Don't be fooled!! The Rake is ......

[veresov]

I play 5-10 hold'em and recently looked at what I am paying in rakes per month and let me tell you, it is sickening what the house is charging to play poker!!!

I play about 6 hours a day, 5 days a week and last month spent over $2400.00 dollars to PartyPoker!!!!! Even with those stupid rake rebates of 27% off, I would have paid more than $1700. per month to play at a 5-10 table.

I am a good player, but now I see where most of my profits are going. They are absolute crooks!!!!

My mortgage isn't $2400.00 dollars.

Just curious if any of you have done the math and found out what you paid in rake fees last month??

[iluzion]

Look at how much money you made total playing $5/10 last month. Would you have made that money if the site didn't charge an assload of rake to let you play there? No.

[imitation]

Hahah I made almost that much in rakeback in a month dude....

[veresov]

If you made that much back in rakeback, what must you have paid in rakes???? Think about it! The highest rakeback programs pay 35%.

And as far as them providing a site for me to play, they are charging entirely more then they need to manage a poker table!!!

How can you think it is okay to pay $2400.00 to play poker??? Are you for real??? You think they need to charge that much to stay in business? They could reduce those fees and still make a fortune. They have 70,000 active players.

[MaxPower]

Party uses that rake to advertise and bring in new players for you to win money from. If they didn't collect the rake you would have to put together your own games which would cost you a lot of time and money.

I will probably pay more in rake this year than I earn from my full-time job. I don't mind paying rake so they can advertise and bring in new players (and make a profit).

They are not crooks, but we certainly should get a better deal since we are such high volume customers.

[Hellmouth]

[ QUOTE ]
If you made that much back in rakeback, what must you have paid in rakes???? Think about it! The highest rakeback programs pay 35%.

And as far as them providing a site for me to play, they are charging entirely more then they need to manage a poker table!!!

How can you think it is okay to pay $2400.00 to play poker??? Are you for real??? You think they need to charge that much to stay in business? They could reduce those fees and still make a fortune. They have 70,000 active players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that that was his point. He knows how much he paid in rake and it is worth it. He also knows how much $$$ he has made.

Do you think that there is any business out there that knowingly undercuts their potential profit to be nice?

If you don't like Capitilism, move to China. You won't even be told how much you pay in sales tax there.

Greg

[iluzion]

I still don't see why you care, they make money, you make money, everyone wins? No? I don't get why your throwing such a fit about it, I mean if you don't want to pay the site so much money, don't play there?

[Losing all]

It's called a free market, uncle Ho. Does it seem like a ripoff? yes. Vote with your feet

[gila]

[ QUOTE ]

Just curious if any of you have done the math and found out what you paid in rake fees last month??

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG, are you serious? What the hell, you would think they could manage with a little less rake. May be time to pick up a new game.

[emonrad87]

So it's ok for you to make as much as you can but its not okay for them to do the same thing?

[Somekid]

5/10, for six hours a day/five days a week only results in 2400 in rake a month? Shouldn't it be a whole lot more?

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
I play 5-10 hold'em and recently looked at what I am paying in rakes per month and let me tell you, it is sickening what the house is charging to play poker!!!

I play about 6 hours a day, 5 days a week and last month spent over $2400.00 dollars to PartyPoker!!!!! Even with those stupid rake rebates of 27% off, I would have paid more than $1700. per month to play at a 5-10 table.

I am a good player, but now I see where most of my profits are going. They are absolute crooks!!!!

My mortgage isn't $2400.00 dollars.

Just curious if any of you have done the math and found out what you paid in rake fees last month??

[/ QUOTE ]

So do you have a proposed solution to this problem or do you just like to appear in forums and repeat facts that the posters have known about for years?

[veresov]

I am saying there is a reason PartyPoker is going public for 4-8 billion dollars and it aint because they are charging an affordable rake! At the lower limit tables (2-4 and 1-2), it is almost impossible to make money due to the rake. Do any of you realize that?

Why do you think these sites can offer such bonuses? They will recoup the bonus in a few days and you will end up paying them many times over!

Even the tourney games. Why is it that a $50 tourney has a $5 fee and a $30 tourney cost $3?? They both cost the site the same amount of money to manage operationally!

[hopefull12]

So, Get together a group of players who'll make
an (informal) commitment to move 100.00 onto
one paticular poker site on lets say this
Thanksgiving Day. If that site advertises
that their rake will only be 25% of the
industry average. The first poster is
absolutely correct. The replys are so
wrong I don't think I'll bother replying
to them. Cheers.

[lorinda]

Hi,

No we don't want to play at zerorake.com and nobody is going to suggest we do.

Lori

[iluzion]

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying there is a reason PartyPoker is going public for 4-8 billion dollars and it aint because they are charging an affordable rake! At the lower limit tables (2-4 and 1-2), it is almost impossible to make money due to the rake. Do any of you realize that?

Why do you think these sites can offer such bonuses? They will recoup the bonus in a few days and you will end up paying them many times over!

Even the tourney games. Why is it that a $50 tourney has a $5 fee and a $30 tourney cost $3?? They both cost the site the same amount of money to manage operationally!

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

veresov
stranger


Reged: 05/11/05
Posts: 3


[/ QUOTE ]

'Nuff said. You realize live casinos charge MUCH more in rake per hand? And also, if you say it's almost impossible to be a winner at 1/2 or 2/4, I'd say you don't have the ability to be playing 5/10.

[veresov]

Hopeful,

I agree that these replys are ridiculous and I am ceasing to speak on the matter any further.

[iluzion]

[ QUOTE ]
Hopeful,

I agree that these replys are ridiculous and I am ceasing to speak on the matter any further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.

[LinusKS]

In a free market, competition creates an incentive for lower prices.

In a monopoly situation, on the other hand, companies are able to extort exorbitant prices.

If it hadn't been for government regulation, for example, utility companies could have charged whatever they wanted, since your option would have been to pay what they charged, or do without.

Poker isn't exactly a monopoly market, since you can play wherever you want.

But competition is limited because 1.) people want to play where everyone else is playing, and 2.) the price is hidden. Many people never realize how much they're actually paying in rake.

So there's less competition than there should be.

Party is in a position a lot like Microsoft. Everybody wants to use the same operating system everybody else is using, and the price you're paying is often hidden.

