, the multitabling hud bots. . . You are missing the point of zero rake. Zero rake makes it legal and doable. The funding mechanism is what is tricky. There is a necessity of supporting the operational costs without breaking the law. . . A recreational player does not care about the rake charged by a site (to an extent of course). Rather charge a rake . . see above . . (you can still keep it less than the competition) and spend it all on promotions and advertising to get players to your site and keep them there. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#94
11-17-2007, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Zero Rake Poker Business plan
[ QUOTE ]
I think the problem is still going to be found in funding. UIGEA targetted payment processors, [/ QUOTE ] UIGEA targeted transfers to UNLAWFUL gambling sites. Since there is no rake etc, the presumption is that it IS lawful. Hence, no problem.
|
|
#95
11-17-2007, 06:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Zero Rake Poker Business plan
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think tuff plays high stakes, so why would there be any high stakes games on the site? [/ QUOTE ] I would like to see stakes as high as anyone would want. It is, after all, our very own "homegame" Tuff BTW, as we speak, I have just won a seat to tomorrow's Sunday Millions on Poker Stars. So, I think we should have tournaments too. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] TF
|
|
#96
11-17-2007, 06:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Zero Rake Poker Business plan
hey does anyone have the link the one where he uses the word "[censored]" as an expletive by itself? That one always cracks me up.
|
|
#98
11-17-2007, 06:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Zero Rake Poker Business plan
[ QUOTE ]
Did the UIGEA say anything about whether a site had to take a rake to be unlawful or are you just making that part up? [/ QUOTE ] Bob, hang out in the Legislative forum a bit more. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] The UIGEA forbids transfers to UNLAWFUL gambling sites without specifying what such a site would be. It relys on existing state and federal law which is remarkably ambiguous on the subject of poker in general. The regulations being written are a nightmare, the enforcement is going to be nigh impossible, and the UIGEA will be challanged in court before the ink is dry on the regulations. But, unraked poker is fully legal, and stated to be so, in many states, (Calif, MO), is not addressed in a lot of states, and is explicitly not legal in a few. (NC, OK, WA to mention some.)
|
|
#99
11-17-2007, 06:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Zero Rake Poker Business plan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I think the problem is still going to be found in funding. UIGEA targetted payment processors, [/ QUOTE ] UIGEA targeted transfers to UNLAWFUL gambling sites. Since there is no rake etc, the presumption is that it IS lawful. Hence, no problem. [/ QUOTE ] The absence of a rake doesn't make it lawful. Whether or not it is lawful varies state to state and may not even be true at the federal level. You will get shut down pretty fast.
|
|
#100
11-17-2007, 07:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Zero Rake Poker Business plan
[ QUOTE ]
. . The absence of a rake doesn't make it lawful. Whether or not it is lawful varies state to state true, see above.. and may not even be true at the federal level. You will get shut down pretty fast. [/ QUOTE ] So far as I know, there is not so much as a syllable about poker in federal law. To anyone who has an interest, the Legislative forum has several important conversations going regarding existing and pending actions involving poker. And, might I add, you all had BETTER have an interest. There will not be a tie in the question of online poker in the US, either we will win and get fully legitimate, US facing online poker available, or our foes will win and YOU will not be making ANY money from online poker. The war has been joined and the issue has been escalated. It will be resolved one way or the other. Tuff
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
