Zero Rake Poker Business plan

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a classic effort for the PPA. They already have the organization going and then they would really demonstrate that they are for the players, not just a few sites. The PPA would have a little more credibility, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

The PPA is probably more interested in getting commercial online poker sites legally sanctioned. However, this could, and is intended to be, the camel's nose under the tent. If the DOJ and our other assorted enemies see that they simply cannot stop internet poker, we will have a much better chance at getting what most of us want, US based, easy, legal online poker offered by large slick poker sites. The PPA could possibly look on this type of effort as a wedge to pry passage of the Wexler bill.

I have had zero conversations with PPA on this matter.

Tuff

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]

Most non-profits are actually raising money for something worthy.

[/ QUOTE ]


A non profit can be for any cause whatsoever.

Tuff

[Mitch Evans]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Most non-profits are actually raising money for something worthy.

[/ QUOTE ]


A non profit can be for any cause whatsoever.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, you think? Way to quote me out of context, too.

In case you are obtuse and not just being a dick, I will reiterate. To start a poker site takes serious capital, most in the form of advertising. To get someone with deep pockets to part with the kind of money, you'd better have a worthy cause… unless you think you can steal pokerstars' clientele and have them make small donations, but how will you steal all those players? Making posts on message boards, or heavy expensive advertising?

Go ahead, get 50k players on your site, and I will be more than happy to pay a $25 monthly fee for the privilege to play at your site. Please send a letter to Bill Gates expressing your dire situation; I'm sure he'd be happy to toss a few million to your cause to help poker players avoid the evil rake. Please post the letter you get back.

[Komodo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tuff still didnt address the issue that WSEX is already VERY VERY close to what he proposes and is the rockiest site around, it also has bot problems. I dont think tuff has a strong enough understanding of how things work to be the brainchild of attempting such an undertaking.

[/ QUOTE ]

WSEX was/is not even close to what I have in mind. Not to beat a dead horse that has been flayed incessantly, but WSEX has a rake redistribution model, not a zero rake model. That is a model tailor made for nittiness.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's effectively the same thing, no rake and rake redistribution target the same customers.

You arent going to be able to change the deposit situation either, rake or no rake isnt going to make a difference so its not going to be easier to get money on than it will be for any other site. And LOL at bringing up the site software issue, do you have any idea how hard it is to roll out quality software even for sites that DO have rake? Your crusadea against multitabling is very troubling, your general stance does more to hurt online poker than help it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its pretty far from the same thing. 100%RB attracts nits whereas no rake favoures action players since the less rake, the more hands can be played profitably.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
Ben, it's not the methods of raising money that I disagree with, it's the cause. Most non-profits are actually raising money for something worthy. Rake-free poker I don't think qualifies,

[/ QUOTE ]

Take a look at the Sports Car Club of America for a big thriving organization that's only purpose is to give people an avenue to practice their hobby.

How about Trout Unlimited: formed to improve and protect fishing grounds. (nice parallel to our purpose [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) They raised $4 million from their members last year. OK, they have evolved into a conservation organization, a 'worthy' cause, but basically it's fisherman selfishly protecting their hobby.

The cause doesn't have to be 'worthy', you just need a lot of people to care. I think there are a lot of people who care about poker, in general, online poker in specific, and a who would support a fully legal, rakefree site.

[ QUOTE ]
and to get all these players you guys keep talking about is going to take a heavy ad campaign. That's the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]


I disagree that a big Full Tilt style ad campaign is necessary. Start in the most favorable state, and when you are ready to kick off, do a PR push to get the state media to cover the story. I doubt the PPA will be actually try to make this site happen, but if someone else did, maybe PPA'd be willing to send an email to members in that state.

I think that would be enough to get the ball rolling. WPEX was swamped after they went rakefree and got that CardPlayer article. They wasted the opportunity, though, by having such garbage software in place that it was near impossible to play without getting violently angry.

[bigshowmack]

[ QUOTE ]

I have had zero conversations with PPA on this matter.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]


Thats probably for the best, because they too will think you're a retarded [censored]. Your arrogance towards a completely stupid and unrealistic idea is astounding. I think you are actually starting to go senile.

[jukofyork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tuffness,

I didn't read anything except the OP cause I'm sure it's full of garbage posts, but do you explain how this site would stay afloat?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I am not Tuff himself - but here is an ill-conceived and likely badly flawed idea of how such may work...

IIRC Rakefree is a requirement for running legal homegames in the USA, this is the primary motivation - legal poker in the "Land of the Free"

Firstly, there is no "site" that must stay afloat.. this rake-free "homegame network" runs on similar principles to those of CounterStrike games - i.e anyone anywhere can host a table, and anyone anywhere is free to join.

