The opposite of rake back

[FlFishOn]

Party and all skins get together and run their player database and pull out these players: Longterm winners (a steady cash-out trail) that multi-table. Each player is given a simple choice, you now pay quadruple rake or your account is closed. You choose.

If I was in charge I'd consider it. Where you gonna go? You wanna play in my well stocked fish pond I want you to pay your fair share.

There would be a serious gnome stampeed but that's not gonna get it done long term. You will find it difficult to open new Neteller etc. accounts every two months. As a winning multi-tabler you leave a data footprint that's damn easy to spot.

Think of what happens at Party. The fish now bleed their chips off to the site instead of the multi-leaches or the leaches cough up a little kickback. It's the American way!
The fish will also have better games, likely boosting the site overall.

Feel free to construct your own nightmare.

[Custer]

A big question facing the industry is "What is the biggest constraint on play, time or money?"

If its money, then your scenario and any that limit winners make some sense. If its time, however, any site pushes away the high volume multitablers will really hurt itself.

[archmagi]

[ QUOTE ]
any site pushes away the high volume multitablers will really hurt itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

but the argument is that the multitablers won't leave, because they have to play where the fishes are.

[FlFishOn]

"But the argument is that the multitablers won't leave, because they have to play where the fishes are. "

Just so. How much would a $80K / year winner kick back in order to secure his income stream? It's easy to figure if you can quantify the value of his 2nd choice. I think it might be as much as 20 - 30%.

[Freudian]

Of course there is a point where the expected return of playing against poor players isn't worth the extra rake.

Besides this, the fishyness of Party is vastly overrated. Many high volume players would earn as much on Prima and Crypto.

[FlFishOn]

"Besides this, the fishyness of Party is vastly overrated."

Certainly true but where else can you play as many tables as easily? A large portion of Party's attraction is the volume of hands that can be played per hour.

[sumdumguy]

[ QUOTE ]
A big question facing the industry is "What is the biggest constraint on play, time or money?"

[/ QUOTE ]
More often entertainment money is the issue. If budget were not an issue, recs with little time play higher limits.

[Girchuck]

Oh, yeah? You forward this email to your favorite newspaper, and eventually its on the 6 o'clock news and 60 minutes. Party goes down in flames for extortion as fishes who see the news leave in droves.

[Non_Comformist]

I would play somewhere else without a second thought.

[FlFishOn]

Not so fast.

You're on vacation in South Africa. You want to go swimming. One hotel has a nice beach, no frills. The next hotel has a huge anti-shark fence 100 meters off shore. You pick.

[Girchuck]

Every fish who signs on the Party thinks that he is the shark that will rake the money in. The news is basically that if you are winning the site charges you more. The fish says, this is a crooked unfair site, I don't want to sign up

[JRussell]

[ QUOTE ]
Besides this, the fishyness of Party is vastly overrated. Many high volume players would earn as much on Prima and Crypto.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is so true. It's amazing that more people don't realize this.

[Voltron87]

First of all, this would be impossible for the sites to implement. Second of all, why would they ever do this? It's not like your average recreational player is going to realize this and adjust accordingly.

[sthief09]

this is one of the dumbest things I've read here

[Uglyowl]

Do fish think they are fish? No.. they will think that they will get booted pretty soon then. Not smart.

A policy like that would be saying "Party, a place where you can't win"

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
Every fish who signs on the Party thinks that he is the shark that will rake the money in.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is very, very true.

[FlFishOn]

I think the reach of 2+2 is a little over estimated. My guess is that < 5% of all online players study the game here and elsewhere. There are so very many unaware casual players anything like I described would remain under the radar for a huge percentage of the poker playing public.

Try this: A portion of the poker universe doesn't even understand English! 2+2 is not an option for them.

[soah]

This is a great idea! Just think about how many people would love to play at a site where you can either lose your money, or have the site confiscate all your winnings!

[rerazor]

The Full Tilt people really missed the boat, they could have really throw money at the site, offering tons of freerolls, LOWER RAKE or volume based rake discounts etc, instead they just went with the "me too" approach and the site is a barren wasteland.

I think a deep-pocketed investor could step in offering all the above along with solid *well coded* software and take a huge chunk of the market.

