The possibility of a no rake site that actually works

[Greg J]

I cut my teeth playing .02/.04 and .05/.1 nano limits. Good times -- weak opponents and winrates of 5+ bb/100. "But that sort of wintate is not sustainable even against those drunken monkeys at nano poker." Yeah it is... because I didn't pay rake at that limit.

So Zerorake is dead (or nearly so). Good riddance most of us say. And hey, I don't disagree. Dutch messed over a lot of people, and my money didn't have a Buddhist's chance in heaven of being in that site. But the idea of paying no rake makes me salivate.

So, what can be done? Proping some might say. Be a prop Greg! I might consider that in the future, but right now my SH game sucks big sweaty donkey balls. (Which is why, despite being a fair tournament player, I can never do better than second or third -- but that is another story). I want a site where I don't pay rake. Come on free market capitalism... give me something here!

So, is it possible to have a site where the player does not pay rake? I kind of doubt it, but I'm not certain. The thing is this: Zerorake's charging a monthly fee, while ostensibly a good idea, is not marketable. We 2+2ers know this is great on the bankroll. Even as a micro player, the $40 I would pay to play for a month at Zerorake is nothing compared to the rake I pay at Party/skins. It still amounts to about 2 bb/100 hands that reflects my outplaying my opponents.

The problem with the charge is the average recreational player who does not know much about poker wants to play for "free" at Party, Paradise, PS. Why pay to play -- that's just silly! They don't consider the true impact of rake -- hell many of them don't know what rake is! (I've had to explain it to my brother in law like 5 times.) Unfortunately most consumers are not rational fully informed actors (appologies to all you guys with an economic bent -- but you know it's true! Read Herbert Simon.).

So, how do we get a no rake concept that actually works? How about some kind of advertising? It would have lots of logos, on the tables, on the shirts and hats of the avatar "players," banners running across the screen, and (unfortunately, but probably necessary) the occasional pop up.

This is probably a pipe dream of mine... but I thought if a no rake concept would ever work this would be how it was done. The advertising campaign could be something like "Other poker sites charge you to play -- we don't!" or something simple like that. But that is off topic somewhat. Forget the advertising... is it possible to have a no rake site that works? I am still skeptical, but hopeful all the same.

[Art Vandelay]

If something like this were to work, you'd have to lay the hard numbers out for the fish to hopefully read. 2+2ers understand rake and it's impact, but as you say the average fish doesn't. I'd have something like a rake calculator on the website. You input your limit, the number of hands you play, and the calculator tells you how much rake you are paying.

Ignorance is the biggest hurdle for a rake free site IMO. Right now the only people that would sign up would be a bunch of 2+2ers. We need some fishies to come populate the rake free pond as well.

[playersare]

do you exhaust every single bonus and reload opportunity available to you every month? I am rarely in a situation where I am not getting paid 10-20 cents for each and every raked hand that I play online.

after that, rakeback is worth approximately 0.5-1.0 BB/100 in the long run, which should be enough to keep even a mediocre high volume player afloat.

the sites need revenue to stay in business and provide you with the service, let all the other dummy players fund their operation.

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
If something like this were to work, you'd have to lay the hard numbers out for the fish to hopefully read. 2+2ers understand rake and it's impact, but as you say the average fish doesn't. I'd have something like a rake calculator on the website. You input your limit, the number of hands you play, and the calculator tells you how much rake you are paying.

Ignorance is the biggest hurdle for a rake free site IMO. Right now the only people that would sign up would be a bunch of 2+2ers. We need some fishies to come populate the rake free pond as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good point. That was part of my marketing caveate. It would have to be clever and catchy -- something that emphasized "stop being screwed at you poker site." Another hurdle would be general economics. I'm not sure the advertising would be enough to pay, or that someone would be willing to invest the huge amount of capital that would be necessary to get such a project off the ground.

[BlueBear]

Fishies will never understand the concept of "no-rake" even if it's cheaper in the long run.

Just imagine if the rake was abolished in a normal casino, and instead they are asked to pay via an hour rate, say $20 per hour in a 5/10 game. There will be endless whining.

Keep the fishies happy, they are happy as long the charges they are paying is unseen and unfelt!

