The rake is unacceptable - Page 18

Phildo · #**171** 11-17-2007, 03:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think that lowering the rake from 10% (max 3) to 8% (max 3) would really 'grow the games?' Do you really think that lowering the rake by this amount would grow the games enough that .08y = .10x? If people were really THAT responsive to small changes in rake, one would expect the poker marketplace to look vastly different than it does.

8% rake won't make any of your friends who think no one wins online into anything more than marginal winners anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt give any specific #'s. But do you really think that lowering the rake would not grow the games at all?

There is no amount of lower rake that will cause an equal growth of the game? Then y not just raise the rake?

[/ QUOTE ]
you do realize you could have avoided making 7000 posts in this thread if you had just taken econ 101

JamieO · #**172** 11-17-2007, 03:37 AM

[ 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 ]

PartyGaming had $212.5 mil total revenue for the first six months of this year.

$140.5mil of that was from poker. 75% of that is from ring games. $140.5*0.75 = $105.4mil

By cutting rake 30% they lose $31.6mil

So I guess if you think losing about 15% of their total revenue and 22% of poker revenue isn't a major loss in revenue then yes, you're right.

references:
http://www.partygaming.com/images/do...rim_Report.pdf
http://www.partygaming.com/images/do...ual_Report.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

Im guessing u read just far enough in the thread to get to that post right? Youre completely ignoring the ideas that have been expressed since that post.

JamieO · #**173** 11-17-2007, 03:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Is the current rakestructure optimal for the sites? Don't know, but probably not, since it would be amazing if they right from the beginning settled on the most profitable rakestructure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

bigbb33 · #**174** 11-17-2007, 04:25 AM

OP/Jamie are retarded.

The world is not out to give you the best possible deal for you. Companies don't try to make the minimum amount of profit. They try to make the most they can.

I don't understand your point: that the rake is "too high"? As long as people are willing to pay it, it's not too high. And I don't see any reason at all to believe that reducing the rake by 30% or whatever would bring in enough players for the long term to make up and beyond that 30% revenue loss.

And LOL at the "pokerstars should charge less for their SNGs, it only costs 1 penny to run them". Who gives a [censored]. They don't. People are willing to pay that amount, so that's going to be the price. Do you have any reason to believe, based on facts/numbers/statistics/analysis of pokerstars business that they are not at the best pricepoint? Pokerstars or whatever isn't out to give you the best possible deal, they are out to get the most money they can. There is no 'fairness', and the rake is acceptable as people come in droves to pay it.

And if your retort is "they could make more with less rake", please explain exactly how and why. Just "more people will play, and that will make up for the lost rake" is not enough justification. Show some facts and numbers or STFU.

OP comes off as a guy at the grocery store who is only willing to pay a penny more than what the total cost of getting his groceries for the grocery store is - they don't give a [censored] about what you think and aren't out to give you the best possible deal - they are out to maximize profit. If you can't handle that vote with your wallet and stop playing online poker, but I doubt you have that discipline or fervor for your "cause".

JamieO · #**175** 11-17-2007, 05:18 AM

You are angry about something? Wow man settle down.

Maybe you should read the thread. No one has said that pokerstars isnt out to make a profit.

I know the puberty years are tough, but dont take your stress out here.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have any reason to believe, based on facts/numbers/statistics/analysis of pokerstars business that they are not at the best pricepoint?

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe you could have read the post right above yours.

[ QUOTE ]

Don't know, but probably not, since it would be amazing if they right from the beginning settled on the most profitable rakestructure.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly

[ QUOTE ]

If you can't handle that vote with your wallet and stop playing online poker, but I doubt you have that discipline or fervor for your "cause".

[/ QUOTE ]

My wallet would be empty if I stopped playing online poker. I have repeatedly stated that I love pokerstars.

CAMEL1111 · #**176** 11-17-2007, 05:19 AM

This entire thread is rediculous.

blackize · #**177** 11-17-2007, 06:03 AM

Poker just isn't very price sensitive and players tend to be brand loyal. There aren't tons of people sitting around thinking gee I'd love to play some poker if only the rake wasn't so high.

The poker sites are a lot like credit card companies. They just want to get you started playing at their site first because they know, chances are, you won't play anywhere else.

blackize · #**178** 11-17-2007, 06:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Listen, in the future when poker is legalized/regulated whatever, the rake will go down. Competition will do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm surprised nobody has commented on this yet.

I don't think rake dropping is likely. When poker is regulated, it is likely that it will be restrictively licensed and heavily taxed. This means that there won't be an influx of competition and that overhead costs will increase. Sure there will be a handful of new sites, but they are much more likely to offer big signup bonuses to draw people in rather than fight a price war on rake.

It's very conceivable that when poker is regulated, the rake will actually increase.

bigbb33 · #**179** 11-17-2007, 09:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You are angry about something? Wow man settle down.

Maybe you should read the thread. No one has said that pokerstars isnt out to make a profit.

I know the puberty years are tough, but dont take your stress out here.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have any reason to believe, based on facts/numbers/statistics/analysis of pokerstars business that they are not at the best pricepoint?

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe you could have read the post right above yours.

[ QUOTE ]

Don't know, but probably not, since it would be amazing if they right from the beginning settled on the most profitable rakestructure.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly

[ QUOTE ]

If you can't handle that vote with your wallet and stop playing online poker, but I doubt you have that discipline or fervor for your "cause".

[/ QUOTE ]

My wallet would be empty if I stopped playing online poker. I have repeatedly stated that I love pokerstars.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you have no response beyond "ur in puberty lol" ? And whatever that post above me shows, it's not what I asked for. The post above me talks about how PTY gets it's money, not a mathematical market analysis of why lowering the rake would = long term profit. Until you can provide that, don't whine about a company making a large profit.

waq · #**180** 11-17-2007, 12:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Listen, in the future when poker is legalized/regulated whatever, the rake will go down. Competition will do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm surprised nobody has commented on this yet.

I don't think rake dropping is likely. When poker is regulated, it is likely that it will be restrictively licensed and heavily taxed. This means that there won't be an influx of competition and that overhead costs will increase. Sure there will be a handful of new sites, but they are much more likely to offer big signup bonuses to draw people in rather than fight a price war on rake.

It's very conceivable that when poker is regulated, the rake will actually increase.

[/ QUOTE ]
That was my first thought to this. To what extent can the US tax and regulate the overseas sites?