There is at maybe a central payment processor / cashier / bank. This may be operated on a cleared funds only / cash basis, to avoid penalty of charge backs. This may be a central authority - or preferably it is greatly distributed... the host of a "bank" could potentially make money... this is probably the hardest part of the operation to solve. Game security could be implemented on a trust system... If the "bank" that holds your money distrusts the server running the games, no funds allocated, you cannot sit. EDIT: Maybe, one could use real banks - nothing illegal here, after all? /EDIT.

A Central game list is not required, game servers can be run with a p2p style ability to query their neighbors and so on - you fire up a server, once it connects to the "homegame network" it can discover home games that are running across the planet. Similar to Tor / FreeNet. Maybe a tracker style sysstem like torrent would be better, who knows at this point.

And so on. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

There is a lot of stuff in Ray Bonnert's "Honest Holdem" bot posts hidden among the spam, techniques that could be used to verify the integrity of the deal in an untrusted network etc.

I am fairly sure this could be implemented very soon for play money.. the real problem is the payments processing, and the trust required therein [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I think something like this would make for a good start. Basically a peer-to-peer play-money system where it can be verified that nobody is cheating could be used to get the ball rolling and then if that was proven to work properly a real-money version could be thought about.

I'll have to read some of Ray Bonnert's old "Honest Holdem" posts - I just assumed they were spam, but it sounds like their might actually be some interesting stuff within them. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]

.
Also, you liken one-tabling to a real poker room - a lot of us play online because one-tabling in B&Ms can be ridiculously dreary at times.
.
Part of poker is management of emotions. One reason that a lot of people don't play well in B&M is precisely that they get impatient. What you guys want, because you know this is indeed a problem, is to be free of one of the requirements of playing good poker.

And I know you guys want a lot of hands so you can cherry pick the best hands and ignore the others. If some guy is making a play on you, and your hand is marginal, you want the freedom to toss it and move on since you are being busy at other tables anyway.

That may be good rote poker, but it isn't real poker. Real poker requires you to have the discipline to toss a marginal hand when you are frustrated by not having seen a good hand in an hour.

Furthermore, I don't know why you're asking for our support to help get your idea off the ground when you don't want to cater to our requests. If multitabling nits are bad for the game, surely you think single-tabling nits See above. Single tabling nits are very rare, and most of you won't qualify. are bad for the game too. Then why are you posting here asking for our support? Because having the support of the 2+2 community would make this idea more likely to come to fruition? Okay, so you want our support - why are you insisting on restricting the number of tables people play and then surprised when we're reluctant to give it?
.
I am tossing out an idea I have to see who WOULD support it. I know most of you want to see a quite different model. But neither I nor the US facing sites that will be showing up want to give you all a personal fish farm.

But that being said, I would love to see a completely free competitive market for poker sites. If you would all dedicate as much energy to passing the Wexler bill as you do bashing me, you would go a long way to having such a free market. Then, it is let the best plan win.
.


I like the idea and I'd probably play on the site, but the way you present it here and are so resistant to the suggestions of the community you're trying to win over are going to make it a tough sell to everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Mitch Evans]

Eh, I'll just leave the whole "protecting gamblers is a worthy cause" alone. Just write that letter to Gates and post the response if you get one.

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree that a big Full Tilt style ad campaign is necessary. Start in the most favorable state, and when you are ready to kick off, do a PR push to get the state media to cover the story. I doubt the PPA will be actually try to make this site happen, but if someone else did, maybe PPA'd be willing to send an email to members in that state.

I think that would be enough to get the ball rolling. WPEX was swamped after they went rakefree and got that CardPlayer article. They wasted the opportunity, though, by having such garbage software in place that it was near impossible to play without getting violently angry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, [censored] software and good players…. How about Party in 2003? Party's software back then made WSEX's software at its worst look flawless, yet the numbers continued to grow because they advertised to the right people. They didn't know they could hop over to Stars and play on a stable site, and I bet Stars was looking for every way they could to get them to come over. They got their break when Moneymaker won and flooded his story everywhere.

You really think state media coverage will be large enough to get the ball rolling? I mean, who cares? I guess if you get Tuff and ten other whack jobs to stand in front of a B&M card room holding signs of their wonderful new poker room, perhaps they might get 15 seconds of local news coverage if they're trespassing or something.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
How about Party in 2003? Party's software back then made WSEX's software at its worst look flawless,

[/ QUOTE ]

So not true.