[wdbaker]

I wonder how much we would all have to pony up each as a Cooperative to take over a site that is already up and get it fired up and reeling in the fish, wouldn't that be interesting... maybe we could by shares in the Co-op or something based on our ability...

Just a thought

One Street at a Time
wdbaker Denver, Co

[otctrader]

[ QUOTE ]
Party and all skins get together and run their player database and pull out these players: Longterm winners (a steady cash-out trail) that multi-table. Each player is given a simple choice, you now pay quadruple rake or your account is closed. You choose.

If I was in charge I'd consider it. Where you gonna go? You wanna play in my well stocked fish pond I want you to pay your fair share.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, no offense, but this is a boneheaded idea. B&M establishments have been around for decades - name one that has a reputation for throwing out and taxing "regulars" or consistent winners. I'm sure it would do PR wonders to have fish believe they will be given the third degree if they play a lot or profit!

[MaxPower]

Sometimes I think that I am not as smart as I think I am and that maybe I am all wrong about everything.

Then I read a post like this
/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[pokerplayer28]

Its a good idea but party already thought of it they just applied it in a slightly smarter way. Raise the rake then offer account specific reloads to inactive losers through slight winners. Now you have sharks paying more rake, party may be run by monkeys but go to pokerpulse and youll see those are some brilliant monkeys.

[sfwusc]

[ QUOTE ]
Every fish who signs on the Party thinks that he is the shark that will rake the money in.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so true. I have some good friends that know about how well I do. Anyway one ask me if I will help one of their friends get started. I say sure. Before he talks to me----he deposits $50 at party and starts playing 2/4. I sign on aim and he im me saying I am about broke. I am like what are you doing.. he tells me this story. I try to explain to him how to get start and the amount of time it will take. He was like that is a lot of work. Good grief I am giving you a bankroll(whoring), telling you what to do to get exp, and then it is roll in the cash. It made me mad. I told him to do what I said or lose your money.
This is a job...like any other. It is work. You work, then you make money. It doesnt fall out of the sky.

SFWUSC

[timprov]

[ QUOTE ]
Try this: A portion of the poker universe doesn't even understand English! 2+2 is not an option for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of them seem to be here anyway.

[OrianasDaad]

Party's market isn't dominant enough yet to do something like this.

Increasing prices on a highly available commodity, and what's more - targeting that price towards your best customers is idiotic.

Don't fail to see Party Poker as an industry that is providing a commodity, a service, like any other business.

Screwing your best customers while there are many viable alternatives isn't good business.

Actually, the best business plan seems to be to get more fishes for us sharks to feed upon.

Lastly, and most telling, there isn't a thinking 2+2er here that wouldn't leave because the revenue loss would be devestating. Do the math.

You obviously haven't put any thought into this at all.

[OrianasDaad]

After reading some of the replies (I posted first without doing so - my bad), I thought I'd provide the math using my stats in .50/1 limit HE.

Well, actually it's going to be pretty easy. At .50/1 limit HE I've lost 2.77BB/100 to rake, with over 35,000 hands. With your plan implemented, I'd have to make an additional 8.31BB/100 to make up for just the rake.

There isn't anyone here that can sustain this. Rake at higher limits is a bit more forgiving, but winrate isn't.

It seems that you have an issue with (sic) "multi tabling leaches". Mabye you should look for answers over in the psychology forum.

[Yobz]

[ QUOTE ]
I would play somewhere else without a second thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same here, no doubt in my mind

[wateronrock]

God you're an idiot.

When are you going to get it through your thick skull that the term shark is relative?

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
Many high volume players would earn as much on Prima and Crypto.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd love to play on Crypto, but the software is so slow. When a 6-max game of 3/6 (where there are no whores who take the full time to decide to milk the hourly bonus) deals fewer hands per hour than a 10-max game at Party I just cry.

[lacky]

yep, I will play more of my hours elsewhere if they just kill the rakebake. If they tried to charge extra It wouldn't even be a close decision. Party is convenient, but the effort required to scout other sites and use different software is not enough to take a screwing over.