So both companies get away with inferior products, crappy service, and exorbitant prices.

Unfortunately, there's not much anyone can do about it, except to play at sites that offer better deals.

Then of course there's the folks who like getting ripped off so much, they think anyone who doesn't like it should move to China.

[afk]

If you think that's sick, you should research live casino rakes, make sure to factor in tokes, gas, food etc... Keep a bucket nearby because you'll most likely vomit.

[gila]

[ QUOTE ]
I At the lower limit tables (2-4 and 1-2), it is almost impossible to make money due to the rake. Do any of you realize that?



[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I will bet a decent player, with two monitors, could make $30 an hour at 2/4, and a good player could make close to $50. Half that, of course, for 1/2; and half that, of course, with only one high res. monitor.

[grimel]

Not if he's not winning a good bit. The question is what is his MGR.

[gila]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I At the lower limit tables (2-4 and 1-2), it is almost impossible to make money due to the rake. Do any of you realize that?



[/ QUOTE ]



Really? I will bet a decent player, with two monitors, could make $30 an hour at 2/4, and a good player could make close to $50. Half that, of course, for 1/2; and half that, of course, with only one high res. monitor.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that does not include bonus or rakeback. So, if you can't make money online at 1/2 and 2/4, you have much bigger problems to worry about than the rake you are paying.

[veresov]

Thank you very much LinusKS!! You actually understand my frustration with these excessive rake fees! The fact that they are hidden fees makes people more accepting of them.

[iluzion]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you very much LinusKS!! You actually understand my frustration with these excessive rake fees! The fact that they are hidden fees makes people more accepting of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your really not getting the point. Everyone here sees these fees, and everyone knows how much they are paying. But do we care? No, not really. The money we pay in rake, makes sure we have a site to play at, and makes sure they offer tons of reload bonuses, advertisments, and promotions, to keep all the new little fishies coming in for us to make even more off of.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
You realize live casinos charge MUCH more in rake per hand?

[/ QUOTE ]
Um, no they don't. Party drops $3 per hand. In my area, there are dozens of casino/ cardrooms and I don't think a single one drops more $3, and many of them have a $2 rake.

[iluzion]

I've heard of $4 rake being pulled at $3/6 games..

[Art Vandelay]

Welcome to the reality of poker. Rake has been around for a long time and it will be around for a lot longer. Thanks to PT many players are for the first time realizing exactly how much rake is paid.

I personally don't think it's too high, the site is providing me with a table and hosting the game. The rake is used to attract more players which in theory I should be able to make money off of.

Your comment about not being able to beat 1/2 and 2/4 is ridiculous.

[grimel]

Don't worry, we all realize you are an idiot. If I can make money at .25/.50 and .50/1 while you can't at 5/10 you are a complete moron. You do realize the rake paid is part of the pots you have won? The way you make money is to win more $$ in pots than you pay in blinds and rake. Unless you are playing either a tight weak or psychos-r-us style this isn't a problem. As of right now, about 4 months after getting "serious" about it, I have about $25 of "my" money left online in various poker sites. I'm bankrolled to 200BB or better on 3 sites. You figure it out.

[afk]

[ QUOTE ]
Um, no they don't. Party drops $3 per hand. In my area, there are dozens of casino/ cardrooms and I don't think a single one drops more $3, and many of them have a $2 rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Admittedly I've only played at 2 casinos, and I believe they both charged 10% up to $5 below 10/20. I think it was a time charge above that.

[grimel]

Why are you still posting?

"Hopeful,

I agree that these replys are ridiculous and I am ceasing to speak on the matter any further. "

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Um, no they don't. Party drops $3 per hand. In my area, there are dozens of casino/ cardrooms and I don't think a single one drops more $3, and many of them have a $2 rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Admittedly I've only played at 2 casinos, and I believe they both charged 10% up to $5 below 10/20. I think it was a time charge above that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that's unreasonable. It's still not like this is the norm amonst all casinos. I mainly play online now, but when I used to mainly play live, the two main games I played were a 15/30 with a $2 rake and no jackpot drop and a $20/40 with a $3 rake and $1 jackpot drop. The game I played before moving on to those was a 10/20 with a $2 rake and $1 jackpot. These were all at different cardrooms. These rakes are not worse than online.

Some people are saying that you should count all of your expenses like gas to the cardroom, but I think that is irrelevant when we are discussing how much the house charges you to play. Further, that doesn't need to be expensive for everyone either. When I lived on the east coast, I would take a bus to the casino and you were given match play coupons and a coupon for the buffet that came out to be worth more than the cost of the bus ticket, so that was actually a negative expense (the casino wants you to go there). Even if you count gas, there are expenses for playing online too (hardrware, software, internet access).

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Party uses that rake to advertise and bring in new players for you to win money from. If they didn't collect the rake you would have to put together your own games which would cost you a lot of time and money.


[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't all go into player promotions and advertiseing. I'm sure Mr Dikshit uses some of that money to get out laid.

Stu

[grimel]

Last time I went to AC (1990ish) after gas (someone else's car, gas, and tolls - they didn't like to drive in AC) the hotel was comped, the buffet was $5 all you can eat steak and lobster (if you could eat with the casino noise piped into the buffet). Wasn't playing poker so I have no idea as to the rake, but, I came out way ahead.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying there is a reason PartyPoker is going public for 4-8 billion dollars and it aint because they are charging an affordable rake! At the lower limit tables (2-4 and 1-2), it is almost impossible to make money due to the rake. Do any of you realize that?

Why do you think these sites can offer such bonuses? They will recoup the bonus in a few days and you will end up paying them many times over!

Even the tourney games. Why is it that a $50 tourney has a $5 fee and a $30 tourney cost $3?? They both cost the site the same amount of money to manage operationally!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm playing 15/30 after 1.3 years of beating the rake (without rakeback until recently) at .5/1, 1/2, 2/4, and 3/6.

But more importantly, this thread rules.

EDIT: It also occurred to me that you might not be aware that every retail establishment charges you slightly more than they paid for their goods. We should put a stop to that.

[BottlesOf]

[ QUOTE ]
Just curious if any of you have done the math and found out what you paid in rake fees last month??

