The rake is unacceptable - Page 7

Komodo · #61 11-15-2007, 02:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Most players don't care about rake or have much of an awareness of it.
Some site bragging that they take only $2 on a given pot instead of $2.50 in the same size pot will have very little impact. Most players think, "Big deal. It's 50 freaking cents. If 50 cents makes that much difference to you then maybe poker isn't your game.""

Then y do sites offer rakeback deals in the first place? Are the sites losing $ off of these deals? of course not. They bring in players that wouldnt be there otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
A recent post in the Software forum about 24-tabling purely to get FPPs makes me wonder if rakeback is the worst of both worlds for good players... It attracts and keeps nitty breakeven players playing and at the same time lets the site fleece the fish at a faster rate.

[ QUOTE ]
Come play pokerstars where we charge you less than full tilt, etc.... Easy sell.

[/ QUOTE ]
Every other business is run like this so why should it be any different for poker sites?

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Link to that post?

orlov · #62 11-15-2007, 02:33 AM

[ 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

Bantam222 · #63 11-15-2007, 02:46 AM

I'm pretty sure the "amount raked" in poker tracker is the amount of rake from all the hands you played, even if you didn't win them. So that is the rake the whole table payed, divide that by the number of players to find how much each player paid. And thats not going to be exactly right as players play different styles and win more pots then others.

And im sure full tilt or pokerstars could lower their rake but players still play there with the rake as it is so they see no reason to change it.

jukofyork · #64 11-15-2007, 02:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Most players don't care about rake or have much of an awareness of it.
Some site bragging that they take only $2 on a given pot instead of $2.50 in the same size pot will have very little impact. Most players think, "Big deal. It's 50 freaking cents. If 50 cents makes that much difference to you then maybe poker isn't your game.""

Then y do sites offer rakeback deals in the first place? Are the sites losing $ off of these deals? of course not. They bring in players that wouldnt be there otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
A recent post in the Software forum about 24-tabling purely to get FPPs makes me wonder if rakeback is the worst of both worlds for good players... It attracts and keeps nitty breakeven players playing and at the same time lets the site fleece the fish at a faster rate.

[ QUOTE ]
Come play pokerstars where we charge you less than full tilt, etc.... Easy sell.

[/ QUOTE ]
Every other business is run like this so why should it be any different for poker sites?

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Link to that post?

[/ QUOTE ]
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...page=&vc=1

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

SoCalRugger · #65 11-15-2007, 03:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure the "amount raked" in poker tracker is the amount of rake from all the hands you played, even if you didn't win them. So that is the rake the whole table payed, divide that by the number of players to find how much each player paid. And thats not going to be exactly right as players play different styles and win more pots then others.

[/ QUOTE ]
On the General Info tab, the Total Rake figure is the amount of money taken out of pots that you personally have won. What you say above is only true for the Total Rake figure on the Summary tab.

WindFallProfits · #66 11-15-2007, 03:09 AM

a couple of years ago someone made a post of the rake on each poker site. can somebody post this please?

fluorescenthippo · #67 11-15-2007, 03:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"Stopped reading here."

Why?
Oh wait, i see. A site would never grow their games 30% or more by cutting the rake 30%. That just impossible. No need to read further. You are so smart. Great post. Keep up the good work.

[/ QUOTE ]

omg stop posting you are wrong. learn math plz

if a sites rake is only 70% and the player base is 130% of original size thats only 91% of original revenue. they have to increase player base by 43% to be make more. no way that happens

.7 * 1.3 = .91

1 / .7 = .4285

boohaa12 · #68 11-15-2007, 03:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
a couple of years ago someone made a post of the rake on each poker site. can somebody post this please?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like someone said earlier most players dont know or give a [censored] about what the rake is. I couldnt tell you the top 10 sites rake comapirsons.. i know stars is decent, ft blah, and absolute is terrible they say...

further i dont mind paying rake to stars/ft as i see their commericals on tv everyday bringing in new boatload of fish... advertising takes money, as does security etc. if you dont like fish go play wpx.

if you like b&m cause you say "it has less rake" go 1 table live and play a a much bigger stake where variane will affect you more. I prefer to 8 table and im fine with the rake. It is what it is...

Saying lowering rake will bring in more players is simply retarded... less rake = less advertising $ = less players... This coupled with the fact that virtually all sites rake are nearly similar will encourage no site to drop its rake. I gaurentee you stars/FT has prolly spent about 1M$+ continually weighing the cost:benift ratio of this situation.

I cant stop trying cause this post is retarded... Why do you think a gas station doesnt lower the price 30%, but maybe only 1-2% of total cost vrs a competitor... Because people need gas...(just like people "need" to player poker).

cliffnotes.
1)this thread sux
2)Lowering rake wont be affetive b/c most player dont know/care what the rake is anyhow.
3)the rake pays for advertising and fish, if u dont like rake go play wpx.
4)i dont care if b&m has "less rake" (its also slower hands and you can only 1 table...
5) a big summation of everything i said in first few points; expect i expand to say that sites have alreay weighed cost:benifit ratio of lowering rake and it wont happen.
6)one last example why its not worth it to a site to lower rake.

*this is a ramble i know you nits will pick it apart, but i prolly wont read this thread again. just get better at poker or go play live or wpex

twoblacknines · #69 11-15-2007, 03:56 AM

Ummm When the [censored] did B&M have lower rake than online. When I play in B&M the $50 tourneys have like a $15 rake. And they rake $4-$5 from the cash game pots. I guess if you are playing micro limits the rake can be a bit unreasonable, but other than that it's way better than B&M. And what kind of rakeback do you get playing live? A dollar an hour comp?

NFuego20 · #70 11-15-2007, 04:13 AM

and thank you too film cannister

geez people, if you don't like it, don't play....if I run a business I'm going to do what I can to maximize profit. Explain to me what incentive the sites have to cut rake. That's absolutely ridiculous. Supply and demand folks. If people are willing to pay it, they'll charge it.