the rake in poker

[Ray Zee]

since most regular players play at least above average, it follows that the rake is the biggest deternination of why people lose in games. bad players lose to the rake and good players. medium good players tend to go broke after some time as the rake catches up to them and depletes their starting bankroll.
expenses are the main reason more players dont win and the winners dont win alot.
players that put in major hours pay between ten thousand and fifty thousand dollars a year just in rake depending on what and how much they play. you have to win that just to be even. so any cut in the rake adds that amount plus to your bankroll. the plus comes fom additional money that stays on the table instead of dissapearing.

[ZeeJustin]

Is norake.org paying you for that post?

On a less cynical note, it would be nice to see a rakeless future for online poker. At the same time, PartyPoker is unfortunately far more profitable (for experts and smalltime winners alike) than any low rake alternatives.

[Tosh]

[ QUOTE ]

players that put in major hours pay between ten thousand and fifty thousand dollars a year just in rake depending on what and how much they play. you have to win that just to be even. so any cut in the rake adds that amount plus to your bankroll. the plus comes fom additional money that stays on the table instead of dissapearing.

[/ QUOTE ]

With online poker those numbers are tiny in comparison. I paid 4k in rake over the last 3 weeks of June and I'm sure there are those paying a fair bit more than that.

[Inthacup]

players that put in major hours pay between ten thousand and fifty thousand dollars a year just in rake

With the ease of multitabling, paying 100k a year in rake is fairly easy. I'm sure a few people on these boards pay over 200k.


Cup

[TazQ]

I pay over $50/hr in rake. It sucks.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure a few people on these boards pay over 200k.


[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it. Most of the 6-8 tablers go skimpy on the hours. I cannot blame them for it, it's very grueling and trying, yet monotonous at the same time.

[Losing all]

Is there a follow up coming? If not thanks for the rake for beginers lesson. Can you explain the small and big blind to me?

[Syntax]

You mentioned "expenses", and I understand that's what drives the rake up in B&M cardrooms. Dealer pay and floor space, etc. How can online cardrooms justify the same rake? They charge that much only because they can. If they charged a higher rake, players would just stick to live play. I believe they could charge a helluva lot less, but they can also get the same $3, so why not?

I wish I could find the overhead day to day cost of operating an online cardroom. I would like to see portion of the rake is actually justified by those expenses.

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a follow up coming? If not thanks for the rake for beginers lesson. Can you explain the small and big blind to me?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is harsh, but completely true.

When I read this post, I was thinking about how this topic has been discussed 100 times, yet this thread will probably get 100 responses since Ray Zee started it.

-- Homer

[Losing all]

It's "justified" in that if you don't like it you can take your business elsewhere. Which at the moment means a single on again, off again 2/4 game at a site that could go belly up at any time.

[Losing all]

Maybe I wouldn't have taken it as insulting if it didn't come from one of the better players in the world? My brother is a national champ kickboxer, he doesn't punch me in the face every time I walk by.

[Syntax]

I know you were being condescending but "justified" wasn't the best choice of words for me. A much more appropriate phrase would have been "markup".

[Dingo Puppet]

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

[Thythe]

Why does everyone think having "zero rake" is a step in the right direction? If Best Buy started giving away all of their store would that also be a step in the right direction? Why shouldn't card rooms charge the equilibrium price for rake?

The market is quite advanced and moves quickly to adjust to various conditions in the world such as technological changes, droughts, etc. Prices we see in stores are not just arbitrary guesses by business managers. They are an indication of the supply and demand of various services.

Most people here would know that in plotting demand we will have price on the y-axis and quantity on the x-axis. Given an increase in demand then, holding supply constant, we will see an increase in price and an increase in quantity. This is exactly what has happened with Party Poker in the last years. As people flocked to the site given a pretty stable amount of quality cardrooms, rake went up. It is inevitable. It isn't Party Poker screwing us over. The rake reflects the true conditions of the market.

If they were to decrease their rake, they would find an excess in demand which they may not be able to handle with their current software (we've even seen tournys crash due to an excess of people! Imagine if they decreased the rake of these tournys). Likewise if they increase it more, there would be an excess of supply. It's Econ101 people!

Edit to include that I am now an old hand! Yeeeaaah

[tyfromm]

[ QUOTE ]


When I read this post, I was thinking about how this topic has been discussed 100 times, yet this thread will probably get 100 responses since Ray Zee started it.

-- Homer

[/ QUOTE ]

Who the hell is Ray Zee? What has he done for us lately? No one plays stud anymore. Hes just a gun toting Montana weirdo.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]

If they were to decrease their rake, they would find an excess in demand which they may not be able to handle with their current software (we've even seen tournys crash due to an excess of people! Imagine if they decreased the rake of these tournys). Likewise if they increase it more, there would be an excess of supply. It's Econ101 people!


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think them offering a multi that is 150+11 instead of 150+12 is going to make one person decide to play it who normally wouldn't. Or even 150+5 for that matter.