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "math," you mean opening pokertracker, then yes, I do the math almost every day.

[BottlesOf]

[ QUOTE ]
At the lower limit tables (2-4 and 1-2), it is almost impossible to make money due to the rake. Do any of you realize that?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because you are dead wrong. THe rake is high, but the low limit games are very beatable despite this.

[Wyers]

Post deleted by Wyers

[grimel]

[ QUOTE ]

EDIT: It also occurred to me that you might not be aware that every retail establishment charges you slightly more than they paid for their goods. We should put a stop to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those greedy bastids! Picket 'em all! Make/grow/raise our own goods.

[grimel]

Yes, I understand it. The only "easy" way to track it is from pots won. Unless you do something so simple as money started session and money ended session which is greater? Then you don't care because you've determined if you have beat the rake or not quickly, easily, and relatively accurately.

By any method of calculation (true total, pot total, MGR) it is way more than possible to beat the rake at even .25/.50.

[Wyers]

Hmmm... hey Grimel.

I went to reply to your post and somehow deleted my previous response... bizarre.

Anyhow... yeah, I figured you knew what you were talking about but the wording was a little muddled.

I often see players naively commenting on rake and not fully understanding the impact it has on bankroll. To be fair, I didn't completely understand the impact myself when I first started to play. It was via this site (and subsequently PT) that my eyes were opened. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[grimel]

The OP was muddled, I thought that might be his native language.




Okay, so, I took some verbal short cuts.

g <- guilty as charged.

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
At the lower limit tables (2-4 and 1-2), it is almost impossible to make money due to the rake. Do any of you realize that?


[/ QUOTE ]
Totally untrue.

[Wyers]

The OP was muddled, I thought that might be his native language.

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[sthief09]

BRING ON THE RAKE. MORE RAKE = MORE RAKEBACK. [censored] IT. PARTY SHOULD MAKE THE RAKE $100 A HAND SO I CAN MAKE $25!!!!!

[veresov]

Don't worry, it won't be around too much longer. Once Dutch Boyd launches Rakefree.com this raping of players will be stopped!!! No one will ever pay $2400 when they can pay $50!!!

LOLOLOLOL So all of you affiliates will be broke!!! And you can shove your rakeback programs up your you know what!!!

LOLOLOL

[iluzion]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't worry, it won't be around too much longer. Once Dutch Boyd launches Rakefree.com this raping of players will be stopped!!! No one will ever pay $2400 when they can pay $50!!!

LOLOLOLOL So all of you affiliates will be broke!!! And you can shove your rakeback programs up your you know what!!!

LOLOLOL

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't leave party for rakefree.com, neither would a vast majority of this forum.

[veresov]

You are a bright guy! You would rather pay $2400 than $50??? I dont think Dutch is going after the smart guys like you!! He is looking for guys who want to save a boat load of money and enjoy all of the same poker functionality at other sites.

[iluzion]

[ QUOTE ]
You are a bright guy! You would rather pay $2400 than $50??? I dont think Dutch is going after the smart guys like you!! He is looking for guys who want to save a boat load of money and enjoy all of the same poker functionality at other sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if I lose my fish, I wont be "saving" $2400, because I wont be winning enough to pay that much in rake.

[sthief09]

and when Dutch Boyd steals your money and nuts in your eye I'll laugh

and I'm not an affiliate

[veresov]

Do you think even the fish are stupid enough to stay at a site where they are being raped !! All of your fish will know how to add and move to Rakefree.com!!!

[sthief09]

www.pokerspot.com (http://www.pokerspot.com)

oh wait...

[Greg J]

I'm reminded of what Ralphie said after getting his secret decoder pin and decoding the "secret message, from Little Orphan Annie herself" as read by Pierre Andre:

[ QUOTE ]
A crummy commercial? Son of a bitch!

[/ QUOTE ]

[veresov]

Fine theif,

I will give you that, but it may not be Dutch Boyd, it may be someone else who decides to make a site that is much cheaper. Right? Would you pay $2400 or $50? Simple question.

[iluzion]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think even the fish are stupid enough to stay at a site where they are being raped !! All of your fish will know how to add and move to Rakefree.com!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Stars and other sites have considerably less rake than Party, yet a vast majority of them are still on Party..

[veresov]

I said it may be some other site. I am only aware of Rakefree but tell me if there are others.

[veresov]

The rake isnt 2300% cheaper! God, you just don't freakin get it!!! $50 a month unlimited poker with no rake isnt anything like Stars, full tilt or anyone. Do you have a brain??

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: It also occurred to me that you might not be aware that every retail establishment charges you slightly more than they paid for their goods. We should put a stop to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

When Party has the same profit margin that a very succesful retail store has I will be completely satisfied. And I am enough of a believer in free market economics to think this will happen in the not so distant future.

[ScottTheFish]

You know why movie theaters charge $5.00 for 25 cents worth of popcorn? It's simple. Because people LINE UP to pay it. Think about that. Let it sink in. They would be stupid to charge less. They're in business to make money.

It may seem crazy to you for Nike to pay Tiger Woods $40M per year...to them it is a BARGAIN. Couple TV shots of a Nike swoosh on his ball/clubs/shirt at the Masters and they are paid back with interest.

Welcome to the wonderful world of free market economics.

[Beach-Whale]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't like Capitilism, move to China. You won't even be told how much you pay in sales tax there.


[/ QUOTE ]

Raw capitalism is in no way better than a totalitarian state. The death of capitalism has been predicted. A free market, kept on a very short leach by community (government) regulations, has proven to be a winning recepy though.

[veresov]

That is only because there is no alternative right now, but there will be. These analogies are so stupid! Here's my analogy:

Why do people pay much less for generic drugs than their commercial counterparts? Because they do the same thing and they want to save money!!

There is no rakefree site in the world! When one comes along, players will migrate if there is action and similar functions!! I know I will and so has every friend of mine who understands the rake.

[Synergistic Explosions]

Yes, I agree. Rake is definately a cancer on our online game. The devastating affects of rake wipe out tens of thousands of players that could be at least break even players who stick around. Instead, rake wipes out their bankroll and they dissapear.

Of course a fair and equitable fee needs to be charged by sites to make their income. It is up to us as players to gravitate toward sites that show a willingness to alter the present rake structure so prevalent amongst a majority of the sites.

