ONLINE RAKE STRUCTURES AND THE DIRTY LITTLE SECRET

[Dingo Puppet]

It is estimated that 25% of online poker players make a profit while 75% don't. Who really knows if this is an accurate figure, but let's suppose it's somewhat accurate.

The reason why a higher number is not seen lays mainly in the rake structures now currently being used. Call it the price of operating a site for us to play on, but I call it the fleecing of online poker players to a larger degree.

Many many a poker player is signing up under affiliates who get up to 30% of YOUR rake in direct reimbursements. Many players are props who don't pay much of a rake if any. Some are even 'shills' working directly for the sites.

I ask is this really needed? Does the average poker Joe need to pay this overhead, or wants to? The answer is of course NO. We average Joes want to play at sites that cut down on this overhead, while still making a reasonable profit. Is it right for sights to profit by hundreds of millions per year at our expense?

I've seen estimates, that with a more equitable rake treatment, or fee system, up to 60% of online poker players could be making a profit. With a more equitable rake structure, 35% more players could enjoy a positive outcome than presently do. And the sites could still make a handsome profit, a reasonable profit.

When you are losing not to other players, but to the constant withdrawl of your funds through incessant high rakes, your experience can not on average be profitable long term. Or if profitable, it could be much much more profitable.

Online poker is inherently a much less overhead adventure when compared to B&M's. The savings could and should be passed on to us average Joes rather than lining the pockets of these few site investors. Trust me, they are making a killing at your expense, much more than fair would dictate.

It's time we spoke up and looked for alternatives. If you don't, nothing will change. I say support sites that move in the positive direction to lower your rake fees. Show the online poker sites that it really does matter to you.

Online poker should be fun, not a fleecing frenzy on the unsuspecting. This is not a prison like setting, don't take it up the butt when you don't have to!

Consider alternatives that are out there now, and the better ones that are in the pipeline for the future. Online poker rake structures WILL change, it's just a matter of how fast we consumers demand it. I say we start now!

[Lori]

Did Cyndie and Elysium have children?

Lori

[William]

So you're Dutch Boyds PR-man or are Dutch himself?

FWIW, I think he's a scumbag, and you will find out that most decent people in here feel the same way.
GO AWAY

[Dingo Puppet]

William,

I already expected to get lambasted for this post by every affiliate out there. But is that all you can say in response? Go away? Hmmm, makes me wonder how much heart you present day rake strcture lovers really do have.

What's good for a few isn't always whats best for the majority.........

[William]

What's good for a few isn't always whats best for the majority.........

Right on, Normally what's good for Dutch (the scumbag) is EXTREMELY bad for the majority

GO AWAY !!!!

[lefty rosen]

The market just isn't competitve enough if it were the rake would come down. I recall Paradise dropped their mano a mano rake in half, so that is a sign that these sites will drop their rake..........

[Dingo Puppet]

There are about 200 online poker sites out there now. Many use shared platforms of course, but the numbers continue to grow weekly if not daily. I have seen new sites that presently offer rake rebates to every player, however, these sites still don't attract the number of players to make them viable. Will they in the future? Let's hope so.

[RollaJ]

[ QUOTE ]
that with a more equitable rake treatment, or fee system, up to <font color="red"> 60%</font> of online poker players could be making a profit

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmmmmmm

[lefty rosen]

Those are nice breast rollj........Roflmao......

[Lori]

I have seen new sites that presently offer rake rebates to every player, however, these sites still don't attract the number of players to make them viable.

What does this tell you about most people's view of a site with no rake?

Lori

[Beach-Whale]

Could you please explain in detail why you are flaming Ujek? Am I missing something?

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you please explain in detail why you are flaming Ujek?

[/ QUOTE ]

Click on ujek's name. Click on show all user's posts. Read them. You'll see why.

[William]

He's trying to advertise for a new site, a Dutch Boyd's /images/graemlins/mad.gif new site. (make a search)

[Beach-Whale]

I don't see why. Really. Maybe I missed something important. He claims he's not the one you thinks he is.

He's pro lower rake, and con affiliates. So am I. What am I missing? I didn't read everything - did I perhaps miss some key post or sentence? Please direct me or explain.

[Beach-Whale]

I can't spot him "advertising". Not any more than I could've done if I discovered something that I liked. And a $30 cap per month sounds great. If it is too good to be true, I don't know.

Care to explain who Dutch Boyd is, and why everyone hates him?