[phillydilly]

Having seen the stupid amounts of rake i've paid in the last few months, and I'm sure its less than a lot of other people, and i've thought about this also.

it seems the only way this would work is to have both. A rakefree system, and a raked system.

when a player signs up, they choose
A) i'd like to play for "free" and just have my pots raked
B) i'd like to have x subtracted from my account at the beginning of each month, and at the end of each month i will be refunded the rake taken out of my pots

There would probably be some horrid logistical concerns, but i'd imagine this would be the only way to pay no rake, and still have fishies

as i said, logistics would be a nightmare, obviously x isn't the same for joe 1 tabling at .5/1, me 4 tabling at 2/4 and moe 8 tabling at 15/30

Also, if i'm running the site, the last thing i want for 8 tabling 15/30 moe to get a giant discount on his rake.

I dunno, my simple little thoughts

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
Fishies will never understand the concept of "no-rake" even if it's cheaper in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope you are wrong. I wish you were. Unfortunately, I think you are right. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Greg J]

I like that option idea. A lot. Existing sites could even apply that... if they wanted to. Unfortunatley, why would they want to? It would only cost them less. Why would Party let me off the hook for say $50 a month when they get four times that from me in rake?

Still, nice thought. Good idea!

[TMFS9]

Why all or nothing, what about a discounted rake. You would just need to find other sources of income to account for loss revenues. Also I would not be surprised that in the future of online poker there is a rake war.

[BlueBear]

The fishies won't even notice a reduced rake.

If there is anything the poker room is considering, it is an INCREASE in rake.

[ipp147]

[ QUOTE ]
Why all or nothing, what about a discounted rake. You would just need to find other sources of income to account for loss revenues. Also I would not be surprised that in the future of online poker there is a rake war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Champs has a rakeback which the fish will understand better than reduced rake. They aren't playing at Champs.

[phillydilly]

i thought about this too (why would sites want to), here's the only incentive,

for sake of arguement, lets say the monthly amount works out to a 3/4 or 2/3 rakeback deal
ie, your pots are raked for $300 your monthly fee is $100, it will not be long at all before the high volume players from other sites, and, probably more importantly skins such as euro, empire, etc, come back home to party. I'm guessing just about anyone who has left party for a skin, would be going back, because
1) its a better rakeback deal
2) finally the chance to hit the juicy bad beat tables and have a rakeback deal (that would be awesome!)

assuming that it would bring a lot of high volume players back to party, and assuming that a decent chunk of them would start casting in the bad beat tables, this would propel the bad beat to some rediculous highs, which (hopefully) in turn would encourage the existing fish and create new.

everybody wins

here's the other problem
party made 500 mil last year, despite the upside, they dont want anything to change, because the other posibility is that this would set off a rake war between the sites, great for us, bad for them

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
The fishies won't even notice a reduced rake.

If there is anything the poker room is considering, it is an INCREASE in rake.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes!

I am actually worried about rake collussion among the sites, and that might be what to hope for! I think the alternative would be a "how high can you go" sort of thing.

[Piers]

I wonder what would happen if Action Poker (LVFH) made Zero Rake a skin of their regular (Tiger etc) gaming network.

Maybe a risk for them, maybe it would work? I would probably play there.

[DBowling]

I was thinking the only way this would work would be if someone purchased a player database and transfered it into a rakefree site. The fish that are already there would stay (and last longer). It would attract a lot of sharks real quick though. I think the best way would be if we all pitched in and did some free advertising for them, putting links in our IM profiles, wearing "rakefree site" apparel, putting up posters in bathroom stalls, telling all the fish at the B&M about it.
I have no idea if this is financially viable though. I have a feeling that it would be very expensive, and, as a rakefree site, it would take a long time to recoup. I too have wet dreams about a rakefree site, and hope it can come true some day.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
Just imagine if the rake was abolished in a normal casino, and instead they are asked to pay via an hour rate, say $20 per hour in a 5/10 game. There will be endless whining.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the way plenty of rooms are run already.

[KingMarc]

[ QUOTE ]

So Zerorake is dead (or nearly so). Good riddance most of us say. And hey, I don't disagree. Dutch messed over a lot of people, and my money didn't have a Buddhist's chance in heaven of being in that site.

