PDA

View Full Version : Increase in Party/skins rake at 6-max

spamuell
09-01-2005, 06:03 PM
Looks like they're raking $3 when the pot is over $60 (according to http://www.partypoker.com/games/rake.html) now.

They've just done this unannounced it seems, is there anything we can do about it? I'm outraged.
krazyace5
09-01-2005, 06:09 PM
What was it before?
Uglyowl
09-01-2005, 06:10 PM
Seems standard. Pokerstars has a max of $3/pot for 6-max
spamuell
09-01-2005, 06:10 PM
Previously it was max $2 at 6-max, as the rake was divided up against less people.

What with pokerroom first and now this, this is an extremely worrying trend.
spamuell
09-01-2005, 06:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]
All depends on whether there is a full table at 6-max.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah that's something, but it's still terrible compared to before.

Assuming the tables on Party's site are right anyway, they have been wrong before.
Uglyowl
09-01-2005, 06:13 PM
[ QUOTE ]
this is an extremely worrying trend.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not too worried. Everyone has seen what a cash cow poker sites have become. If some sites get out of hand, others will benefit.

Remember Paradise used to be king. The power will change if this sh.. continues.
sammy_g
09-01-2005, 06:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I am not too worried. Everyone has seen what a cash cow poker sites have become. If some sites get out of hand, others will benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]
not if no one notices. 95% of players won't.
Bellagibro
09-01-2005, 06:29 PM
FU Party. I pay enough rake already. Muthafuckas
grouchie
09-01-2005, 06:53 PM
it appears as though the non 6 max games rake has changed as well....
i've been noticing 5 cent rakes with pots under $2 at the NL 50 tables...

or have i just never noticed before?
TheHammer24
09-01-2005, 06:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
it appears as though the non 6 max games rake has changed as well....
i've been noticing 5 cent rakes with pots under $2 at the NL 50 tables...

or have i just never noticed before?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did we not establish that this has always been the case?
billyjex
09-01-2005, 07:14 PM
man, this sucks.

sad thing is, there's nothing we can do as high volume players. we're too small, and party sucks at listening to anybody anyways. it's not like we're all going to boycott the goldmine that is party 6-max.
Bellagibro
09-01-2005, 07:20 PM
I'll be making the switch from 6max to full or maybe even limit to NL. I am so pissed off. This could easily cost me another 3K a month or so.
Allinlife
09-01-2005, 07:23 PM
someones gotta do something about this before we get used to the 3$ and soon to be 4$..
kurosh
09-01-2005, 07:27 PM
So who's going to step up and do something about this? It's about time.
FlFishOn
09-01-2005, 07:28 PM
Don't like Party? Quit yer bitchin and go elsewhere. How hard is that to figure?
bpb
09-01-2005, 07:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Looks like they're raking $3 when the pot is over $60 (according to http://www.partypoker.com/games/rake.html) now.

They've just done this unannounced it seems, is there anything we can do about it? I'm outraged.

[/ QUOTE ]

<sarcasm>
Awesome! More rakeback for me!
</sarcasm>


(You know somebody out there is thinking that)
Allinlife
09-01-2005, 07:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Don't like Party? Quit yer bitchin and go elsewhere. How hard is that to figure?

[/ QUOTE ]
you are so right, how did we not think of that idea?
bottomset
09-01-2005, 08:18 PM
um I just watched some 10/20 6max its still capping at $2rake

then watched a fulltable running 4handed again just $2 rake

guess it only applies to 6handed, 5handed caps at 2
bpb
09-01-2005, 08:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
um I just watched some 10/20 6max its still capping at $2rake

then watched a fulltable running 4handed again just $2 rake

so false alarm or taking effect later

guess it only applies to 6handed, 5handed caps at 2

[/ QUOTE ]

Hands with 5 or fewer players are still capped at $2. They moved the threshold for the $2/$3 rake from 7 players to 6.
Uglyowl
09-01-2005, 08:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
um I just watched some 10/20 6max its still capping at $2rake

then watched a fulltable running 4handed again just $2 rake

so false alarm or taking effect later

guess it only applies to 6handed, 5handed caps at 2

[/ QUOTE ]

If there are 6 or more players they cap at $3.

If the table is not full then it caps at $2.
TeeJayORTj
09-01-2005, 08:34 PM
Some 5 handed tables would sure be sweet then.
chezlaw
09-01-2005, 08:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
um I just watched some 10/20 6max its still capping at $2rake

then watched a fulltable running 4handed again just $2 rake

so false alarm or taking effect later

guess it only applies to 6handed, 5handed caps at 2

[/ QUOTE ]

If there are 6 or more players they cap at $3.

If the table is not full then it caps at $2.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once the good players realise this, will full tables or tables with 4/5 players be more profitable?

chez
witeknite
09-02-2005, 12:02 AM
I did the painstaking job of counting how much the extra rake would have cost me in 46k hands at 3/6 6-max. This is taking into account the pots where there were less than 6 at the table. The final count is 0.14BB/100. Not as bad as initially feared, but it still blows.

WiteKnite
Freudian
09-02-2005, 12:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]

They've just done this unannounced it seems, is there anything we can do about it? I'm outraged.

[/ QUOTE ]

The most powerful statement you could make would to take your business elsewhere, but you and I know Party won't care.

The price for fish just went up a bit, but there will still be plenty of buyers.
timprov
09-02-2005, 12:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]

The most powerful statement you could make would to take your business elsewhere, but you and I know Party won't care.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't care, but I know the lack of worrying about WTF they're going to do next has enriched my quality of life.
Freudian
09-02-2005, 12:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The most powerful statement you could make would to take your business elsewhere, but you and I know Party won't care.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't care, but I know the lack of worrying about WTF they're going to do next has enriched my quality of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Each to their own. I play for money and once money is better elsewhere I will be elsewhere.
GoblinMason (Craig)
09-02-2005, 12:34 AM
This is [censored] terrible.

/images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif
Escape
09-02-2005, 01:29 AM
Sigh...I honnestly thought paying 1000+ a month in rake would be enough for a part time player. Guess not.
lorinda
09-02-2005, 09:39 AM
Deleted to avoid flame war. I can't be bothered /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Lori
Mr. Graff
09-02-2005, 09:57 AM
I wonder what your thoughts are on Party increasing their prices (rake) without informing their customers. Do you think it is ethical?

I remember you always thought it was unethical for players to take advantage of rake back.
lorinda
09-02-2005, 10:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder what your thoughts are on Party increasing their prices (rake) without informing their customers. Do you think it is ethical?

[/ QUOTE ]

My thoughts on this are in the archives from a previous time it happened, I'm against it.

Lori
Mr. Graff
09-02-2005, 11:01 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder what your thoughts are on Party increasing their prices (rake) without informing their customers. Do you think it is ethical?

[/ QUOTE ]

My thoughts on this are in the archives from a previous time it happened, I'm against it.


[/ QUOTE ]
I am too. And I can honestly say I feel no guilt whatsoever about taking advantage of rake back deals. These guys make thousands off me with very little effort. They do not care enough about me as a customer to respond to my e-mail requests. They do not inform me when they raise their prices.