The rake is unacceptable

[prodonkey]

I don't understand what OP meant, because I don't think he even knows.. he's just an idiot. Where is he pulling this $1982 number from if PT is showing he has a $19 net win? Do you even have pokertracker? I also notice that he hasn't been back in this thread at all.

[Rek]

[ QUOTE ]
I also notice that he hasn't been back in this thread at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you wonder why?

Jeez what is wrong with some of you guys. A simple post generates so much hated. PEACE - I'm off as well if people can't even be bothered to read my whole post before replying. Try engaging brain before ranting.

And consider why you are ranting at a simple post asking about the amount we all have to pay in rake.

[Henry17]

I'm pretty sure OP made it clear.

PT has him winning $19 and paying $186x in rake.

The number he quoted as his amount won was arrived at by adding his rake to the $19.

It is all on page 1.

As such I think Rek was correct.

[Alex Scott]

To offer a counter opinion on this briefly...

If you buy something in a shop using a credit card, the shop itself does not receive 100% of the money you are charged. Usually, a small percentage goes to a credit card processor - maybe 3%.

If you've bought plane tickets online (for example), you might have noticed that you're charged an extra few percent if you pay by credit card compared to debit card. That's the company trying to recover that money from you, because it represents a significant cost at the end of the year.

In online poker, it's the same, but depending on which payment processor is used, the fees can be much higher. 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).

These are just example figures and might not be completely accurate, but you get the picture. I wanted to counter the argument that 'it only costs poker sites $0.01 to run a tournament, but they receive hundreds of dollars in rake'. In actual fact, a big online tournament may cost thousands of dollars to run when all costs are considered.

I should also point out that there used to be a poker site, RakeFree.com (I think that's the name) that offered a flat-rate option to players. However, it never took off, because it never got the casual players that feed a poker community. The best sites to play at are those that have lots of weak, recreational players - but to have lots of those players, it must be easy to deposit. Unfortunately, that costs money.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
To offer a counter opinion on this briefly...

If you buy something in a shop using a credit card, the shop itself does not receive 100% of the money you are charged. Usually, a small percentage goes to a credit card processor - maybe 3%.

If you've bought plane tickets online (for example), you might have noticed that you're charged an extra few percent if you pay by credit card compared to debit card. That's the company trying to recover that money from you, because it represents a significant cost at the end of the year.

In online poker, it's the same, but depending on which payment processor is used, the fees can be much higher. 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).

These are just example figures and might not be completely accurate, but you get the picture. I wanted to counter the argument that 'it only costs poker sites $0.01 to run a tournament, but they receive hundreds of dollars in rake'. In actual fact, a big online tournament may cost thousands of dollars to run when all costs are considered.

I should also point out that there used to be a poker site, RakeFree.com (I think that's the name) that offered a flat-rate option to players. However, it never took off, because it never got the casual players that feed a poker community. The best sites to play at are those that have lots of weak, recreational players - but to have lots of those players, it must be easy to deposit. Unfortunately, that costs money.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about just passing those fees along to those that are depositing?

[1p0kerboy]

Also,

what about the money poker sites (like Stars) make in interest off of all of our monies in their bank account? That has to be a huge amount in and of itself.

[1p0kerboy]

It kind of makes me want to withdraw/deposit more. Even though this option would cost me a little bit more, it would cost the poker sites a whole lot more. Is that spiteful or what?

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
If you've bought plane tickets online (for example), you might have noticed that you're charged an extra few percent if you pay by credit card compared to debit card.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any business charging extra to customers who pay with a credit card is breaking visa and mastercard merchant guidelines and should be reported (http://www.mastercard.com/us/persona...iolations.html or 1-800-VISA-911).

They can offer a discount for paying by cash but they cannot flat out charge extra for using credit.

[LateFlag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To offer a counter opinion on this briefly...

If you buy something in a shop using a credit card, the shop itself does not receive 100% of the money you are charged. Usually, a small percentage goes to a credit card processor - maybe 3%.

If you've bought plane tickets online (for example), you might have noticed that you're charged an extra few percent if you pay by credit card compared to debit card. That's the company trying to recover that money from you, because it represents a significant cost at the end of the year.

In online poker, it's the same, but depending on which payment processor is used, the fees can be much higher. 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).

These are just example figures and might not be completely accurate, but you get the picture. I wanted to counter the argument that 'it only costs poker sites $0.01 to run a tournament, but they receive hundreds of dollars in rake'. In actual fact, a big online tournament may cost thousands of dollars to run when all costs are considered.

I should also point out that there used to be a poker site, RakeFree.com (I think that's the name) that offered a flat-rate option to players. However, it never took off, because it never got the casual players that feed a poker community. The best sites to play at are those that have lots of weak, recreational players - but to have lots of those players, it must be easy to deposit. Unfortunately, that costs money.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about just passing those fees along to those that are depositing?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The best sites to play at are those that have lots of weak, recreational players - but to have lots of those players, it must be easy to deposit.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Henry17]

Do sites pay fees when you cash out or only when you deposit?