[/ QUOTE ]

To clarify:

Dutch had an idea for a rake free site, but it is/was rakefree.com He was not involved anyway shape or form with zerorake.com

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Just imagine if the rake was abolished in a normal casino, and instead they are asked to pay via an hour rate, say $20 per hour in a 5/10 game. There will be endless whining.

[/ QUOTE ]
Um, that would just be a regular time charge. And if they were charging $10/half hour for 5/10, I would whine too. Any time charged 4/8 game I've played was $3/half. Hell, when I played 20/40 at the Borgata, it was only $7/half and the 30/60 at the bellagio is $6/half. So yeah, $10/half for 5/10 would be pretty obscene, but I don't see how that proves your point that time charges are unworkable in b&m cardrooms. They seem to work just fine.

[B00T]

[ QUOTE ]
when a player signs up, they choose
A) i'd like to play for "free" and just have my pots raked
B) i'd like to have x subtracted from my account at the beginning of each month, and at the end of each month i will be refunded the rake taken out of my pots


[/ QUOTE ]

ZeroRake did have this option. It still failed.

And as for Zerorake and rakefree and Dutch, its been done 1,000 times and the consensus was that it was his site. Lori can elaborate.

[fluff]

I imagine the system that could work is if the site advertises something like "Get 10c for every hand played, win or lose!". Then have an account that actually tracks that number, and displays it on the table. Even fish would understand that.

On the other hand, as a dedicated bonus whore playing part time, I have yet to play a hand (getting close to 100,000 hands between 0.5/1 to 3/6 after 1.25 years) without some sort of bonus clearing. With some scouting you can easily find bonuses that at least equal (and most likely exceeds) the rake paid. And fish definitely recognize "25% bonus to $100". Maybe it's time for the sharks to recognize it as a de facto rake free program?

[_And1_]

No, the definition of fish is that they dont understand. If they were to understand already they wouldnt play 80% of the hands, bet into the Tightass on the left and go home poor.

They are not there to understand things, they are the to have fun, play games and enjoy themselves, if they have to understand anything they ll probably move to a diffrent site where they dont have to but might be paying more in rake (and again, they wouldnt know couse they dont understand what rake is).

Its quite simple that ppl play the lottos with only 40% in return, ie big -EV, they dont get it, but they still do it. The cost isnt a factor for them, what ever the selling pitch should be for a rakefree site it shouldnt have to do with paying less, it should focus on bling bling, glass pearls, and crap that looks good. That s what the fish likes, maybe big jackpots, couse even the jackpot can be won by an idiot...

BIg JACKpot that s what a rakefree site need, that would be a blast. How to finance well, option i guess, all fish would love to pay for that "chance of a lifetime"... as long as they dont know they are paying...

ignorance is a bliss...

[BlueBear]

I am fairly confident that fishies prefer a <hidden> rake rather than a time charge they can see... (from my limited B&M experience anyway).

[obeythekitten]

there will NEVER be a rakefree poker site that lasts, period.

[Mike Haven]

fish gamble because they might be lucky and win some money

the fish has to be made to think that rake is paid only by the pot winners, and that the luckier he is, and the more pots he wins, the more rake he pays that could have remained as dollars in his pot

the concept that he is paying his share of the rake, win or lose the pot, is not only lost on the fish, it is also the wrong way to persuade a fish to play on a fee-based site rather than an (invisibly) rake-based site

imo

*

random theoretical examples:

let's say a fish has $100 every now and then that he's willing to risk for a couple of hours' gambling

he thinks that if he plays every hand and his luck is in he will win maybe 30 hands of his 100 played

he's right, and he wins pots totalling 30 x $40 = $1200

he puts $12 into each pot so his gross profit is $1200 - (30 x $12) = $840

he loses 70 pots for 70 x $12 = $840

the bad news is that the poker site rakes $2 out of every pot he won, 30 x $2 = $60, so he goes home with $100 +$840 -$840 -$60 = $40, $60 less than he started with

*

the next month he finds a rake free site that charges him $10 per hour to gamble

he has the same good luck, but finds he goes home with $100 +$840 -$840 -$20 = $80, $20 less than he started with

