The rake is unacceptable

[JamieO]

[ 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?
Make it so only 1% of players win. The site makes more$.
Why not do that? Would raising the rake affect the game? HOW?

Would creating more "marginal" winners hurt the game or help it?

[Bobo Fett]

There are many sites that have "lowered the rake" through rakeback, bonuses, etc. I don't think I get less than 50% of the rake back at any of the sites I play at, via bonuses, RB, etc.

Of course, I have a lot more sites to choose from then Americans do. Americans just don't have the same sort of choices, and of course less competition means less need to reduce rake.

JamieO and others who are soooo upset about this outrageous rake, I assume you must take a lot of your play to WPEX then?

[JamieO]

[ QUOTE ]

JamieO and others who are soooo upset about this outrageous rake, I assume you must take a lot of your play to WPEX then?

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you have not read the thread much huh? we have already talked about wpex.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
i have to state this explicitly or BOB will post about it 8 times

[/ QUOTE ]


You would ask questions of me asking for clarification and I would respond.
You have now brought up some okay points about the rake and losing players, etc but your tone still seems to be more about what you deserve...or something like that.

I could go on again about how I don't think a decrease in rake is going to be THAT helpful to that many players to make a significant difference but you may very well again point out that I have no proof and your insistence that you want to see some sort of magical proof as I continue to admit that obviously I have none is kind of annoying.

I think I'm done responding to you as you seem to have a problem with my comments. You ask me questions and then take issue when I actually try to answer them.

[bxb]

Rake is a small factor when determining where i want to play poker. Other things like # of fish, software, customer service, reliability, security etc. My rake pays for advertisement, customer service people, programmers/testers, etc. This is just a maximization prob and it seems that the current level of rake is close enough to equilibrium that sites prosper.

[JamieO]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i have to state this explicitly or BOB will post about it 8 times

[/ QUOTE ]


You would ask questions of me asking for clarification and I would respond.
You have now brought up some okay points about the rake and losing players, etc but your tone still seems to be more about what you deserve...or something like that.

I could go on again about how I don't think a decrease in rake is going to be THAT helpful to that many players to make a significant difference but you may very well again point out that I have no proof and your insistence that you want to see some sort of magical proof as I continue to admit that obviously I have none is kind of annoying.

I think I'm done responding to you as you seem to have a problem with my comments. You ask me questions and then take issue when I actually try to answer them.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you have yet again chosen one tiny part of my post to respond to instead of talking about the issue. This is what you have done all thread, ignored all the points i am making and choosing to respond to one small comment that you can somehow come up with a smartass reply to. Really I expected no less.

What is really annoying is the fact that your mind is made up on the subject and as you admit you have no proof.

You cant just admit that there is a possibility that a lower rake could help both the site and the players?

Thats my whole problem with the way this thread has gone. To deny that this is possible is just logically wrong.

And long term i think this would be great for the game and make a large difference. Apparently you think it would make a tiny difference. If thats your opinion then I dont think there is anything I can say that will change that, but I keep my mind open to both possibilities.

[JamieO]

[ QUOTE ]
This is just a maximization prob and it seems that the current level of rake is close enough to equilibrium that sites prosper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. I agree with you except i dont really think its close enough to where it should be. Thats realy the main issue. Its good enough for the sites to make a ton of money off of right now, but is it the best size rake for the future of the game and the therefore both the players and the site? I dont think so, but thats just my theory.

[Beck]

One problem for the sites is, that if they change the rake (either up or down), if it does not have the desired effect it can be very costly for them.

If a site estimates they can increase the bottomline profit with 10% by lowering their rake 10% (numbers randomly chosen), they also need some sort of risk-compensation.
Because if they do not see a revenue increase, but instead a decrease, it will be difficult (and probably rather costly due to losing some players) to increase the rake back to what it was before.
So it's a risk-reward scenario, sort of.

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.
But to think that they haven't considered how to maximize their profits by changing rake is kinda naive IMO.

[WarmonkEd]

[ 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

[lefty rosen]

I'm surprised Party hasn't gone and raised their rake to 4 max like Pacific. I remember when Pacific raised their rake to Party's and complained to the manager they gave me a bs reply of they were only following the industries lead ie Party Poker.