Steve

[FlFishOn]

I've been barred for little more than winning regularly and pointing out how the house was doing it's best to keep me from winning more.

They didn't lose any additional business.

[FlFishOn]

I fully expect to lose my shot at Party bonii soon. Why are they throwing money at me? I'm a fing leach on the system.

[FlFishOn]

"Party's market isn't dominant enough yet to do something like this."

I think it's close but you are correct, not yet.

"Increasing prices on a highly available commodity, and what's more - targeting that price towards your best customers is idiotic."

8 tabling winners are not Party's best customers. They are a net drain on the system costing Party a huge promotional budget to replace the vanishing BRs. This idea is key.

"Don't fail to see Party Poker as an industry that is providing a commodity, a service, like any other business."

All poker sites are not fungible. If Party can maintain a real lead then they will have more leverage.

"Screwing your best customers while there are many viable alternatives isn't good business."

See above.

"Actually, the best business plan seems to be to get more fishes for us sharks to feed upon."

Half right. The most profitable site would be one where there is a steady influx of new players and all players were of equal ability.

"Lastly, and most telling, there isn't a thinking 2+2er here that wouldn't leave because the revenue loss would be devestating. Do the math."

Quite short sighted. People will do what is in their best interests. If Party at a higher rake is their best income source then they WILL play. The equation is different for everyone.

"You obviously haven't put any thought into this at all."

I've been mking my living at poker since 1995. It's one of the things that I think about all the time.

This post was something of a thought experiment. I love the reaction it gets. Folks are stunningly defensive as well as abusive. I'm OK with that.

[Uglyowl]

Very interesting and out of the box thought. Still doesn't make it any less ridiculous!

A more viable idea if they were worried about that would be to limit people to 1 or 2 tables.

[FlFishOn]

"There isn't anyone here that can sustain this. Rake at higher limits is a bit more forgiving, but winrate isn't."

I'M not making policy here but there is a price point for every player. Some would cough up a big rake increase in order to maintain their current income stream. Not a small timer like you but they exist, perhaps a few hundred in total.

"It seems that you have an issue with (sic) "multi tabling leaches". Mabye (sic) you should look for answers over in the psychology forum."

I am that leach. I'm OK with it. My main point is to get other leaches to realize their position in the grand scheme of pro poker. You have no right to rake back. You really have no right to make a living at poker yet you do. Why is that? You suck your living out of the funds that would otherwise go to site operators, to grandly simplify a knotty issue. The sites owe you nothing. They may actively attempt to limit your income more than just killing the rake back. Be prepared. This from an Eagle Scout.

[Uglyowl]

FlFish,

I think you are failing to keep in mind the customer/ business relationship here. The online poker business is booming and sites are trying their best to knock Party Poker off their thrown. Their are tons of other sites ready to pounce.

Also if you get rid of the sharks now, then the next level of players become the sharks.

[FlFishOn]

"A more viable idea if they were worried about that would be to limit people to 1 or 2 tables. "

Good point. What real fish plays 3 tables? Damn few or none.

There are other things that will occur as the sites realize 8 tablers are not the foundation of THEIR income stream.

[FlFishOn]

"Also if you get rid of the sharks now, then the next level of players become the sharks. "

I've heard this and I am not behind it 100%

Here's why: If you remove the top 10% skill-wise now the difference between top and bottom is less, by > 10%. You're pulling the right tail off of a normal distribution curve which will contain all the really superior players. All that remain become 'more equal'

[The Monk]

The success of Party Poker is the direct product of TV advertising. The graphics suck and the interface is average at best. The greediness of the rake and the extra 10% hold back as an admin fee on the bad beat tables is a tribute to it's greediness.
There are many other places to play on the net with less rake and many oppurtunties. I rate Party Poker a 5 out of 10 overall. I have logged in over 1/2 million hands on the net at many sites so I feel my above opinion is an accurate assessment. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Uglyowl]

The relative fishiness of Party is definately overrated.

The speed of the games is great, obviously game selection is great, but the fees are a little higher than most, but why not, they get away with it.