[William]

Boyd had an online site that closed, and players money was never refunded, Boyd himself made a nice little profit.
You still want to try him? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[BreakEvenPlayer]

Could you please explain in detail why you are supporting Ujek.

[Lori]

Care to explain who Dutch Boyd is, and why everyone hates him?

Search pokerspot in this forum, all posts, and you will see why he isn't #1 on everyone's xmas card list.

Lori

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
What am I missing? I didn't read everything - did I perhaps miss some key post or sentence?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that he lies, twists words around, and has bouts where he has to post reems of gibberish are why he's just a troll.

If ujek has the same stance as you on those 2 issues, great. But then again, so do many others, and I highly doubt this should be adequate insulation from flaming.

[Beach-Whale]

Sounds like one should be careful. But how do you know that Ujek is in any way connected with Boyd? Maybe he just saw something that looked good, and didn't know who Boyd was, just like me?

Seems to me like you guys are jumping to conclusions. But maybe you aren't. That's why I ask you about these things, so that you can explain how you know he's connected to Boyd.

[William]

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

[Beach-Whale]

What has he lied about?

[lefty rosen]

Basically the other posters feel he is the gimp in Pulp Fiction, and the players will end up like Mr. Wallace in Pulp fiction without the happy ending......

[Dingo Puppet]

I'm not going to defend myself against those accusing me of promoting a site that doesn't even exist. Sheesh, these affiliates are really feeling threatened by the fear of losing their EZ money someday.

I say again, I am an average online poker player who has seen more of my money go down the drain in rakes than I have made in profits. I feel there's a better solution out there somewhere.

Of course, it wouldn't be hard to become an affiliate and leach off of others, but I find that reprehensible and refuse to join the pyramid scheme. Maybe I am stupid for that view, but at least I retain my dignity. I just want to play poker!

[Beach-Whale]

OK. Now I am almost certain that you guys are jumping to conclusions, as I feel that I am starting to get the same treatment that Ujek has gotten, and I know for sure that I am not in any way connected to this Boyd, or Ujek.

You are resorting to screamin at me instead of explaining what I don't understand. Maybe I am a retard, in your eyes. No need to be rude though.

[William]

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

[daryn]

what an excellent post

[Lori]

You are resorting to screamin at me instead of explaining what I don't understand

Ujek found this nice site.
It was explained that this nice site was owned by a known thief.
Ujek continued to say how nice it was.

Lori

[William]

How much explaining do you need? Can't you read? /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
What has he lied about?

[/ QUOTE ]

From this post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=547169&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;sb =5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1)

"Party Poker is probably going to close down sooner than later also. Their software definately has many fatal flaws that have been well documented here. Players have been fleeing in droves."

Party is growing by the week. If players are fleeing in droves, then even larger droves are migrating.

If you want more, just read all his posts. There's some gems.

[Homer]

William, there is no reason to be a dick to Beach-Whale when he is being perfectly nice to you.

[William]

William, there is no reason to be a dick to Beach-Whale when he is being perfectly nice to you

The man is thick as a wooden door, He keeps asking why. You explain and tell me how it feels /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[Dingo Puppet]

[ QUOTE ]
Ohh, ok, you're a loosing player.
I sometimes forget they exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I have done surprisingly well. I have made 600 times my starting bankroll in the 9 months I've been playing full time for a living. More than I ever expected.

Through all this playing though, I have realized now how much I have generated in rakes. I question is this truly equitable? Do sites need to make 100's of millions now that online poker is taking off to such a degree? At this rate of growth this will be a billion dollar income producing industry within two years. With more players they have a golden opportunity to now lower rakes instead of raising them. But you and I know they won't. They will pile up unheard of profits for as long as they can in the name of pure capitalism. But in the end, it is we, the average player who loses from this type of greed.

In the beginning, this type of rake structure was needed. But with the unimagined growth of online poker this year alone, the rakes could easily be lowered while the major sites still enjoy triple digit income increases.

As a consumer of a product, I look for savings to be passed on to me when the core price is lowered for the manufacturer. I shop around, and I will be shopping for new sites that offer me a substantial savings in rake.

I hope that made sense. It seems logical to me.

[Beach-Whale]

Thanks for the meat-and-bone explanaition, Lori.

If that is all the proof they have for Ujek being some evil associate of Boyd, I believe that I was right in my suspicions that they were jumping to conclusions. Ujek seems to be what he claims to me. Maybe I am wrong, but that's how things look like to me at the moment.