Often, the lowering of rake takes the forms of regular reloads or bottomless reload bonuses. As players, we should gravitate toward these sites that make these offers now.

I know I have altered my original playing style to miminmize the amount of rake I pay a site. I believe I have done this well and pay a minimal rake in total each year now. I move between many different sites and poker networks to always make sure I'm playing on the freely offered bonuses and reloads, or sometimes for a specific promotion that has value to me greater than the rake I would pay.

In summation, rake is a scurge if you let it be a scurge. There are ways to minimize rake to make it insignificant. If you don't take measures to minimize what you pay in rake, your chances of failing and leaving online poker are dramaticaly higher than those who take the proper precautions.

Good luck and do what you need to do concerning rake.

[veresov]

You dummy! I make plenty of money at the 5-10 table, but I still hate paying out $2400 a month in rake fees!! How are you so stupid?? You must work for Party POker!! How can anyone with a freakin brain say that thery would rather pay 2400 then 50!!!! You dumbassss!!!

[veresov]

Finally someone who understands!! Thanks for the feedback. These others are morons who have no good argument why they would rather pay a rake then go to sites that offer no rakes!!

[grimel]

Predicted for capitalism, yet, it's happened for Socialism/Communism and rapidly approaching for the socialist-democrate situation you promote (short gov leash).

[Exsubmariner]

OMG. Angry has returned..... /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[veresov]

Oh my god, PartyPoker employee has returned!

[grimel]

Considering you are shilling for Dutch Boyd you calling anyone dummy is absurd.

How can I say I'd rather pay $2400 than $50? Well, I wouldn't be associated with Dutch Boyd. I can sleep at night knowing my $$ is still there. I don't have to worry about the site folding due to lack of funds ($50 is in no way enough per person to fund a site unless you have EVERY player online now and another group just as big added). I make a load more where I pay rake than I could at a Dutch Boyd site (math 101 any positive number is greater than 0).

[Exsubmariner]

Admit it, You're really Angry and you quit poker because you were too cheap to pay a little rake every month.

[Beach-Whale]

I agree with you, veresov. The fees they charge are unreasonable. Of course they charge whatever they can get away with, that's why we, in the long run, shouldn't let them get away with it. It's just that it's a market built on stupid customers, so it's hard to put any pressure on them by educating their customers. Price just isn't a factor in the competition between sites right now, except in bonuses and the affiliate market, with rakeback, but hopefully it will be more of a factor in the future.

[veresov]

Here is the bottom line. If you are stupid enough to pay a rake when there comes a time when rakefree sites are available, you are a dumbass moron! The next person who says they would rather pay 2400 vs. 50 a month can lick my nutsack!! Stop kidding yourself! There is no reason to pay 2400 a month to play poker. They are raping us!!! cant you guys see it???? And yes, I make money playing 5-10 and I can make money at 1-2 and 2-4!! But most cannot due to the rake. If there were no rake, players that used to lose may now be winners!!!

[Delphin]

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard of $4 rake being pulled at $3/6 games..

[/ QUOTE ]

I played last weekend at a room that charged a $3 rake on every flop, $1 jackpot drop, and most players who dragged a pot tipped $1. That's $5 coming out of every pot, and this was a $3/$6 game.

And you know what? There were lots of pros and semipros who were glad to pay it and make money there day in and day out.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
The next person who says they would rather pay 2400 vs. 50 a month can lick my nutsack!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I would rather pay 2400 vs. 50 a month. Now unzip.

[grimel]

Hmm, $2400 to deal with PP's Customer Non-Support like it or leave it attidude or $50 to deal with a Dutch Boyd unsustainable business model site? Hmmmm, Hmmmmm, Hmmmmmmmmmm. I guess I'd pay $2400 and deal with PP.

Of course I have other options that are very close to being as fishy as PP, have rakeback, and good bonus (to the point I make more rakeback & bonus than I pay in rake) AND I don't have to deal with either PP OR Dutch.

[iluzion]

[ QUOTE ]
The rake isnt 2300% cheaper! God, you just don't freakin get it!!! $50 a month unlimited poker with no rake isnt anything like Stars, full tilt or anyone. Do you have a brain??

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, do YOU not get it? The worst players are at, and will be at, party and sites like that. End of story.

[Beach-Whale]

There has to my knowledge NEVER been a communist state. They have all been totalitarian states misusing the name communism.

The "free" market MUST be regulated. It just wouldn't work otherwise. Just look at Las Vegas. Regulated through its nose! The short leash ain't going nowhere...

[veresov]

You are full of [censored]! Maybe some peole here dont know you are but I do. Rakebacks only give you 27% of your rake back! The other 73% is outrageous and even with the bonuses, you pay them all back in a matter of hours!!! You really are a dumbass, so stay out of the thread!

[veresov]

Even the worst poker players can add!!! They know the difference between 2400 and 50. How can you not know??? Can you add??

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
You know why movie theaters charge $5.00 for 25 cents worth of popcorn? It's simple. Because people LINE UP to pay it. Think about that. Let it sink in. They would be stupid to charge less. They're in business to make money.

It may seem crazy to you for Nike to pay Tiger Woods $40M per year...to them it is a BARGAIN. Couple TV shots of a Nike swoosh on his ball/clubs/shirt at the Masters and they are paid back with interest.

Welcome to the wonderful world of free market economics.

[/ QUOTE ]


that makes way too much sense and is way too reasonable.

BOTCHY4LIFE

[Beach-Whale]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no rakefree site in the world! When one comes along, players will migrate if there is action and similar functions!! I know I will and so has every friend of mine who understands the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

There IS a rakefree site, and has been for quite some time. It's called ZeroRake. Unfortunately no one plays there. I tried to support it, but eventually gave up. One needs a minimum of opponents to make it worth it... Of course it never was worth it in the short run, but I was thinking long-run (as a poker player should). Most players (as in this thread) did not. A lot of badmouthing went around here when they opened. I think Absolutes ubiquitious bonuses might be a better way of reducing rake in this market of stupid consumers.