[Boltsfan1992]

[ QUOTE ]
"Also if you get rid of the sharks now, then the next level of players become the sharks. "

I've heard this and I am not behind it 100%

Here's why: If you remove the top 10% skill-wise now the difference between top and bottom is less, by > 10%. You're pulling the right tail off of a normal distribution curve which will contain all the really superior players. All that remain become 'more equal'

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless they are learning the game. If the top 10% of the players leave, then those at the 20% become the top player. They can learn the nuances of the game if the players apply themselves to it. They might figure, "What would happen if I added a table? Then another? Then another?"

Then, they figure that there are books about poker and they read them. The only difference here is that these players may not have a rake back deal in place to increase their profit. But they still play the same amount as the first top tier of players did before they left. Rake is generated for the house and Party poker benefits.

New players would have to still come in and learn the game, hopefully wagering money to do so.

I think there are different levels of a Tight Aggressive player in terms of skill, and if the best leave, the good become the best. It may be a better playing field for the weaker players initially, but in the long run, those that apply themselves will be in the top 10% of playing ability. The weaker players will have to adapt or win just enough to come back.

I hate to write this but I think those at the top now, are a smaller number than those in the middle and bottom. I don't think Party et al much cares about the top group because they know another group will play just as much later on.

On a side note, hijacking this thread a little...besides a possible rake back agreement, what advantage is it for the player to sign up with an affliate versus just downloading the software from the main site? When I started, that's what I did. I didn't know about any affliate business until I came here. From what I see, it's a winning deal for the company and the affliate, but what advantage does the player have (sans rakeback)?

PB

[poker-penguin]

[ QUOTE ]
Besides this, the fishyness of Party is vastly overrated. Many high volume players would earn as much on Prima and Crypto.

[/ QUOTE ]
SHHHHHH!

[Boltsfan1992]

[ QUOTE ]
The relative fishiness of Party is definately overrated.

The speed of the games is great, obviously game selection is great, but the fees are a little higher than most, but why not, they get away with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree with you here. The only reason I like playing Party Poker is for the large game selection that the smaller sites do not have. Novice players are everywhere and people like different brands for different reasons. One of my friends (she plays sng's on Pokerroom) hates Partypoker.com, but likes the cool graphics of Pokerroom instead.

Go figure.

PB

[poker-penguin]

[ QUOTE ]
The greediness of the rake and the extra 10% hold back as an admin fee on the bad beat tables is a tribute to it's greediness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Greed is good. Were you not around in the 80s?

For the record, I was 9.5 when the 80s finished, but I've seen Wall Street.

[OrianasDaad]

Any business will do the math, which you conviently ignore.

Your idea has some merit, but the math cannot support it.

I'm done explaining. Break out a calculator, my man.

[Jonny]

It would be impossible to win paying 4x rake. Hell, even paying twice the rake most could barely break even at 5/10.

Also, a business would never single out individuals. It goes against their terms and conditions.

Also, I've made way more money on paradise than party. Party isn't THAT fishy.

[StellarWind]

When Party successfully eliminates rakeback from all skins I will take my business elsewhere unless they provide some other discount for high volume players. No extra "encouragement" is necessary to make me leave. There is no reason I should play at the highest priced room in the industry. The games are good but not that good and the software is junk. Lots of sites can provide multitabling and I don't have to play at only one site.

FYI, check the archives. Pacific actually did something like this. Last December they closed their rewards program to high-volume winning players. Pacific is reputed to have the fishiest games in the industry and are unique among the major rooms for their anti-pro attitudes.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, a business would never single out individuals. It goes against their terms and conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]
As I said in my last post, Pacific Poker actually did exactly that. They made a list of winning players and disqualified them from their equivalent of Party points.

And yes, it did occur to me in passing that a site that attacked pros in that fashion might be capable of doing other things to reduce the profit of winning players. Trust is such a fragile thing.

[FlFishOn]

"FYI, check the archives. Pacific actually did something like this. Last December they closed their rewards program to high-volume winning players. Pacific is reputed to have the fishiest games in the industry and are unique among the major rooms for their anti-pro attitudes. "

That is worrisome. Someone saw the draining nature of regular winners, balanced it against their value and decided they weren't that damn valuable.

This judgement will likely spread. There's no hiding a winning game online. They know to the dollar how well you do and how much you cost the site. Not so in RL.