All I can say, after the explanations that I have gotten, is that the guys (e.g. William) calling Ujek names, mocking him, and so forth, really should cool down. I know one can get worked up sometimes - I do too - but this seems like fairly groundless accusations, and seems to me to have gone way too far. I am henceforth going to be much more careful of believing accusations on this forum than I feel that I have been up to this point.

[Beach-Whale]

It seems logical to me too, Ujek. You say many good things that I agree with. But this Boyd seems to be someone to be very cautious with, if what has been said of him is true, don't you agree? Not that I know what is true - one never does...

If you are the one you claim to be (and I believe that you are) please don't let these other guys get to you. But I don't think that you are (letting them get to you, i.e.).

[Ash, Housewares]

"Are all men from the future loud-mouthed braggarts?"

"Nope, just me baby.... just me."

[Lori]

Ujek, you just got Ashed.

Lori

[Dingo Puppet]

Beachwhale,

I just joined this forum a few weeks ago. My first post listed the five sites that closed down that day. I listed each site by name and then was accused of being a crackpot as some of the sites were skins of WPC and should be counted as one site. I was just going by the site listings on poker pulse which also listed them by name.

So after that, they have referred to me as being someone named Cyndi, then Mary, then they said I was related to a site called pokerworld because of my email address. Now they say I'm Dutch Boyd. Wow, I've been so many people and continue to morph with every new positng!

But the truth is, most of these posters that want me to have all these ulterior motives for posting are basically all affiliates of present day sites. They don't want anyone to rock the boat. On Partys own affiliate web site, they list that if an affiliate signs up 10 people per month, that affiliate will have a yearly income of over 135,000.
As you can see, that is serious money, and anything that suggests a change in rake structure threatens this income. For they recieve up to 30% of YOUR rake each and every day for as long as you play online. Why would they want to see changes coming? Answer is they don't. But I do.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
then they said I was related to a site called pokerworld because of my email address.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is yet another lie.

[Vehn]

wow your mom (http://myst.betterbox.net/secrets.html) sounds like a catch Jeremy, can you introduce me? Got any pix?

[Homer]

The man is thick as a wooden door, He keeps asking why. You explain and tell me how it feels

So what you are saying is that your way of dealing with people who are slow to learn something (and I am not necessarily saying that Beach-Whale is) is calling them stupid and asking them if they can read?

Don't become a teacher.

-- Homer

[William]

I won't.

[Dingo Puppet]

It never amazes me to see how these affiliates can steer a discussion to the point of mindless 'he said, she said' accusations. While at the same time never once addressing the underlying issues brought up in the original post.

As you can see, anything that threatens their income must be deflected with useless drivel, until the entire point becomes lost in misdirection.

I want to see rake reform!! Affiliates be damned!

[UncleDuke]

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen estimates, that with a more equitable rake treatment, or fee system, up to 60% of online poker players could be making a profit. With a more equitable rake structure, 35% more players could enjoy a positive outcome than presently do. And the sites could still make a handsome profit, a reasonable profit.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know enough about the Boyd/affiliate issues to comment on them, but regarding the above estimate:

Even with zero rake, where every penny bet goes directly to the players winning the pots, 60% winners is hard to fathom.
Doing the math, that would imply that the average loser loses 150% of what the average winner wins. Personally, I don't think this can be the case. It seems safe to say that many of the winning players continue to play for a long time (why not since they're making money at it) and hence win a fairly large amount. Except for compulsive gamblers or very wealthy people who play badly but don't care (there exist some of each but surely not enough to fund most of the winners), most people losing faster than the winning players win are going to give up after a while. Hence, more new fish would have to take their places, repeat. This would result in there having been more losers than winners rather than the reverse, even without taking a rake or fee into account.

On the other hand, if the 60% figure is meant to imply that the EV for all the players together could be positive, it's just plain impossible.

This ended up sounding a wee bit more pedantic than I intended. Sorry about that. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

-UB

[Dingo Puppet]

Uncle Duke,

No, don't apologize at all. You bring up some great points. I agree it is impossible to really quantify the percentage of winners to losers in any type of rake structure.

However, I just know how much I pay in rakes each day and it's substantial. I question how much sites really need to take to make a reasonable profit is all. Bigger sites with all that volume could easily lower rakes and make substantial sums, while at the same time attracting more people looking for lower rakes. It's a win win solution, but one they seem hesitant to make as of now.

Thanks for the great input on this thread!

