|
|
|
|
#1
11-14-2007, 06:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The rake is unacceptable
[ QUOTE ]
I won $1982 I raked $1963 The amount of money won after rake taken is $19. What part is it that you donīt understand? [/ QUOTE ] wpx has 75% rakeback. thats the best/cheapest deal you will find for rake. enjoy the games. 
|
|
#4
11-14-2007, 09:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The rake is unacceptable
I love how whenever someone makes a post like this complaining about high rake they are automatically a loser who deserves ridicule. I personally believe that the rake at most major sites could be cut by 30% or so without any major loss in revenue for the site.
Some games are worse than others in terms of rake though. I dont play cash games much anymore, but the rake is actually pretty bad if u dont have a rakebake deal or dont play enough volume to reach plat-plus at stars. Rake on Mtt's is acceptable to me, 10% or less of your buyin gives you a whole tourneys worth of play, but still i could see it go lower. The worst rake IMO is on STT's. The whole reason i stopped playing STT's is that my roi was only like 11% at the 27s and i just hated the idea that stars was making as much off my play as i am. STT's fee should be 5% not 10% that is a big problem. Really the bottom line is that it costs stars less than $0.01 to run a tourney that makes them $100s. There is a lot of room for improvement in terms of the price we pay to play a game. Remember, poker is a skill game. We are not gambling. There is no reason for the rake to be so high. Who decided that 5% was the magic number anyways? Why is there no room for discussion/negotiation here? I can go play any play money game for free so what is the rake for? It obviously doesnt pay for the play of the game itself. It pays for your assurance that when you win you will actually get your $. So it costs $1 everytime i put in $10 just so i can be sure i will be paid when i win. Why on earth should it cost that much? Does it cost you 10% everytime you transfer $ to another player? All we are doing is playing a game and transfering $. Where is the high cost of providing us a place to play at? Advertising? Security? Customer support? I dont think so. How did stars decide on thier rake/fee structure in the begining? It has stayed the same for as long as i can remember so obviously it is big enough for them to stay in business and make a HUGE profit. So what profit is TOO BIG? Why does questioning the price you are getting to play make you a bad player? If you dont question the rake you are a moron. That said, I will still play at stars as its my only source of income, but i will never be happy with the rake as it is. The rake is not unacceptable, but it is higher than optimal. I will deal with it for now as it seems there is nothing i can do about it if i wanna chase the fishes.
|
|
#5
11-14-2007, 09:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The rake is unacceptable
[ QUOTE ]
I love how whenever someone makes a post like this complaining about high rake they are automatically a loser who deserves ridicule. I personally believe that the rake at most major sites could be cut by 30% or so without any major loss in revenue for the site. [/ QUOTE ] Stopped reading here.
|
|
#6
11-14-2007, 09:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The rake is unacceptable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I love how whenever someone makes a post like this complaining about high rake they are automatically a loser who deserves ridicule. I personally believe that the rake at most major sites could be cut by 30% or so without any major loss in revenue for the site. [/ QUOTE ] Stopped reading here. [/ QUOTE ] Actually, I did too. Very few players make their choice of games or even sites based on the rake. If Stars or FT or whatever other site reduced their rake by 30% their loss of revenue would be very close to that same 30%. They might attract some rake-aware and nitty players who to make up for some of that deficit though. So I guess it's possible that a 30% reduction of rake across the board at a given site would only lead to a 25% loss of revenue. How anyone can think that a 30% cut in rake would not lead to a loss of revenue for that site is somewhat beyond me. You do realize that the site's make their revenue from the rake alone for the most part, right?
|
|
#7
11-14-2007, 10:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The rake is unacceptable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I love how whenever someone makes a post like this complaining about high rake they are automatically a loser who deserves ridicule. I personally believe that the rake at most major sites could be cut by 30% or so without any major loss in revenue for the site. [/ QUOTE ] Stopped reading here. [/ QUOTE ] Actually, I did too. Very few players make their choice of games or even sites based on the rake. If Stars or FT or whatever other site reduced their rake by 30% their loss of revenue would be very close to that same 30%. They might attract some rake-aware and nitty players who to make up for some of that deficit though. So I guess it's possible that a 30% reduction of rake across the board at a given site would only lead to a 25% loss of revenue. How anyone can think that a 30% cut in rake would not lead to a loss of revenue for that site is somewhat beyond me. You do realize that the site's make their revenue from the rake alone for the most part, right? [/ QUOTE ] What I find very strange is that the sites do not try to compete with each other. The donks waffle on endlessly about rigged flops, but how often does anybody consider that there may actually be some kind of evil price fixing monopoly at work here? Based on the service they provide the amount they take in rake is just robbery IMO. The statement "I personally believe that the rake at most major sites could be cut by 30% or so without any major loss in revenue for the site." may not quite be correct, but does anybody disagree with: "I personally believe that the rake at most major sites could be <font color="red">cut by 90%</font> <u>and still leave a viable and profitable business for the site.</u>" A simple comparison of with online MMORPG games makes it blindingly obvious the sites are making vastly more than they deserve or need. Think of all the skilled coders, artists, story developers, modelers, mods, etc, etc needed to make and run a modern MMORPG. If WOW wanted to use the same rippoff pricing model as poker sites do and considering the fact that they need to employ many times more skilled workers; I think a weekly subscription to WOW would be about $10,000! Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#8
11-14-2007, 10:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The rake is unacceptable
[ QUOTE ]
If Stars or FT or whatever other site reduced their rake by 30% ..They might attract some rake-aware and nitty players who to make the games even tighter and making less for both regulars and site. [/ QUOTE ] FYP. Maybe some high-rollers could make it better but after all this could be bad for the games.
|
|
#9
11-14-2007, 09:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The rake is unacceptable
[ QUOTE ]
Rake on Mtt's is acceptable to me, 10% or less of your buyin gives you a whole tourneys worth of play, but still i could see it go lower. [/ QUOTE ] You are basing how much rake you are willing to pay on how long you can play rather than how much you can make. That tells me all I need to know.
|
|
#10
11-14-2007, 09:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The rake is unacceptable
"You are basing how much rake you are willing to pay on how long you can play rather than how much you can make."
They are the same thing DUCY? Longer play means more hands means more of an edge. Of course roi is greater at MTTs. Im sorry but i didnt think anyone here would need further expantion of that.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