[2easy]

this is very correct. to be blunt, for all of the talk about how winning players, especially multitablers, contribute to the rake, it is not so. in actuality, even though the rake comes out of "your" pots, the only money that makes the sites run comes from the "feeders," just like in b&m. without those feeders, neither the sites nor the pro player would have any money eventually. so i'm pretty sure that the sites wouldnt shed too many tears if the pro player went away.
best business model: break-even players that pass the money back and forth. and feeders to replenish the rake. a slow draining off by the rake only, and not cashouts by winners.
they really wouldnt miss us much at all!

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
best business model: break-even players that pass the money back and forth. and feeders to replenish the rake. a slow draining off by the rake only, and not cashouts by winners.

[/ QUOTE ]
The winning player is dead! Long live the winning player!

Think about it. Get rid of the winners and the best of the rest will win.

There are a comparatively small number of extremely bad players who underwrite most of the money everyone makes. These players lose 10-15 BB/100 and are so bad that they lose heavily to almost every player in the game. Removing the best players will not create a situation where everyone is about equal and only the rake wins. The uber-fish will ensure that the best of the remaining sane players do very well.

You don't have to play well or even be a TAG to win at poker. You just need to play better than the other guy.

[2easy]

"Think about it. Get rid of the winners and the best of the rest will win.

There are a comparatively small number of extremely bad players who underwrite most of the money everyone makes. These players lose 10-15 BB/100 and are so bad that they lose heavily to almost every player in the game. Removing the best players will not create a situation where everyone is about equal and only the rake wins. The uber-fish will ensure that the best of the remaining sane players do very well."



[/ QUOTE ]

of course they will still lose! but the weaker the "top" group is, i.e., the less their edge, the longer it will take to get the dirty deed accomplished.
from a poker site's point of view, that is sweet music to their ears.

[FlFishOn]

"You don't have to play well or even be a TAG to win at poker. You just need to play better than the other guy."

You must also beat the rake.

This I guarantee: If I could boot out the top 10% of winners every week and replace them with an equal number of average recruits my site would have a better net, all other factors being equal.

[teamdonkey]

so your basic theory is, every dollar withdrawn from a poker site is a dollar that site has lost, and sites will make money in the long run by stopping that from happening, yes?

1. the way tournament payouts are set up, probably 20-30% of the prize pool will be withdrawn from the site, never to be seen again. Yet half of the tables party has running right now are for tournaments. Why does Party keep offering more and more tournaments, especially the $100+ buy in ones, where they know the final table will be withdrawing the majority of their winnings? How is arguably the second most successful site, PokerStars, based more on their tournaments than cash games?

2. a nice chunk of today's winning players will be tommorrow's losing/break-even players, and they will be losing/breaking-even at higher stakes than they were winning at. do you really want to drive these people away?

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
"You don't have to play well or even be a TAG to win at poker. You just need to play better than the other guy."

You must also beat the rake.

This I guarantee: If I could boot out the top 10% of winners every week and replace them with an equal number of average recruits my site would have a better net, all other factors being equal.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you had a very small site perhaps you could replace 10% of you customers per week, but I doubt it. Even if you could, you wouldn't ever grow. You would probably even do worse because your winning players are probably playing in bigger limit games that generate more rake and you would be replacing them with smaller limit players.

If you have a big site, it would be impossible to replace that many players and very expensive to try.

Plus who is going to sign up for your site when word gets out that anyone who wins gets booted?

[pokerplayer28]

you guys could go back and forth on this one for a long time.

The simple fact is the ideal situation for a site is for everyone to be of equal skill and bringing in more fish/whales/feeders than are busting out. players will last longer with no pros and eventually the site will rake almost every dollor bought in.

In theory taking out the top 10% seems like a good strategy because the top 10% dont redeposit and they are ahead of everyone skill wise.

As mentioned there are problems

1 its a bad pr move even the worst of the worst players will think when they win there going to get banned

2 These top multi tabling players are the glue that holds the tables together and they start up tables when there are 100 people on the waitlist. Bad players dont play very long so youll have a lot of tables breaking and bad players become 101 on the waitlist or will quit before they start up a table. Im speaking in general terms.