[stripsqueez]

i think you make a great point

i play lots of contract bridge on-line - thats a far more complex game than poker and membership of the best on-line sites is either free or something like $10 a month - on-line poker has extra overheads like keeping your cash safe and keeping the games safe but the ammount the sites make is plainly outrageous

i assume that the marketing dollar simply carries too much power and its not possible to seriously undercut the current sites because of the enormous marketing outlay needed and also the affiliate structure, which seems a very effective marketing plan

i agree that it is a matter of time though until sanity and fairness comes to the on-line poker market - it will be driven by the huge profits that can be made by an operator smart enough and with enough capital to sell a low rake structure to the consumers - not by the punters themselves

amazing the crap responses you recieved - misguided zealots, more than affiliates i suspect - i frankly dont care if you are the king of scammers - your post raises a valuable and interesting topic fundamental to internet poker

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I just know how much I pay in rakes each day and it's substantial. I question how much sites really need to take to make a reasonable profit is all. Bigger sites with all that volume could easily lower rakes and make substantial sums, while at the same time attracting more people looking for lower rakes. It's a win win solution, but one they seem hesitant to make as of now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just my two cents, so...
How much they "need" is completely irrelevant. I have no idea where poeple get the idea that business is about being nice. It's not about making friends, it's about making money, and as much as you can. If they lowered rakes, they could still make substantial sums, but not as much as they are making now. An exorbantly high rake might discourage business, but the current rakes are not high enough yet to have that happen. This is evidenced by Party raising their rake while still growing their customer base. It would be absolutely asinine for them to lower their rake at this point; if anyone at Party suggested it in a meeting, I would hope (for Party's sake) that that person would be fired immediately on the grounds of insurmountable stupidity.

I sympathize with your plea to boycott the current sites that are charging what you consider to be high rakes. The idea is that if you don't like it, don't go there, but obviously the loss of a single person's business is inconsequential. You need may people to go along with it, so asking for a boycott would be a valid way to pursue that goal. "Our studies show that one person can not make a difference, no matter big a screwball she may be" - Roger Meyers, Jr.
However, there are three inherent problems in your argument (IMHO):
- The idea that we should boycott because the poker sites are not being fair to us is ridiculous. They are attempting to be successful, and doing a damn good job of it. They are not "fleecing" you, they are charging you, and being very upfront about it.
- You are not going to get much, if any, support here. The winning players (many of whom are the people on this site) do not have much problem outpacing the rake. Most losing players would be losers anyway. The number of currently losing players who would be winners if not for the rake has to be very small.
- Even if you are on the up-and-up, you sound like you're shilling for Dutch Boyd. Pretty much everyone agrees that he is a lying, cheating, stealing piece of s%!t. I would much rather take my changes with Party or Stars, they tell me up front how much money they are going to take from me. They may disappear with my money, but they have the added benefit of not having done it once already.

Mooney

[Dingo Puppet]

Stripsqueeze,

Thankyou very much for your reply. I knew I wasn't the only one who questions the amount these sites need to make in income. This is online poker, not B&amp;M afterall. I think it can and should be more reasonably raked with the lower overhead involved. Especially now with so many new players joining the fun.

[TheNutz]

Wow they are REALLY losing players (Party) they currently have 43,003 players even after all this crashing!

[daryn]

i've been ashed. no biggie...

i'm the greatest alive!! nobody is smarter than me! c'mon ash give it to me baby

[Dingo Puppet]

Moondog,

Thanks for your views and opinions. I don't call for a boycott of any sites. I play at all of em and the bigger sites offer games in numbers which is what I like about them.

My whole point is that we as players need to be aware of just how much we pay in rakes and look for sites that come along that are willing to work with us on this issue. If new sites, or old, see that players are looking for value they may just begin to change how they rake the pots in order to get players to come there. If we are quiet puppets who never voice a concern, the sites will never think this is an issue. I do, and I feel we all should. They may have us by the throat right now, but I'm not going down without a kick or two.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
- You are not going to get much, if any, support here. The winning players (many of whom are the people on this site) do not have much problem outpacing the rake. Most losing players would be losers anyway. The number of currently losing players who would be winners if not for the rake has to be very small.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never liked rake (who does?) but he brought up an interesting point I hadn't thought about. While we winning players outpace the rake, wouldn't it be even more beneficial to use for the average break even or slightely losing player to be able to win a little bit too? Not only would we make even more money from paying less rake, we also have more people who arn't as skilled playing more because they are now slightly winning/breaking even/only slightly losing, and we can now take more money from them before they stop playing poker because they lose all their money.


