Zero Rake Poker Business plan

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is going to be less and less true as more fisherman chase fewer fish. They are mostly going to be chasing each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, what makes you think all of the fish are going to swim to your lake? (I'm sure some will) The other lakes will still have fish.

Keep in mind that the huge majority of fish don't really know that they are fish at all.

I think the short clock to act is a great idea.

But I also think that you might actually be hurting your business by not allowing multi-tabling.

Remember, even the fish like to play multiple tables. One table gets extremely boring for anybody.

Besides that, if this idea were to work, other companies would surely "jump on it" and open similar sites. (I don't think it's possible to get a patent on something like this). When these similar sites allow multi-tabling, where do you think all of the players are going to go? And where the players go, the advertisers follow of course. This might be an issue that you could have to deal with in due time (along with litigation, etc.)

But altogether, I think it would take considerable time to get something like this going. And by the time that were to happen, we will likely already have some sort of regulated online poker in the United States (I'm sure you've been following the legislation forum). So there's a chance your efforts might be for nothing in the end. Of course you could still have your site regardless, but at that point you'll have a bunch of taxes to pay and you'll be competing against Harrah's and the like. Good luck.

'boy

[sonneti]

It may only take pennys to run a table but it takes a major investment to create the table & get players sitting around it.

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, even the fish like to play multiple tables. One table gets extremely boring for anybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you're stupid. Personally, I would prefer playing a half-table, but I've tried making suggestions to PS and FTP, but they won't budge. So, he, what can I do.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Remember, even the fish like to play multiple tables. One table gets extremely boring for anybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you're stupid. Personally, I would prefer playing a half-table, but I've tried making suggestions to PS and FTP, but they won't budge. So, he, what can I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

?

PokerStars has a half table option. Actually, it's more like 2/3 table.

They also now have a 2/9 table option.

Enjoy!

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is going to be less and less true as more fisherman chase fewer fish. They are mostly going to be chasing each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, what makes you think all of the fish are going to swim to your lake? (I'm sure some will) The other lakes will still have fish.
.
.
Being first to market, and, for a while at least, being the only US facing legitimate, easily funded poker site is one crucial key to success. The fish will be here because they can't easily be anywhere else. .
.


Keep in mind that the huge majority of fish don't really know that they are fish at all.
.
.
I don't? .
.

I think the short clock to act is a great idea.

But I also think that you might actually be hurting your business by not allowing multi-tabling.
.
.
But, the question is, am I hurting the lake?
.
.

Remember, even the fish like to play multiple tables. One table gets extremely boring for anybody.

Besides that, if this idea were to work, other companies would surely "jump on it" and open similar sites. (I don't think it's possible to get a patent on something like this).
.
.

Somehow, I don't think there is going to be great competition to open a business that has no possibility of profitability, at least in the conventional sense.
.
.

When these similar sites allow multi-tabling, where do you think all of the players are going to go? And where the players go, the advertisers follow of course. This might be an issue that you could have to deal with in due time (along with litigation, etc.)
.
.
Let's think about the advertising model for a minute. Please, somebody open up a zero rake site supported by advertising. I will be the first in and I promise to play under the name "Tuff Fish"


Would an advertiser want their ad seen seven times by one player or seen once by seven players. And by once, I mean the ad is persistant during the poker session. The advertiser will probably prefer that there be fewer tables but with each seat held by a unique individual player.

However, I am sure such a site would pay very close attention to details such as this and run the site appropriately. They will also be keenly interested in keeping the "lake" healthy.
.
.


.
.

But altogether, I think it would take considerable time to get something like this going.
.
.
I hope not too much time.
.
.

And by the time that were to happen, we will likely already have some sort of regulated online poker in the United States (I'm sure you've been following the legislation forum). So there's a chance your efforts might be for nothing in the end. Of course you could still have your site regardless, but at that point you'll have a bunch of taxes to pay and you'll be competing against Harrah's and the like. Good luck.

'boy

[/ QUOTE ]

If Harrah's and others beat me to it, my work is done.

Tuff

[El_Hombre_Grande]

Scene: Some Boardroom in New York.

"So, how is it, again, that we make money, Johnson?"
"We don't. Its revolutionary."
"And we may get sued or jailed by DOJ?"
"Yep."
"But no one can multitable. Ever."
"what's that?"
"Where a nit plays more than one table. At Pokerstars, some nits play like 20 tables at a time."
"And how do they make money at Pokerstars?"
"They charge rake."
"And we won't?"
"Exactly."
"And at Pokerstars, some players play 20 tables at a time, paying rake on all 20 tables at once?"
"Yeah, and they play all day so unimaginatively..."
"All DAY?"
'Well, 24/7, really, Pokerstars never shuts down... but you are missing the point...."
"Is PokerStars for Sale, Johnson?"

[metsandfinsfan]

in

[Bostik]

From an earlier post:

[ QUOTE ]
There is a catch, but not an onerous one. And, more importantly, not a legal one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the legality of ads has not been in dispute, this sounds quite bad. So out of thin air, let me pull some speculation.

Minimum deposit with a timelimit on complete withdrawal. Allow players to only withdraw what they have won until timelimit is met; after that, no restrictions. In the meantime, site uses the players' money to invest in short-term, low-to-mediocre-risk bonds. Assets just need to be in easily liquidated form, so withdraws and expenses can be met.

Wouldn't that be effectively banking?

The only catch here is that the money deposited to such a site would be involved in a simple zero-sum game. Money just moves between players, and limited withdrawals ensure that the investment capital remains big enough. So, as long as the profit from investments is enough for all operational costs, they could cover for all the money in players' accounts.

This is pure speculation, remember. I have no idea how the site would actually cover its costs. But - since the ads were supposedly not the only source of income, this might be the most straightforward approach.

And I shiver at the thought.

[TheJokerIsWild]

Tuff: I would play there.

That is all.

P.S. Despite what a lot of these 2+2ers say, they would at least try the site out as well. Most, like me, would just play one at your rake free site and then the rest of the tables at Stars or FT.

[orthopraxia]

tuff fish,

everything i have suspected about you is true.

you are a [censored] idiot.