Will rake-free poker ever be a reality?

[illab]

I had heard Dutch Boyd(not that I would want to play on a site owned by him) and others were attempting to run a poker site without rake but instead a monthly fee to play in ring games and/or tournaments. I was wondering how economically feasible people think this could be. I not sure of all the expenses involved in running a poker site, but I would assume that the first one to try this would steal a lot of customers from the other site and would have a very profitable business, though maybe not as profitable as Party or Pokerstars are today. Eventually other site might have to conform the way all the internet providers had to start providing unlimited internet in the late 90s. I know I would jump at the chance to save the hundreds of dollars in rake that I pay.

[Michael Davis]

The only way for rakefree poker to become a reality is to have an apparent normal rake and do everything a good site should do to attract players regularly. Then they offer a monthly fee instead of rake if players so choose. They need a full tank of fish before doing this, though, or the good players will just take turns killing each other.

All in all, since all the good players would move their instantly, it could happen, but the fish would be in a paradise of bait and soon they would be extinct.

-Michael

[BluffTHIS!]

This would only drive players away in my opinion as the monthly charge would have to be so high for the site to be profitable that only the regular players who play almost every day would be able to in effect clear a negative bonus. The 1 or 2 night a week players, of whom there are a lot and in fact maybe a substantial minority, would be paying an exhorbitant price compared to being raked.

It's easy to focus on how much the sites make in rake without realizing that it is nonetheless much cheaper than B&M rake.

[illab]

Well I read a proposal, on Dutch's site, on how he would do it. They would charge rake like normal until you reach the monthly fee (he proposed $30) and then you would get some indication on the screen by your name that you had reached the maximum rake and were no longer being charged. He also said maybe a seperate $30 fee for unlimited tournaments and $50 package for cash games and tournaments. I know most serious players would be willing even willing to pay much more than this and the weekend players wouldn't be charged anything extra.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

What you are talking about is more or less a time charge, just on a monthly rather than hourly rate. Some B&M casinos use a time charge rather raking the pot. The different systems help and hurt different kinds of players. (Can you see why?)

I think that a "rake free" system will not work for several reasons.

First, I think that you have to set the time charge high enough to come reasonably close to what you would make with a conventional rake. No sane investor would put money into an online poker room that does not come close to maximizing profits.

Second, the rake as taken online is pretty much invisible. I couldn't tell you how much has been raked from my hands on a monthly basis, I just know that I am up and I know by how much. A time charge is pretty noticeable. I think that this would be a major turn off to fish, who see it as less money they can spend at the tables. Even if they can just pay a normal rake, it is still psychologically difficult to handle.

Finally, many players like to bounce around from site to site. Paying a monthly fee makes you feel obligated to get your money's worth and maximize your time, just as a fat man feels obligated to make that extra trip to the buffet. I'm not sure if many people are willing to commit themselves to one site like that.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I know most serious players would be willing even willing to pay much more than this and the weekend players wouldn't be charged anything extra.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know this? Are you a really connected with this site and using this thread to conduct market research?

[RoundersRocks!]

On the one hand I see what you mean. The casual player does not really notice the rake enough to care.

On the other hand, Poker Rooms make literally millions of dollars a day for running and maintaining software. The cost of operations is a fraction of what they take in. A competitor could charge a quarter of what the standard online-rake currently is and still make an unbelievabe profit. Also, if the sites low rake drew more players, they could make up for the the diffrence in volume. Theoretically.

It would be the same theory that made McDonals such a force, lower prices to undercut competition to draw larger numbers of customers.

I don't know why the millions of generic minor poker sites don't try a system like this to set themselves apart. I think I heard Gus Hansons site had some sort of automatic rake rebate system along those lines. I never checked it out.

It is probably a pretty efficient business model. I wouldn't get your hopes up to see one any time soon though.

[bunky9590]

Play live games with fish and time pots. Never pay rake/time again!!!