[ QUOTE ]
- Even if you are on the up-and-up, you sound like you're shilling for Dutch Boyd. Pretty much everyone agrees that he is a lying, cheating, stealing piece of s%!t.

[/ QUOTE ]

heh, I'm sure this is going to get me flamed (but thats kind of my point), I had never heard of dutch boyd until ESPN WSOP coverage (which is what got me playing poker in the first place). so I knew nothing about his failed poker site until way after the fact when I saw people bad mouthing him here and then read about it. I read an interview with him talking about the whole thing (if I wasn't lazy I'd find it and link it) and he doesnt seem like the evil a-hole every says he is. I've never heard anyone rationaly explain their side of the story, I've just seen them say bad things about him. He ran a buisness and it failed due to him getting screwed over by his credit merchant. How would any of us done anything differently in his shoes? You can't pay back money your company doesn't have. And everyone always forgets that a company is a seperate entity. everyone here talks about how they got screwed out of lots of money, don't you think boyd lost a whole lot more money?

anyway, I would love to see a rake free site or a substantially lower rake site take off. The sad fact is it will never happen, because the people who are key to its success (the fish) have absolutely ZERO clue about how they get raped by rake. The only hope is that a site comes out with really good software that attracts a decent user base, and also at the same time decides to have cheap rake. But I see party support solving problems and monkeys flying out of my butt before that happens.

[Dingo Puppet]

ROFLMOL!! Yeah, 43000 people for sure. I was being sarcastic within a thread actually. But I did run across several people who actually got 50 bucks put in their account recently. They said they haven't played in a while and got an email with the offer. I haven't played at Party since December and didn't get the offer! I guess they know I'm on Empire now. Or they still hate me for bitchin about the most recent rake increase. Probably that.

[Dingo Puppet]

Alobar,

Great post on many levels. I often think how a new site could attract enough players quickly to then attract more players who are attracted to the number of players. It seems impossible from watching new sites. Nothing really seems to work. They can offer the moon to attract players, yet still, only a handful show up, and I bet most of them are props. The big sites continue to grow and grow leaving everybody else in the dust.

So what will it take then? I think one thing is having trust that you will actually be able to cashout at anytime. Somehow a site needs to make that clear. If I was opening a site I would somehow advertise that a reputable third party would have total control of the players balance accounts, and all money at all times relating to players balances were safely held there. If that was made clear and believable, I would have no hesitation joining the smaller sites in order to give them a try and take advantage of their promotions.

Maybe they could actually grow the site then since players wouldn't have a feeling they may get screwed. Would you join a small site if you didn't have a fear that you might not get your money back? Would it make it easier to go after that sites promotions then? Seems to me it would.

So why don't they do it?

[Piers]

Personally I don’t think the rake is that big an issue. The number and softness of the games is more important.

If a higher rake means more advertising and more online poker players then that’s fine with me. Affiliates might be leeches, but they are often useful ones, bit like employment agencies.

Oh, I am much easier with Boyd than the others. He did steal about $300 from me, but I think it was mainly financial incompetence and fraud rather than theft.

[lefty rosen]

This was last fall or summer their CEO came on this board and offered a monthly surcharge of 100 dollars for the next few players who played X hours at their site. Sounded cool but when I downloaded the site they had three ghost town NL games and no limit games. (This was at around midnight EST 6am in Sweden where the site is based) So the marketing snafu was still a problem but this site was willing to go the extra mile that Party will never frankly do at this point.

[Mat Sklansky]

indiscriminately rude posters will be barred.

Mat

[Lunamondo]

If a person beats a (shorthanded) 10-20 game for 30 per 60 hands and it rakes 20, he makes a theoretical 10 per 60 hands that's too little to ever guarantee he wins. That's just one example. You should do some rake-profitability simulations to see the effect of the rake. On average one can be lucky if just half of the "profits" one makes of the game are raked; that's a 50% rake, a 50% cut.

The problem that goes with the high rakes is not only that they are bigger than the sites deserve (of course they can ask whatever they want and I can always not play as I have done at few areas of poker as it's not profitable or profitable enough), but the fluctuations can't be overcome without good luck until one wins one big bet or more per 60 hands.

[Dingo Puppet]

Lunamondo,

Your post was an eyeopener for me, I need to reread it several times to understand it fully I think. Could or would you care to expand in more detail exactly what you mean and how it applies to a low limit player also?

Thanks for the input!

[Dingo Puppet]

[ QUOTE ]
indiscriminately rude posters will be barred.