By the way, ZeroRake seems to still be operating, if you want to try to support it. Get some friends asses over there, and I might revisit too.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
How can anyone with a freakin brain say that thery would rather pay 2400 then 50!!!! You dumbassss!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, you are the dumbass. If you have brain how can you say that you would rather pay 50 then [sic] 0? If you stopped playing, you would be paying 0 but now you are paying 50. Can't you see that 50 is more than 0???? Can't you add????

[veresov]

Obviously, no site will be free without any cost you moron. The only site that has even proposed anything is Rakefree whihc is 50 a month!!! If you find one for 0, then i will play there since I can add you punk!

[veresov]

www.zerorake.com (http://www.zerorake.com) is not in existence. You are forwarded to HolyCow poker.

[Synergistic Explosions]

As long as there are affiliates here that make their living off poker players rake, you will always get these types of arguments that paying 30k-50k in rake is reasonable because the site brings in new players and advertises.

Most know that is fuzzy affiliate speak for "I'm making a fortune off you idiots, so shut the fuk up and take it like a man!"

Can you blame affiliates for looking out for themselves? None of them want to see the fall of Party Poker or an end to the affiliate scheme.

Just read the affiliate forum boards sometime. You will see they think the idiots (us) who play poker and pay rakes are nothing but dumb morons who don't know better. They think they are superior for becoming affiliates and making the big bucks risk free. They band together to protect their interests posting fuzzy logic on any and all poker message boards.

Affiliates are really the cancer driving the high rakes. NOw the ones that are being fair and returning much of their share of the rakes to their signups are being terminated by the site. Why? Because the affiliates that don't share and want all 30% of your rake have complained to the site and pointed to the terms and agreements that have been broken.

Greedy affiliates will soon end rake backs at the Party network. Greedy affiliates are also the ones here telling us that rake is no big deal, regardless if it's 50k or 5k. They maintain at any cost, it's a bargain.

Well, logic like that is pretty easy to see through.

Any player paying 50k a year in rakes would love to see a viable alternative that saves him money. At least I would hope so.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
www.zerorake.com (http://www.zerorake.com) is not in existence. You are forwarded to HolyCow poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, maybe that's because Zero Rake bombed because no one would play there.

You are clearly retarded.

[Beach-Whale]

[ QUOTE ]
and when Dutch Boyd steals your money and nuts in your eye I'll laugh

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of Dutch, one thing I don't understand is that it's soooooo OK and selfevidently right for a site to take as much money as they can in unreasonable fees ("they only do what is best for them" - "if you don't like capitalism, move to China!"), but when Dutch grabs some money and runs (like it is often described), then all of a sudden it's NOT OK. Well, maybe he just did what was best for him. And obviously he didn't do anything illegal, as he's still a free man. What was that? You want MORE regulation now??? Shorter leash? Move to China!

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, no site will be free without any cost you moron. The only site that has even proposed anything is Rakefree whihc is 50 a month!!! If you find one for 0, then i will play there since I can add you punk!

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you rather play at a site where you pay $50/month to play, but only make $100 (net) because there are very few games, or would you rather pay $2400 in rake/month, and make $1000 (net)?

Take your time...

[Beach-Whale]

I thought it was alive because I started up the client, it updated, and there is one (1) guy sitting at a table (LilVegas at a Guts table). Strange if the web page is down. Oh well...

[Beach-Whale]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you rather play at a site where you pay $50/month to play, but only make $100 (net) because there are very few games, or would you rather pay $2400 in rake/month, and make $1000 (net)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd rather those weren't my only two choices.

[veresov]

You are an affiliate!!

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at how much money you made total playing $5/10 last month. Would you have made that money if the site didn't charge an assload of rake to let you play there? No.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a silly argument.

[Beach-Whale]

Namecalling never lead to any good. Chill it.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
In my area, there are dozens of casino/ cardrooms and I don't think a single one drops more $3, and many of them have a $2 rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where exactly would this be?

[alabubba]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the bottom line. If you are stupid enough to pay a rake when there comes a time when rakefree sites are available, you are a dumbass moron!

[/ QUOTE ]

<dumbass_moron_mode>I want to play where all the little fishies play</dumbass_moron_mode>

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you very much LinusKS!! You actually understand my frustration with these excessive rake fees! The fact that they are hidden fees makes people more accepting of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I am ceasing to speak on the matter any further.


[/ QUOTE ]
You suck at ceasing to speak.

[veresov]

FU you affiliate!!

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
Dutch Boyd

[/ QUOTE ]

Bwahahaha.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
Predicted for capitalism, yet, it's happened for Socialism/Communism and rapidly approaching for the socialist-democrate situation you promote (short gov leash).

[/ QUOTE ]

For exactly which socialist democratic country is the end rapidly approaching?

[veresov]

I just talked to ACTION poker support who now owns zerorake.com and he said that they closed it since they were bought and there was just too much money in raking the games!! Unreal, he is basically saying that until these idiots demand cheaper rates, they will continue to charge them high rake fees!!

You guys are freakin morons or affiliates trying to save your incomes!!

[veresov]

So tupid these arguments for paying a huge rake!! Thanks Homer!!

[iluzion]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look at how much money you made total playing $5/10 last month. Would you have made that money if the site didn't charge an assload of rake to let you play there? No.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a silly argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I meant was, "If the site didn't charge you money, they wouldn't be in business, if they wern't in business, you would make zero money."

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my area, there are dozens of casino/ cardrooms and I don't think a single one drops more $3, and many of them have a $2 rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where exactly would this be?

[/ QUOTE ]
Seattle. I have mainly been playing online now, but the main live games I would play (up until a couple months ago) were the $20/40 at Muckleshoot (an Indian casino ~45 minutes south of seattle) which had a $3 rake, the $15/30 at Tulalip (an Indian casino ~45 minutes north of seattle) which had a $2 rake and I used to play the $10/20 at the Hideaway (a non-Indian cardroom about 15 minutes north of seattle) which had a $2 rake. Admittedly, two of the three of those also have a $1 jackpot drop, so you might want to add $1 to two of those, but I have equity in that so I don't view it as a full dollar being dropped.

I haven't played at most of them, but there are lots of little cardrooms in Washington. Even the bowling alley near my house has a back room that always has $3/6 games going.

[thwang99]

If your hotel was comped, you still have to pay for some of it.

Say the comped hotel room was worth $200. Then that's $200 profit you made, which results in about $66 (assuming 1/3 tax for simplicity's sake) that goes to uncle sam.

