The rake is unacceptable

[aargh57]

Dear MGM:

"My statistics on my cocktail napkin showed this: The last month I won $1982. I payed $1963 in rake, $675 to cocktail waitress, blew $500 in the slots waiting for tables, spent $200 on greasy hotdogs in the deli, and 1 whole dollar tipping a chip runner. I don't think it's acceptable to pay these enourmous fees. My suggestion: Give me the alternative of paying a monthly fee of $500 instead of paying rake. I don't think anyone should pay more than $500 a month for their hobby, regardless of what Ping, Callaway, Titlest, Brunswick, K2, Salomon, or my local golf club/bowling alley/ski hill think."


Sheesh, where do they get off with their whole free market ideology anyway?

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
As mentioned before, you already HAVE a fairly significant rake difference between sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't actually agree with this.

In the games I play, the rakes are identical amongst almost every site. At least the major sites. In fact, this is true as far as ANY no-limit game goes, and no-limit is far the most popular game. So almost everybody pays the same rake on either Stars or Tilt.

[ QUOTE ]
And nobody gives a crap...not even the people who are playing at those sites now...not even most of your 2+2'ers who you would expect to care the most about these things. Even THEY don't care that much.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't necessarily agree with this either.

The industry leader, PokerStars, probably has the lowest rake when figuring all games across the board. I think this may actually be a small reason they are as popular. (Obviously advertising and signing the WSOP winners are much bigger reasons)

[ QUOTE ]
Will lower-rake actually influence revenues for the site?
I think it would hurt the site's bottom-line because they aren't going to get significantly more action to make up for the amount they are NOT taking out in each hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. They might. Higher rakes bust out players quicker. If they kept losing players in action longer, I think they would be less likely to leave the game altogether.

[ QUOTE ]
Will it bring in more players by announcing, "We have lower rake than the other guys"?
I just don't think it will.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not. But you've heard the adage "it's better to fleece the sheep than to skin 'em".

[vaughn345]

Post deleted by David Sklansky.

[freecard4all]

[ QUOTE ]
it's 1:1 on your winnings (salary for your work) and rake (salary for the FTP's work - as CS, gathering fish etc. etc. et.c). I think it's a good deal.

[ QUOTE ]
The rake actually is acceptable. I've accepted it as have many other players.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol @fulltilt gathering fish

[/ QUOTE ]
you won't believe me but there are worse sites there (WPEX e.g.) than FTP (in terms of amount of fish)

[Barrin6]

I haven't read this whole thread yet, just skimmed.

But I'll put in my 2cents.

Fish don't care if rake goes down, because they won't notice!! What poker sites need to do instead is give out more and more bonuses that is equivalent to lower rake. Look at party poker, they kept giving out mini- bonuses that was basically nothing but in the fish's eyes, it was alot.

[freecard4all]

[ QUOTE ]
lots of questions about what net $19 mean. Come on guys, we all knew what he meant by winning only $19 - give him some slack.

[/ QUOTE ]
hmm if he calculated rake only from won hands that's fine. But he never confirmed that. Plus every time I see a "look how much I lost on rake" it almost always means:
- 5/0 (or 10/3 at best) player
- counting dealt method of all posts
- a nitty folding flop too much (means you pay less because it's not your rake when you fold flop). Especially counts when it comes to blind stealing and these people apply strategy "first raise and then fold if called/raised" = lots of pre-flop won hands but almost no rake.

[Piers]

Congratulations on your $19 win.

[Jzo19]

lol OP probably has never played live ...the rake is twice as bad ...and you have to TIP the dealers cause if not they treat you like shyt ..

[freecard4all]

[ QUOTE ]
they always look at me funny when I'm playing 10/20 NL and tip $1 for a $5K pot...

[/ QUOTE ]
because if you hit your 1-outer they actually think that they won you the hand [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
same here. Either he was pissed off and needed to share his anger of it was a FTP/PS guy and now he's laughing how we supported him in his idea of a new rake level.
Next month prepare for 10% rake up to $100 [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL I see the wonderful advertisement: for every $100 you send to us we match your deposit with 50% first deposit bonus and then you can play with totalling $90 (bonus included)

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

[/ QUOTE ]
it depends. If you use Neteller they pay both. If you use check you pay more. They of course pay for a wire (as any other subject).

[freecard4all]

[ QUOTE ]
lol I did the very complicated math myself that if I won $19 and payed $1963 in rake that makes it $1982. Understand?

[/ QUOTE ]
yes but we don't understand what the $1963 means. Please confirm/deny that it means "rake taken from pots you actually won" so we can finally close this issue.