[/ QUOTE ]

But then that would be like spagetti sauce without the garlic! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[krazyace5]

[ QUOTE ]
heh, I'm sure this is going to get me flamed (but thats kind of my point), I had never heard of dutch boyd until ESPN WSOP coverage (which is what got me playing poker in the first place). so I knew nothing about his failed poker site until way after the fact when I saw people bad mouthing him here and then read about it. I read an interview with him talking about the whole thing (if I wasn't lazy I'd find it and link it) and he doesnt seem like the evil a-hole every says he is. I've never heard anyone rationaly explain their side of the story, I've just seen them say bad things about him. He ran a buisness and it failed due to him getting screwed over by his credit merchant. How would any of us done anything differently in his shoes? You can't pay back money your company doesn't have. And everyone always forgets that a company is a seperate entity. everyone here talks about how they got screwed out of lots of money, don't you think boyd lost a whole lot more money?



[/ QUOTE ]

We open our poker accounts, this is our money not the poker sites money right. So how come these people did not get there money back regardless of what happened with the site? If the site goes under how can it take the players accounts down with it? It should not even be on their books since it is not their money. Can someone explain this to me? Thanks

[MicroBob]

"with a more equitable rake treatment, or fee system, up to 60% of online poker players could be making a profit."


wow!! this is so true!!
a more equitable rake structure leads to 60% of all players showing a profit.
and if there was NO RAKE (such as is opposed by some amazingly well thought-out future sites) then that number would be up to 80% of all players showing win after win after win!!!
and if these sites offered bonuses ALONG with the elimination of rake then 92% of all players would be profitable!!

on top of that, if we were to do this and bring all the fish over from party with better quality games and better software, then 104% of all players will be profitable.

finally, if we tweaked that pesky blind structure a bit then we should be able to increase the number of winners to 112.4%.

anyone who claims these facts to be erroneous are clearly affiliates of the current major sites who just want to spread their propoganda and fleece the same old poor saps in the same old way.


thanks for spreading the word about how evil the current sites are and how great the new sites can be.....despite any silly mathematical evidence to the contrary.

[Lunamondo]

The rake might be less of a factor at low limits when there are worse players, while at high limits that might also be so as the rake is proportionally less. Just in the middle the online rake is more or less the same as before but the opponents are better.

What comes to the guaranteed level, I have run shorthanded simulations about fluctuations from a shorthanded game and it told that if one wins just one small bet (plus the rake) with that lineup, it won't guarantee a win for years if even then. The fluctuations that are hard to get rid of are just that much, anything above being guaranteed sooner or later during a reasonable timetable. I don't play shorthanded games where my expectation might be just one small bet per 60 hands.

[Dingo Puppet]

[ QUOTE ]
finally, if we tweaked that pesky blind structure a bit then we should be able to increase the number of winners to 112.4%.


[/ QUOTE ]

Microboy, the only thing you left out was the "if pigs could fly" argument. So I take it you are for rakes at the present rates, correct? Fair enough.

[Lawrence Ng]

Hello Ujek,

Very interesting post you have put up and though I do not agree with everything you say I think propose a very hot and interesting topic worthy of flame and discussion. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

I am curious as to where you obtain your absolute figures of %25 of players making a profit and 75% losing?

Is the rake too high on the top 3 poker sites at the moment? Surely so. Given the number of hands dealt per hour and the ability of have an infinite number of tables per site makes it so that the top 3 online poker sites have a mega multi-million dollar monthly profit.

Is this unfair? Well, online poker has been existence for a good number of years now and the player base seems to be content for the quality and service offered by the top 3 sites enough that they are willing to continue to play.

The laws of supply and demand work themselves well here I believe. If there is even a slight shift in the rake for the top 3 sites, I am sure there will be a very noticeable movement with player number bases from site to site.

Having said all this, I think there are other important factors to consider when playing online poker.

Integrity, fun, safety, and the fact that I will actually get paid make it a priority on my list before a more evenly distributed number of winning/loser players will matter to me.

Sometimes, however, I do wonder if there is a collusion system in effect with the top 3 sites. But each site offers different rewards and bonuses to attract different types of poker players.

I for one would love see a rake rebate system after so many hands played. But I find it highly unlikely to think it will happen so.

[TheGrifter]

Yeah, bar someone for a couple rude posts instead of barring someone who obviously has a hidden (spammy) agenda.

Just reading these posts makes it incredibly obvious that I'm being advertised to in some way.