The comped hotel is income. I've read about someone being hit 80 grand or so by the IRS for not reporting comped rooms/buffets.

[grimel]

The only person full of misinformation and ignorance is YOU. You have this wonderful ability to only see your little world and extrapolate that tiny portion to the whole community. At AP this month I've paid $280 in rake, my MGR is $360. I've beat that with bonus cleared alone. By the end of the month I'll be back to a regular schedule and clear over $1000 in bonus (maybe $1200). Rakeback is just gravey. This isn't that hard to figure out. There is a reason the Bonus Whores play lower limits - bonus > rake at lower limits. Bonus is a way to increase the bankroll while still developing as a player; rakeback just increases the BR quicker.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
there is one (1) guy sitting at a table (LilVegas at a Guts table).

[/ QUOTE ]
Why don't more online cardrooms offer Guts /images/graemlins/confused.gif?

[grimel]

Strawman. That is income tax. That isn't paying for the room, it's paying taxes on "income".

[Guthrie]

Start your own poker room and put those greedy bastiges out of business.

[Catt]

This thread needs way more instances of "!!!" and "???" at the end of sentences.

[thwang99]

Ahh you are right, true.

The only thing to realize is, if you take the free rooms, say twice a week, and didn't realize it was counted as income, you could be hit with an unexpected tax bill.

I think it's different from getting paid $200 in cash, since if you were paid $200 in cash, you may decide to keep it instead of spending it on the hotel room. If you get the room comped, you don't realize you are spending "$200" that you've just been paid on the hotel room, and that you have to pay income on that $200.

- Tony

[grimel]

True, but, that's a different discussion. I've had my fill of tax talk for the year. I'm still pissed at what I had to pay. One thing I don't need right now is another reminder of "perks" the IRS decides I need to give them a slice. It's frickin' protection racket.

One little comment. If anything it should be more along the lines of a Wal-Mart Buy one get one item of equal or lesser value "free". I bought X in chips I'm getting an item (room) of equal or lesser (it was lesser) value free. That would make sense and simplify the bookkeeping, hence it won't happen.

Thanks, thwang, you'v managed to get my BP up. You in league with my wife? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
You are an affiliate!!

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am not. But you are still clearly retarded. Plus, you haven't answered my question.

[kdog]

[ QUOTE ]
Start your own poker room and put those greedy bastiges out of business

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, go get those fargin corksuckers.

[GMan42]

[ QUOTE ]
At the lower limit tables (2-4 and 1-2), it is almost impossible to make money due to the rake. Do any of you realize that?


[/ QUOTE ]

Mmm hmm...guess I've just been running real good for about 100000 hands. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Voltron87]

Everyone here understands what a "necessary evil" is right? Good, just checking.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the bottom line. If you are stupid enough to pay a rake when there comes a time when rakefree sites are available, you are a dumbass moron!

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this magic mystery pokerroom going to attract fish? Surely you must realize that fish is more important than rake. And with only charging 50$ a month that doesn't leave all that much wiggle room for marketing.

But if a site with lower rake is able to attract fish, I'll be there in a heartbeat. As would most others here. But until that happens it is pointless discussing. Zerorake failed badly, and there is a pretty big chance rakefree.com also will.

[gila]

[ QUOTE ]
I just talked to ACTION poker support who now owns zerorake.com and he said that they closed it since they were bought and there was just too much money in raking the games!! Unreal, he is basically saying that until these idiots demand cheaper rates, they will continue to charge them high rake fees!!

You guys are freakin morons or affiliates trying to save your incomes!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you get it yet? Most people on here are trying to make money, some people trying to make a living. It is not that we do not want cheaper rake, it's that we want profitable games. I am sure, as soon as a site comes along that can offer both smaller rake, and juicy games, we will all be playing there. Until then, however, we will still choose the most +EV situtation available. Really, it's not that hard to figure out.

[edfurlong]

Is that kenmore lanes?
[ QUOTE ]
Even the bowling alley near my house has a back room that always has $3/6 games going.

[/ QUOTE ]

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that kenmore lanes?
[ QUOTE ]
Even the bowling alley near my house has a back room that always has $3/6 games going.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah.

[edfurlong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is that kenmore lanes?
[ QUOTE ]
Even the bowling alley near my house has a back room that always has $3/6 games going.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shweet.

[viennagreen]

who has been fooled? the sites have been very upfront with what they charge...

play live. see if that fixes things.

[lehighguy]

Party can charge whatever rake the fish will accept. The fish are losing thier money already because they don't understand the game. They understand the rake even less.

[Mr. Graff]

The scornful replies to this post are not necessary. He is right, Party is not ethical in the way they handle rake. Not necessarily because they charge too much - they are free to charge whatever they want in a free market, but because they do not inform the players when they increase the rake. Are you people even aware they increased the rake between April 10th and April 12th? No? I thought not. When I brought this subject up in the HUSH forum not many seemed to even care. Noone had noticed it, and noone were interested in checking their databases to see for themselves (and you wonder why poker sites do not compete on rake when even high volume players care so little /images/graemlins/confused.gif).

Also, I pay $5000 a month in rake. Is the level of service fair in comparison with how much they make? Of course they are not. I really start to wonder why Lorinda and others talk about it being unfair to get involved in rakeback programs. She seem like a very reasonable and clearheaded person in other matters but in this particular case I think she is way out there. I can't imagine she is on the paylist.

[nnoobi]

I haven't seen this posted yet, but I believe I have a reasonable alternative.

What about just capping the amount of rake you pay each month at $100 or $250 or whatever amount is necessary.

Small players would be unaffected. Frequent players would be rewarded. Affliates would perhaps be damaged but not crippled if they removed rakeback.

For ring games, the rake schedule is multipled by percentage of players at the table who have not met the monthly rake requirement. If 7 players at table have not met the rake requirement, then the $1 pulled from a $20 pot would actually be $0.70 pulled.

--------Edit-----------
As implemented above, the benefit is diluted over the whole table. Small and Frequent players are rewarded equally. To reward Frequent players only the standard rake would be collected and the Frequent player's portion instantly credited to the account.

[grimel]

Fish: You only pay rake if you are winning so it's a GOOD THING to be paying rake.