3 The next few % take there place. If you have a player who makes .5bb/100 and plays for fun suddenly when the top 10% are banned find themselves making 1bb/100. Now they think they can go pro they post on 2+2 asking if they can go pro everyone is negative but they already had there mind made when they posted. Now they study put in hrs and make 2bb/100

This will only happen to a few people the rest will be filled by winners from other sites. The 10% banned will move to other sites making them tougher the top 10% from those sites will realize theres more to be made at party.

So by banning pros youre really just trading pros with other sites and making a few new ones in the process.

So the best strategy against pros isnt to force them to pay more rake or offer them rake back for being high volume players, its to just ignore us exactly what party has been doing. (promos forcing you to play 12 hrs straight for $20 or a point system where you get most your points from deposits and just playing a few hands/month is partys way of saying we dont give a XXXX about high volume multi tabling pros)

and now theyre taking our rakeback away another XXXX You winners.

personnally i blame all the rakeback sites, classified ads, and openly posting about rakebacks. When it was a small problem party did nothing, but its huge now. Posts about party is stupid ill just move to empire isnt helping empires case either.

[gergery]

Interesting argument. You have some ideas that are more correct than incorrect, but you place the wrong weighting on how valuable some aspects are (how much sharks drain profit from fish), and not enough importance on other concepts (public relations, profit derived from top players, what the main drivers are for why fish play) and few other things.

Overall, I think you misunderstand some important aspects of how an online poker site makes profits. And your understanding of marketing is clearly weaker than your understanding of economics.

[FlFishOn]

I'm not building a business model here.

My goal was to stir a little debate about why rakeback is going away and what might be next. I'm also shocked by the attitude of so many posters here that somehow they are owed a living at Party poker and the site should kiss their arse.

Every player has a 'site EV', your worth to the site over a standard time period. My sense, from 10 years of professional poker, is that B&M pros offer some small +EV to the cardrooms and online multi-tabling pros are clearly -EV.

When 2+2 pros realize they are leaches and tailor their expectations to this fact we will all benefit from more well focused discussion of the important issues.

[pokerplayer28]

[ QUOTE ]
we will all benefit from more well focused discussion of the important issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you serious? what forum are you in?

[Uglyowl]

Rakeback going away and selectively charging higher rake are two different things.

Also a poker room's job isn't to create a communist environment and divide the money how they seem fit. The poker room's job is to create an environment where people play poker. If they start messing with that there are problems for everyone.

People hear about players making a living do this and want to be them. When that dream is not possible anymore, alot of people will stop playing.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
This I guarantee: If I could boot out the top 10% of winners every week and replace them with an equal number of average recruits my site would have a better net, all other factors being equal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats total B.S. They only ways to increase the net is:
A)increase the precentage of the pot that is being raked
B)increase the number of hands that are being played at a table per hour
C)Increase the number of tables.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
My goal was to stir a little debate about why rakeback is going away and what might be next. I'm also shocked by the attitude of so many posters here that somehow they are owed a living at Party poker and the site should kiss their arse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whats next is lower rakes driven by competition. E.G. GamesGrid and BetonBet(no first hand knowledge about BetonBet, but I heard they rebate %40 straight back to the player).

Stu

[Non_Comformist]

[ QUOTE ]
this is one of the dumbest things I've read here

[/ QUOTE ]

The more this thread continues the more I appreciate the brilliance of this comment.

[Perseus]

The fact that this was posted and people are actually agreeing with this is blowing my mind.

If someone raised rake I would play elsewhere. There are bad players everywhere doesn't anyone else realize this I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

[FlFishOn]

"Rakeback going away and selectively charging higher rake are two different things."

No, I'd disagree. Who got rakeback? Surely you don't believe that most casual players were involved. No, it was the top tier of players in the main that got the rakeback.

When you pull out the rug on rakeback you selectively raise the rake on the top tier players.

Now what might be next?

[FlFishOn]

The players least sensitive to rake rates are the most valuable customers. I hope you can see that. The players most sensitive to rake rates are the least valuable, in my opinion they are actually a net negative.