[illab]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know most serious players would be willing even willing to pay much more than this and the weekend players wouldn't be charged anything extra.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know this? Are you a really connected with this site and using this thread to conduct market research?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I for one pay over $500 in rake a month. I know because I get rake back, and see what my stats are. I only play a couple hours a day, where as some people literally are making a living playing poker online and are paying thousands of dollars of rake a month. Why wouldn't you choose paying just a flat rate and keeping hundreds of dollars which are rightfully yours. Why do you think people estimate that about 80% of people who play poker lose money. That 5% rake really adds up, I guess some of you aren't taking the time to realize how much.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I for one pay over $500 in rake a month. I know because I get rake back, and see what my stats are. I only play a couple hours a day, where as some people literally are making a living playing poker online and are paying thousands of dollars of rake a month. Why wouldn't you choose paying just a flat rate and keeping hundreds of dollars which are rightfully yours. Why do you think people estimate that about 80% of people who play poker lose money. That 5% rake really adds up, I guess some of you aren't taking the time to realize how much.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you play 2 hours a day you are not personally paying $500 a month in rake no way. And to show how further ill-informed you are the rake on other sites is not 5% at higher limits. You sure seem like a spammer trying to drum up market reaction to the monthly charge idea.

[illab]

Maybe I play more than a couple hours on the weekend, and Im usually playing four tables at a time. I've broken $500 by a decent amount each of the last few months. Anyone who plays at decently high limits should have no problem building much more rake than me. If I'm a spammer, I'm not a very good one since I haven't mentioned my site. Ironically, I'm an affiliate (I make some money off of rake) for a few people though I barely make anything off of it.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well I for one pay over $500 in rake a month. I know because I get rake back, and see what my stats are. I only play a couple hours a day, where as some people literally are making a living playing poker online and are paying thousands of dollars of rake a month. Why wouldn't you choose paying just a flat rate and keeping hundreds of dollars which are rightfully yours. Why do you think people estimate that about 80% of people who play poker lose money. That 5% rake really adds up, I guess some of you aren't taking the time to realize how much.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you play 2 hours a day you are not personally paying $500 a month in rake no way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. It's incredibly easy to pay way more than $500 in rake each month only playing 2 hrs/day...

[emonrad87]

[ QUOTE ]
Why wouldn't you choose paying just a flat rate and keeping hundreds of dollars which are rightfully yours.

[/ QUOTE ]



How is the money rightfully yours? I hear that a lot, and it's a really really dumb thing to say. The sites are providing you a service, and they charge you for it. Is the money you pay to your long distance company rightfully yours just cuz they charge you more base on how much you use it?

[Kevin K.]

[ QUOTE ]
If you play 2 hours a day you are not personally paying $500 a month in rake no way. And to show how further ill-informed you are the rake on other sites is not 5% at higher limits. You sure seem like a spammer trying to drum up market reaction to the monthly charge idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

4-tabling 3/6 a couple hours a day will cost you over $500 a month. And rake doesn't drop below 5% at Party and skins unless you are playing 15/30+.

It sounds like you have no clue as to how much you are paying to play poker. If you aren't getting rakeback, get it. You'll see the difference.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]
On the one hand I see what you mean. The casual player does not really notice the rake enough to care.

On the other hand, Poker Rooms make literally millions of dollars a day for running and maintaining software. The cost of operations is a fraction of what they take in. A competitor could charge a quarter of what the standard online-rake currently is and still make an unbelievabe profit. Also, if the sites low rake drew more players, they could make up for the the diffrence in volume. Theoretically.

It would be the same theory that made McDonals such a force, lower prices to undercut competition to draw larger numbers of customers.

I don't know why the millions of generic minor poker sites don't try a system like this to set themselves apart. I think I heard Gus Hansons site had some sort of automatic rake rebate system along those lines. I never checked it out.

It is probably a pretty efficient business model. I wouldn't get your hopes up to see one any time soon though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let's do some math here. Let's say that a monthly charge will get you 25% of the revenue that a conventional rake will get you, per player. You have 1000 players with a conventional rake. How many players do you need at your site to make the same amount of money?

If paying less rake would be economically feasible and bring in more players, wouldn't sites just lower their rakes? Please keep in mind that an online poker room may have pretty intensive start-up costs. Bandwidth ain't cheap. Neither are computer programmers if you aren't outsourcing to third world nations.

[maryfield48]

A workable model might be the insurance industry - where the price of the service to the consumer barely covers the costs. In fact, it often doesn't. But the company makes a profit by investing the funds during the period between collection and claim settlement.