Same logic that thinks a tax rebate is good forgetting the Gov has had the use of their money interest free.

It seems math and thinking past the next 5 minutes is beyond 90% of the current population.

[Dave H.]

Veresov started this thread by complaining about the rake at Party, stating that they were crooks, and asking whether anyone had determined their rake fees for the month.

1. "Exorbitant" is in the eyes of the beholder. I detest the rake fees as well, but obviously not enough to move elsewhere because of other benefits derived from the site. Party, like any other business, has a delicate balance to maintain. If the rake becomes too high in relation to the benefits, they will be forced to adjust it downward. But that won't happen, of course, unless enough customers like Veresov complain AND affect their bottom line in some way (like leaving for a competetive site with lower rake). It's no different than any other business.

2. While I happen to agree with you, veresov, that the fees are high, I don't agree that they are crooks. A "crook" would steal my money without my permission (like taxes for instance!). I'm giving it to them willingly in return for a service. And I will discontinue doing so whenever the return isn't what I expect.

3. Yes, I have looked at what I paid in April and yes, it was disgusting. But NOT disgusting enough. If/when it is, I will leave Party and go elsewhere.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've heard of $4 rake being pulled at $3/6 games..

[/ QUOTE ]

I played last weekend at a room that charged a $3 rake on every flop, $1 jackpot drop, and most players who dragged a pot tipped $1. That's $5 coming out of every pot, and this was a $3/$6 game.

And you know what? There were lots of pros and semipros who were glad to pay it and make money there day in and day out.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they were tipping it must have been a live room. There are no pro B&M 3/6 players. Can't be done.

--Zetack

[Mr. Graff]

[ QUOTE ]
2. While I happen to agree with you, veresov, that the fees are high, I don't agree that they are crooks. A "crook" would steal my money without my permission (like taxes for instance!).

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is not far from raising the rake without telling the customer. Am I wrong?

[veresov]

Mr Graff,

Thank you for your feedback! I am saying that the rake fees are outrageous and I agree with you that the service isnt worth $5000 per month. As soon as a rakefree model comes out, we the players should move to show our feelings about the current rake structure. We cannot let these guys rape us and let these affiliates think that their livelyhood is more important than the people playing at these sites. I know from speaking to my friends that it won't take much for them to leave a PartyPoker if the fees are reasonable.

[Wyers]

If a reputable rakefree site is established, I'd be the first to set up an account. However, I go as the fish go and, because they do not care to understand the concept of rake, it isn't likely they will find their way over.

The last thing I need to do is pay $50 - $100 month to get my ass kicked by a bunch of 2+2ers.

I can go to GamesGrid for that pleasure... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr Graff,

Thank you for your feedback! I am saying that the rake fees are outrageous and I agree with you that the service isnt worth $5000 per month. As soon as a rakefree model comes out, we the players should move to show our feelings about the current rake structure. We cannot let these guys rape us and let these affiliates think that their livelyhood is more important than the people playing at these sites. I know from speaking to my friends that it won't take much for them to leave a PartyPoker if the fees are reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

You still haven't answered my question.

[Synergistic Explosions]

Rake is the ultimate grinder.

Ten people get together with a thousand bucks each.

They play for 50 hours over five days, no rebuys allowed.

They play 15-30 with normal online rake charges being applied.

After 50 hours, the ten thousand they bought in with collectively now equals one thousand.

Rake just took 90% of the funds bought into this 50 hour game.

Is that fair?

This is what is now going on while you play online each and every day.

Rake is taking that type of money out of the player pool. It is grinding it away with no chance to lose.

Eventually, rake will always get most of the money put into the game, unless people win and leave quickly never to return again. If you stick around and play full time, rake will take much more than your starting bankroll each year. Sometimes rake will take much much more than your starting bankroll each year, or even each month in some cases.

You may be winning, and you may be happy even, but rake is taking away a large portion of your profits.

Rake is a cancer, no doubt about it.

[Mr. Graff]

As stated above most people, even 2+2'ers don't care about the rake. So naturally the sites have no incentive to lower it. Rake free sites have been tried before and they have failed miserably. No, if only competitive sites with lower rakes could persuade the players that rake matters in their advertising that would be the only way to change the current situation. But the thing is no site want to discuss rake because many players are not even aware they pay it.

[Wyers]

Rake is a cancer, no doubt about it.

I agree, SE. 100%

The problem is the following:

How do you sell the concept of a rake free site to the casual player? This player does not realize they are being raped. I don't know how you sell them on the idea of a monthly fee or a reasonable monthly cap if they believe you only pay rake on pots you win. That's if they are aware of the rake at all....

I know rake is the cancer but I don't see a cure on the horizon.

[grimel]

Rake is a necessary evil. Some sites (PARTY) take way too much. The key is to get a POPULAR site to set a reasonable rate (the site has to make $$ or it will fold) and take some of the business from the big rake sites.

[kdog]

[ QUOTE ]
If they were tipping it must have been a live room. There are no pro B&M 3/6 players. Can't be done.



[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it can. You just have to not mind living in your car and only eating the one sandwich a day that you can get with your comp points. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

What I meant was, "If the site didn't charge you money, they wouldn't be in business, if they wern't in business, you would make zero money."

[/ QUOTE ]

That's absurd. They could charge 1/10th and still be getting fabulously wealthy.

eastbay

[Dave H.]

Yes, I HAVE to agree with you there...it should have been made clear. However, and I'm not going to spend the time looking, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if, somewhere, it isn't stated that they have the right to raise it at their discretion and without informing us directly.

[LinusKS]

The answer is to support sites that offer rakeback to the player, and bonuses.

If you're not paying attention to the rake you're paying - minus rakeback and bonuses - you're just throwing your money away.

[ QUOTE ]
Rake is a cancer, no doubt about it.

I agree, SE. 100%

The problem is the following:

How do you sell the concept of a rake free site to the casual player? This player does not realize they are being raped. I don't know how you sell them on the idea of a monthly fee or a reasonable monthly cap if they believe you only pay rake on pots you win. That's if they are aware of the rake at all....

I know rake is the cancer but I don't see a cure on the horizon.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Folding Pete]

The rake we pay is ridiculous. I must be paying $4,500 a month to online sites in rake. This is what the monthly charge is for the service of supplying poker games.