If I could bet, I'd wager GamesGrid gone or radically changed in 3 months.

[Emperor]

"Also, a business would never single out individuals. It goes against their terms and conditions."

I thought there was a line in the T&C concerning "professionals", maybe thats at Paradise. Not sure. I bet all of the "pro's" would fit under this category in the eyes of Party.

Controlling Compulsive Gambling

Compulsive gambling benefits no one, not even an online poker room ultimately. PartyPoker.com is committed to detecting and reducing compulsive gambling. We are constantly working to institute player tracking and controls to limit gambling patterns that have gotten out of control.

[EStreet20]

EXplain why party (or any site) would want to get rid of multitablers and/or winners? They make their money in rake simply by dealing out hands and have no reason to care who's winning/losing. Also, no one in their right mind would stay zt a site and pay 4 times the current rake. I really don't understand the OP's point here.

[pokerplayer28]

2 choices
play with 9 players who lose 1BB/100 on top of the rake but you have to pay 6BB/100 in rake

or play with 9 break even players but you only have to pay 1.5BB/100 in rake

which site do you choose?

now for the people who think its only about rake

you run a pokerroom with 90 regulars who play for fun each about 2 hrs a day all of them make -4 to 1BB/100, then a new player who plays 12 hrs a day joins this guy makes 20BB/100

when you see him are you thinking damn this guy is generating 6x as much rake as everyone I hit the jackpot. If so dont run a poker room.

[sumdumguy]

[ QUOTE ]
If so dont run a poker room.

[/ QUOTE ]
Shhh! Some believe that success in middle-limit holdem naturally qualifies one in law, accountancy, economics, management, and marketing. Don't tap the aquarium.

[Position]

Absolutely correct:

[ QUOTE ]
You suck your living out of the funds that would otherwise go to site operators, to grandly simplify a knotty issue. The sites owe you nothing. They may actively attempt to limit your income more than just killing the rake back. Be prepared. This from an Eagle Scout.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nice thread, FishOn. I'm amused by all the indignant reactions.

[FlFishOn]

"I'm amused by all the indignant reactions."

2+2 is nothing if not reactionary. Attack, question, hint at flaws in the status quo and similar reactions will be yours.

[Jordan]

fish go bust. why? because good players bust them. what happens when they go bust? they stop paying rake. wouldn't it be better for the poker room if everyone paid rake for a longer period of time?

i don't agree with the anti-rakeback scheme, but i do see the OP's point.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
fish go bust. why? because good players bust them. what happens when they go bust? they stop paying rake. wouldn't it be better for the poker room if everyone paid rake for a longer period of time?

i don't agree with the anti-rakeback scheme, but i do see the OP's point.

[/ QUOTE ]

How on earth would removing rakeback for high volume players keep the fish playing longer? If anything it would be an argument for giving fish rakeback.

[Wetdog]

[ QUOTE ]
fish go bust. why? because good players bust them. what happens when they go bust? they stop paying rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my days when I had gills, I put more money in monthly. Why? Because I was having fun and it only cost $50 a month. So I played on, bought TOP, HEPFAP, SSHE. I read the 2+2 forums and improved. Maybe I'm not typical of the majority, but I think that a lot of fish reload their accounts for the entertainment value of playing.

[pokerplayer28]

the mojority of new signups play for a couple months then are rarely seen again. The party network brings in 4-8k players every month so there are a lot of players quiting.

[Jordan]

[ QUOTE ]
How on earth would removing rakeback for high volume players keep the fish playing longer? If anything it would be an argument for giving fish rakeback.

[/ QUOTE ]

i wasn't arguing that removing rakeback keeps fish playing longer. my point is that without the best sharks, the fish will not go bust as often and therefore play longer, hence the pokersites would be better with a more level playing field, as the OP was saying.

[Equal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would play somewhere else without a second thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same here, no doubt in my mind

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too.

[Equal]

Doesn't a four-tabler already pay four times as much in rake than a single-tabler?

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

this is one of the dumbest things I've read here

[/ QUOTE ]


yup.

[pokerplayer28]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would play somewhere else without a second thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same here, no doubt in my mind

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a good thing then that you 3 wouldnt be the ones targeted