party big games

[jomatty]

does anyone know why these are not on skins, or if this may change?
matty

[highlife]

$5 rake, and likely not.

[Jeffage]

I really dislike the $5 rake. I mean, ok, if you want to increase it, how about $4. They are charging 66% more than the online norm for these games! If the games are butter soft, maybe I'll play anyway. But if not, why bother?

Jeff

[Ezcheeze]

I don't get why everyone is complaining about the rake. At 50-100 the rake is in proportion with a $3 rake at 30 60 and at 100-200 it's a smaller rake (proportionately). So Party has (yet again) reduced their rake when adding a higher limit game.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get why everyone is complaining about the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because from my understanding it is lower on other sites.

[capone0]

In comparison to rakes elsewhere (Stars and UB), the rake is high. I believe the highest rake online at the major sites is now the Stars 50/100 and 100/200 Tables. Imagine if they play 80 hands an hour. That means on average 2 bb = 400 / hour are taken off the table. I know at lower limits, it's much higher % wise, but paying 400 dollars an hour to play poker for a table is kinda high for online, isn't it?

[Jeffage]

Say you play 100-200 for a living. You play 40 hours a week in full games on Party. Discount any other factors and hypothesize you win 10% of hands dealt, all at full rake. Say 80 hands an hour. That's 40 an hr in rake you pay or 1600 a week ($76,800 per year). At a site that tops the rake out at $3, the same player would pay 24 an hr, 960 a week or 46080 a year. Much more money is coming off the table. It's a bad deal for players esp. when compared to the competition.

Jeff

[Your Mom]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get why everyone is complaining about the rake. At 50-100 the rake is in proportion with a $3 rake at 30 60 and at 100-200 it's a smaller rake (proportionately). So Party has (yet again) reduced their rake when adding a higher limit game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your location says it all.

[Ezcheeze]

[ QUOTE ]
I know at lower limits, it's much higher % wise, but paying 400 dollars an hour to play poker for a table is kinda high for online, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think it is wrong then you should think its even more wrong for the lower limnits. The amount relative to the real world doesn't really matter. It's the ratio of the rake to the limit you're playing that counts.

I understand that there are other sites that have a cheaper rake and this is a valid argument, but it's illogical to think the rake at 100-200 is worse than the rake at 30 60.

As far as the other sites go, those games can't be counted on to run 24/7. The party games will run 24/7 on lots of tables if they add more and the games will be better than most of the games at similar limits on other sites. I'm pretty sure that of the poeple who play 50-100 and higher and are currently complainging about the rake, almost all of them would play on party if they didn't cap the number of tables.

Sure it would be nice if party just said "ok this is the maximum we'll charge ever for any higher limit" but it's not reasonable to expect it. I imagine the other sites have a small rake to encourage higher limit games that aren't stable. They are afraid to increase it becuase those games might dry up all together. Party doesn't have this problem and if the other sites had the player pool party does then I'm pretty sure they'd have a higher rake.

[capone0]

Why does Party have to be the exception? 3 Dollar Max is true at the other 2 major sites. As Jeffage says, look at the results. The difference is 30k a year for a full time player. % wise it might be small, but if your paying 40 bucks an hour to play poker instead of 24 it's a big difference.

[Ezcheeze]

[ QUOTE ]

Say you play 100-200 for a living. You play 40 hours a week in full games on Party. Discount any other factors and hypothesize you win 10% of hands dealt, all at full rake. Say 80 hands an hour. That's 40 an hr in rake you pay or 1600 a week ($76,800 per year). At a site that tops the rake out at $3, the same player would pay 24 an hr, 960 a week or 46080 a year. Much more money is coming off the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again this makes no sense. You are saying that the 100/200 player will pay the same per year proportionately as a 30 60 player on party pays. Since you agree thats true, then whats the problem?

[ QUOTE ]
It's a bad deal for players esp. when compared to the competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should have said "It's a bad deal for players ONLY when compared to the competition." This and the fact that other sites have cheaper rake are the only arguments in this thread that make any sense.

In my opinion the quality of play at party will make up for the increased rake compared to other sites. I could be wrong about this, it's just a guess. But my original point was that most of the complaints are on completely illogical grounds.

[Ezcheeze]

I'm not saying they have to be the exception. They have the luxury of being the exception. I just don't get why everyone is complaining about it like its unexpected or surprising. Do poeple actually think party SHOULD reduce the rake? I don't see any reason why they should as I'm sure they don't. I wish they would but theres no reason for them to.

[flub]

If you don't like it then don't play it. I'd rather have the option to play 100/200 with a 5 rake at Party then not having that option at all.

Also, the crypto sites have a 3 pound rake which is about 10% more expensive then the $5 party rake.

-f

[Nigel]

If you and everyone else didn't play the 100/200 with the $5 rake, I'm sure you'd very soon have the option of playing the Party 100/200 with a $3 rake.

If nobody complains, they obviously won't change it.

Nigel

[Jeffage]

You should pay LESS proportional rake when moving up in limits. Look at every single cardroom in this country for further clarification.

Taj/Borg Time Charges
10-20: 5 per half
15-30: 6 per half
20-40: 7 per half
40-80: 8 per half
50-100: 9 per half
80-160: 10 per half (I think)

By your rationale, I guess I should pay $40 per half hour to play 80-160 at Borgata? Cut me a break....the games would dry up and die.

Jeff

[Steve Giufre]

Do they let you play more than 2 at once? Im in two, and Im having trouble sitting in the third.

[Bellagibro]

Party is all about scooping the most dough. People will pay $5 if they have to. I can't see why I should play 50-100 with a $5 rake when I can play 30-60 for max $3.

[Ezcheeze]

This is not my rationale at all. It's reasonable for party to add a higher limit, 100-200, and slightly reduce the rake proportionately when compared to the next lower limit.

What you did was compare an 80-160 game to a 10-20 game and you left the rake exacly proportional instead of reducing it as you went up in limits.

On top of all this we are talking about PARTY not live poker games in any place. The point is poeple will play for a $5 rake as is evident by 2 full tables always running with a long list. So if poeple are going to pay this at party, even though other sites offer less, then why should they reduce it? If you are against it enough to not want to play the game then don't play whatever, but claiming it's unfair or "wrong" in some way is just irrational.

For those of you complaining that the competition is tougher at the higher limit implying this is a "bad deal" remember that it's actually lower at 100 200 than 30 60.

I think this whole thread is an interesting social experiment. I like the idea of alot of the better players sticking to their "morals" or whatever you want to call it, leading them to only play higher limits on other sites or to play lower limits on party, leaving me with lots of fish to reel in /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

Unfortunately for me, I suspect most of the players who can succeed at 100 200 level are going to think about the situation rationally and will stick to the higher limit as long as the fish are there and the rake is better than lower limits.