Is it good value for money - no. People are comparing it to B&M poker and saying internet poker rooms charge less rake. If you play only 1 slow table on the internet that's fine. However most winning players are multi-tablers and you can't compare the two.

Bascially tremendous improvements in technology has allowed poker to be played at a much faster rate than in the B&M casinos. Instead of 40 hands an hour players, like me, are playing 250 hands per hour. The cost of an additional internet played hand is close to zero.

In many other business the impact of technology over the last 30 years has led to a much lower price to the consumer. Not, however, in the internet Poker market.

The efficiencies and savings generated by the new technology (computers & the internet - elimination of dealers, casino space etc...) are not being passed to the consumers.

Instead the internet poker site have used the new technology to reduce their costs exponentially (the cost of opening an additional table is virtually nil) passing virtually none of these savings on to the consumer.

For the consumer it's like puchasing a 2005 Dell PC and having to pay the price of a 1960 Cray Supercomputer.

Always be folding

Folding Pete

[iluzion]

[ QUOTE ]
The rake we pay is ridiculous. I must be paying $4,500 a month to online sites in rake. This is what the monthly charge is for the service of supplying poker games.

Is it good value for money - no. People are comparing it to B&M poker and saying internet poker rooms charge less rake. If you play only 1 slow table on the internet that's fine. However most winning players are multi-tablers and you can't compare the two.

Bascially tremendous improvements in technology has allowed poker to be played at a much faster rate than in the B&M casinos. Instead of 40 hands an hour players, like me, are playing 250 hands per hour. The cost of an additional internet played hand is close to zero.

In many other business the impact of technology over the last 30 years has led to a much lower price to the consumer. Not, however, in the internet Poker market.

The efficiencies and savings generated by the new technology (computers & the internet - elimination of dealers, casino space etc...) are not being passed to the consumers.

Instead the internet poker site have used the new technology to reduce their costs exponentially (the cost of opening an additional table is virtually nil) passing virtually none of these savings on to the consumer.

For the consumer it's like puchasing a 2005 Dell PC and having to pay the price of a 1960 Cray Supercomputer.

Always be folding

Folding Pete

[/ QUOTE ]

While yes, I entirely agree the amount we pay is outrageous, I do not agree it's not worth it. Sure, technology in this case leads us to higher costs, but it, overall, leads us to being MUCH more profitable (atleast with FAR less risk). Some internet players are capable of eight tabling 3/6 to 5/10. If they can consitantly beat those games at any rate, they are going to make a LOT more than most B&M players, even if they are paying more in rake. Still, I do believe our rake should be capped, but either way, its worth what I pay.

[SharkBait]

[ QUOTE ]
If you made that much back in rakeback, what must you have paid in rakes???? Think about it! The highest rakeback programs pay 35%.

And as far as them providing a site for me to play, they are charging entirely more then they need to manage a poker table!!!

How can you think it is okay to pay $2400.00 to play poker??? Are you for real??? You think they need to charge that much to stay in business? They could reduce those fees and still make a fortune. They have 70,000 active players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...the primary purpose of most businesses is to make money. Businesses price there products based on the laws of supply and demand. There, you now know everything there is to know about business. Please drop out of high school, skip college and become a professional poker player immediately...You are ready.

[bpb]

[ QUOTE ]
I just talked to ACTION poker support who now owns zerorake.com and he said that they closed it since they were bought and there was just too much money in raking the games!! Unreal, he is basically saying that until these idiots demand cheaper rates, they will continue to charge them high rake fees!!

You guys are freakin morons or affiliates trying to save your incomes!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Your posts are disgustingly insulting.

I will play wherever my hourly rate is maximized.

If I can make $20/hr playing rake free against very good players, or $80/hr against very bad players, but have to pay $50/hr in rake (netting $30/hr) .... where in the unholy [censored] do you think I'm going to play?

Hourly rate is the bottom line.

And I'm not an affiliate. I don't make a [censored] dime off of the rake. You are an [censored].

[bcblack]

I prop full time. My pay is 100% rakeback. I've played about 30 hours a week the last 3 months and earned $22k. My rakeback was $14k while I only won $8k. I would say rake makes a pretty big difference. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[grimel]

The cost of N+1 internet hands is near zero, but the cost of N+0.2(N) is not near zero. Party runs how many thousand tables? Adding 1 table isn't all that much, but adding the infrastructure to take 100 people datamining 4 tables while playing 4 tales and 100 people datamining 4 tables while playing somewhere else while .... is costly if nothing else just the bandwidth costs for online poker at a major site is outlandish.

Yes, Party is making a mint in rake. Other sites aren't charging as much AND offer approved rakeback plans. So, why are the high volume players still at Party? Party offers a service UB, Pacific, Absolute, Pokerstars, etc do NOT offer - mega numbers of FISH at all levels. They (Party) advertise in enough locations to keep the fish coming. The predators go where the food is. In this case, until someone offers a site where the sharks can equal or exceed their current bottom line Party can keep charging outrageous rake and the sharks will pay it.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]


Is it good value for money - no. People are comparing it to B&M poker and saying internet poker rooms charge less rake. If you play only 1 slow table on the internet that's fine. However most winning players are multi-tablers and you can't compare the two.

Bascially tremendous improvements in technology has allowed poker to be played at a much faster rate than in the B&M casinos. Instead of 40 hands an hour players, like me, are playing 250 hands per hour. The cost of an additional internet played hand is close to zero.

In many other business the impact of technology over the last 30 years has led to a much lower price to the consumer. Not, however, in the internet Poker market.

The efficiencies and savings generated by the new technology (computers & the internet - elimination of dealers, casino space etc...) are not being passed to the consumers.

Instead the internet poker site have used the new technology to reduce their costs exponentially (the cost of opening an additional table is virtually nil) passing virtually none of these savings on to the consumer.



[/ QUOTE ]

Actually this is not entirely accurate. How many .50/1.00 games do you see in a casino? That's right, none, because the cost is prohibitive relative to the rake that can be generated.

But the online cost savings allows the online sites to spread .50/1.00 and even lower. At low-to medium low is the rake a bear? Sure. But that doesn't mean small stakes players aren't deriving a benefit from the lower costs of running online tables.

--Zetack