The rake is unacceptable

[sethypooh21]

OP, you seem familiar with this theory:

[Rek]

Well, the OP has taken some stick here for simply posting that he thinks the sites rake is too much. Also lots of questions about what net $19 mean. Come on guys, we all knew what he meant by winning only $19 - give him some slack. Basically he is a breakeven player that would win a lot more with lower rake.

OP, I assume you get 27% rakeback that is not included here. If you are not getting rakeback, don't play FTP.

Rake should be much lower IMHO but I am not holding my breath as it won't happen any time soon. Sites (in fact all businesses) will charge as much as people are prepared to pay for their products and I think online poker has found their optimum rake structure for maximum profits. Just have to accept it until a site like WPEX really takes off and forces prices down.

[funnymunny]

[ QUOTE ]
So if tommorow stars became 30% cheaper you think they would not take a significant amount from the other sites?

Not to mention that the fish would still lose their $ it would just take longer.

What proof do you have that if a major site dropped its rake, they would not gain players?

And WSEX is not proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Major sites MAY gain players by dropping their rake, but IF this results in more players, their costs will also increase (support staff / hardware / etc) As such they would probably end-up making only marginally more money if any at all, so why do it?

[RikaKazak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
”The statistics in poker tracker showed this: The last month I won $1982. I payed $1963 in rake. So the netto was $19. I don´t think it´s acceptable to pay this enormous amounts of money in rake every month. My suggestion: Give us the alternative of paying a montly fee of $500 instead of paying rake. I don´t think anyone should pay more than $500 a month for their hobby.”

I just sent this message to Full tilt poker. Please copy this, put in your own numbers and send to your poker site. The rake is unacceptable and something must be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

WOW!!! $19...Jackpot Nice win man [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Seriously, its a lot cheaper than the rake live

[/ QUOTE ]

live rake is RETARDED HIGH!!!! ZOMG!

$4 in vegas, plus $1 tip...and they always look at me funny when I'm playing 10/20 NL and tip $1 for a $5K pot...screw them...$1 hand is like $20+ a hour in tips..that's WAY MORE than their job deserves (doctors in Idaho only make $50-$80K a year, no idea why dealers in vegas think they "deserve" the same)

[RikaKazak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if tommorow stars became 30% cheaper you think they would not take a significant amount from the other sites?

Not to mention that the fish would still lose their $ it would just take longer.

What proof do you have that if a major site dropped its rake, they would not gain players?

And WSEX is not proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Major sites MAY gain players by dropping their rake, but IF this results in more players, their costs will also increase (support staff / hardware / etc) As such they would probably end-up making only marginally more money if any at all, so why do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that could be argued to death...and either side could be right. Really depends on "how many" players they gain and "how much each player costs on average."

My guess is shortterm it wouldn't help, but longterm it would.

Also....I agree, WPEX shouldn't count, they failed because of HORRIBLE management.

[Hoopster81]

[ QUOTE ]
and they always look at me funny when I'm playing 10/20 NL and tip $1 for a $5K pot...screw them

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow - that might be the nittiest thing I've ever heard

[prodonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the OP has taken some stick here for simply posting that he thinks the sites rake is too much. Also lots of questions about what net $19 mean. Come on guys, we all knew what he meant by winning only $19 - give him some slack. Basically he is a breakeven player that would win a lot more with lower rake.

OP, I assume you get 27% rakeback that is not included here. If you are not getting rakeback, don't play FTP.

Rake should be much lower IMHO but I am not holding my breath as it won't happen any time soon. Sites (in fact all businesses) will charge as much as people are prepared to pay for their products and I think online poker has found their optimum rake structure for maximum profits. Just have to accept it until a site like WPEX really takes off and forces prices down.

[/ QUOTE ]


No you are wrong.. we don't know he meant he netted 19$ because the first line of his post "The statistics in poker tracker showed this: The last month I won $1982. I payed $1963" contradict this.. he won $1982, pt doesn't have a [censored] line for gross win and net win.. if he got that $1982 figure from pokertracker then that is how much he won, and he's just a moron and pulling this $19 figure out of his ass.. which is why people are giving him [censored].

[Rek]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, the OP has taken some stick here for simply posting that he thinks the sites rake is too much. Also lots of questions about what net $19 mean. Come on guys, we all knew what he meant by winning only $19 - give him some slack. Basically he is a breakeven player that would win a lot more with lower rake.

OP, I assume you get 27% rakeback that is not included here. If you are not getting rakeback, don't play FTP.

Rake should be much lower IMHO but I am not holding my breath as it won't happen any time soon. Sites (in fact all businesses) will charge as much as people are prepared to pay for their products and I think online poker has found their optimum rake structure for maximum profits. Just have to accept it until a site like WPEX really takes off and forces prices down.

[/ QUOTE ]


No you are wrong.. we don't know he meant he netted 19$ because the first line of his post "The statistics in poker tracker showed this: The last month I won $1982. I payed $1963" contradict this.. he won $1982, pt doesn't have a [censored] line for gross win and net win.. if he got that $1982 figure from pokertracker then that is how much he won, and he's just a moron and pulling this $19 figure out of his ass.. which is why people are giving him [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything I said was wrong? You need to chill

[prodonkey]

I don't know.. I quit reading after everything you said in the first paragraph was incorrect.

[Rek]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know.. I quit reading after everything you said in the first paragraph was incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]


Thought so.

If you can't understand what the OP meant thats fine. If you can't read more than 1 sentance thats fine as well.