*

let's say a better player chasing that particular fish has $100 that he's willing to invest for a couple of hours' playing

he thinks that if he plays one in every four hands he will win maybe 8 hands of his 100 played

he's right, and he wins pots totalling 8 x $40 = $320

he puts $12 into the 8 pots so his gross profit is $320 - (8 x $12) = $224

he loses 17 pots for 17 x $10 average = $170, and 75 pots for 7 x $3 blinds = $21, = $191

the bad news is that the poker site rakes $2 out of every pot he won, 8 x $2 = $16, so he goes home with $100 +$224 -$191 -$16 = $117, $17 more than he started with

*

the next month he finds the rake free site that charges him $10 per hour to play

he has the same game, but finds he goes home with $100 +$224 -$191 -$20 = $113, $13 more than he started with

*

the raked site has made $60 + $16 = $76 out of these two players and the rake free site has made $40

the fish has $40 left to play with at the raked site and $80 left to play with at the rake free site

the better player has won $17 raked and $13 rake free and will continue to pay $16 rake or $20 fee

the raked site will make $40 more from the fish and $10 more from the better player before the fish goes broke = $60 +$16 + $40 + $10 = $126 total profit to the site

the rake free site will make $80 more from the fish and $80 more from the better player before the fish goes broke = $20 + $20 + $80 + $80 = $200 total profit to the site

*

the fish lasted just over three hours at the raked site and ten hours at the rake free site for his payment of $100 for some gambling fun

*

[Awesemo]

[ QUOTE ]

there will NEVER be a rakefree poker site that lasts, period.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why you feel a need to emphasize this argument of ignorance. Dutch has a business model that says exactly how a rakefree site could last. It's just that no one has started the business.

[Greg J]

Thanks for that responce. It was very well thought out. Oh well, a guy can still dream...

[Yobz]

I think what we should hope for is competition between sites. We want them to lower their rake in order to attract attention, not give out more bonuses...

[Greg J]

I really think what is more likely is the sites will collude to set rake higher. I might be wrong about this though, and obviously hope I am, but when most recreational players are not even familiar with what rake really is, and certainly not the rake structure, it would invite this sort of behavior. I mean let's face it, we don't win money off recreational players becuase they are savvy consumers that know what they are doing.

[B00T]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why you feel a need to emphasize this argument of ignorance. Dutch has a business model that says exactly how a rakefree site could last. It's just that no one has started the business.

[/ QUOTE ]

How in the world can you make that statement and have the gaul to use the word ignorance when your last sentence reaks of it.

*news flash* this was already attempted AND IT FAILED.

[LSUfan1]

Isn't this what rakeback is?

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
I think what we should hope for is competition between sites. We want them to lower their rake in order to attract attention, not give out more bonuses...

[/ QUOTE ]

Fish understand a bonus. Fish don't understand rake. Fish prefer bonuses.

IT'S FREE MONEY! OMFG! LOLZ!

[Awesemo]

[ QUOTE ]
*news flash* this was already attempted AND IT FAILED.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Boyd's business plan differs greatly from zerorake, have you read it? he plans to spend a 500k advertising, plus hold a million dollar freeroll for the whole usa as a publicity stunt.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*news flash* this was already attempted AND IT FAILED.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Boyd's business plan differs greatly from zerorake, have you read it? he plans to spend a 500k advertising, plus hold a million dollar freeroll for the whole usa as a publicity stunt.

[/ QUOTE ]

500k advertising is a fart in vacuum. Gotta add two more zeros on the end.

[kdog]

[ QUOTE ]
No, Boyd's business plan differs greatly from zerorake, have you read it? he plans to spend a 500k advertising, plus hold a million dollar freeroll for the whole usa as a publicity stunt.

[/ QUOTE ]

And, as usual with him, it would not be his money he is spending.

By the way, in response to another of your posts farther up in the thread, one of his own crew has posted that Boyd did indeed have a piece of Zerorake.

[47outs]

How about this one.

A site that takes full rake but has a weekly or monthly rake pay day of 90% GMR for every player.

This means fish play more hands, pay more rake, tight players get more than 100% of your actual rake back!

Fish are happy too because they get a bankroll boost every once and a while.

I know champs does something like this but the actual way they calculate rakeback means you get crap.


I play tight enough at empire that the 25% GMR rake that I get is actually equal to half the rake I paid every month.

A site like this would have next to no advertising budget but I have a scheme where this wouldn't matter. Cant say anymore though, I feel like I've said too much
already /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

outs