Likewise, I do not think relating rake costs to economic models about supply and demand is totally fair and accurate. Where as most people who go out to buy a new television generally know what the "going price" of a TV is, new poker players are unaware of rake and its implications on the game. We've been through it many times already that a new player does not understand how 20 cents taken out of a $10 pot is going to effect their long term results versus 25 cents from a $10 pot. You cannot measure supply vs demand when the customer is unaware and clueless.

[Syntax]

Don't be so hard on "Losing All". He must be an affiliate and realizes that he is about to go through some very tough times and is feeling stressed at the moment. The livelihood of bottom feeding off the rake of his sign ups is about to be swept right out from underneath him. He's "losing all" as one might say. Just try to have a little understanding for the poor guy /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot measure supply vs demand when the customer is unaware and clueless.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the law of supply vs demand has very little to do with whether or not the consumer has a clue.

Jimbo

PS: And for those insulting Ray Zee, they are truly the clueless.

[Thythe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If they were to decrease their rake, they would find an excess in demand which they may not be able to handle with their current software (we've even seen tournys crash due to an excess of people! Imagine if they decreased the rake of these tournys). Likewise if they increase it more, there would be an excess of supply. It's Econ101 people!


[/ QUOTE ]I don't think them offering a multi that is 150+11 instead of 150+12 is going to make one person decide to play it who normally wouldn't. Or even 150+5 for that matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary, it is the people on these borders who influence price the most. Best Buy sells millions upon millions of DVDs every year. If say the price is $20 and no one would change their buying habits if the price was booted up to say $20.10, they should go ahead and do it.

As for your second point, it is pretty much entirely accurate. Economic models do typically assume perfect information and you are right that the average poker player doesn't really have any idea of the prices elsewhere. That being said, I think a lot of the model still holds...I will think about this further, though.

[Losing all]

I'm not an affiliate, prop, or shill for any site. Not even UB. Thanks for looking out for me, though.

[Syntax]

Im my town, gas is about $2.03 a gallon. There are 50 different stations and the prices vary by less then .03 If you drive a few exits up the interstate, you can find it a $1.90/gal. In other states, I hear of it as low as $1.70/gal. So, if selling gas is still profitable at $1.90, wtf happened to the competion in my area?

Why arent the gasoline prices driven down by competition within each region. Why does every cardroom whether they have a 100 players or a hundred thousand still charge the same rake?

I think its a little bit of an implied price fixing. No one wants to lower the rake now because once they do, there will be no turning back.

[Dingo Puppet]

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

[_2000Flushes]

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot measure supply vs demand when the customer is unaware and clueless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you can. The customer doesn't have to know all (or any) of the alternative prices to be able to decide whether he finds one particular price worthwhile. Once a competetor makes his lower price more widely known, it could have an impact on demand, but the principles still apply.

It's a fairly open market, so there is little to regulate Party's rake except their motivation to make a profit. Their overhead cost is irrelevant, so there's not much hope for arguing for a "fair" rake.

That said, I hear Absolute might relocate to Cuba where their rake will be only high enough to cover food and housing costs.

-2kF

[Syntax]

You can buy DVD's at Best Buy for $20 or you can get them for $9 at Columbia House. You get that price because you agree to buy at least 7 DVD's. It's a matter of knowing what your options are. Not a lot of people realize how much better deal they can get at Columbia House.

However, It shouldnt be too hard to get the word out to the poker community. Once a site with no rake is the biggest cardroom, everyone will go there if for just taht simple reason alone.

[Frogger]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I wouldn't have taken it as insulting if it didn't come from one of the better players in the world? My brother is a national champ kickboxer, he doesn't punch me in the face every time I walk by.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh... My.. God.. I almost pissed myself when I heart that. Something about Punching IN THE FACE is funny. In the Face...

Oh I crack myself up.

[Syntax]

well, that went right over your head

[Thythe]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a follow up coming? If not thanks for the rake for beginers lesson. Can you explain the small and big blind to me?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha, very funny and very true. I myself have already posted here twice while staying out of the debate up until this point.

[Sundevils21]

Fact: partypoker's rake is too high
Fact: people play there anyway
Fact: people(including myself) will continue to play there, regardless

I play low limits so a big percentage of my pots go to the rake. I only continue to play party because of the players. If any site(rake free or not) can even compare with the quality of low limit players at party, I would switch. But I'm not going to sit at a game with a bunch of rocks just because of the lower rake.

[MMMMMM]

"Is there a follow up coming? If not thanks for the rake for beginers lesson. Can you explain the small and big blind to me?"


There sure seem to be a lot more mouthy posters on 2+2 these days than there used to be.

[Syntax]

[ QUOTE ]
Fact: people(including myself) will continue to play there, regardless

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If any site(rake free or not) can even compare with the quality of low limit players at party, I would switch.

[/ QUOTE ]

What happened to "regardless"?

[Ray Zee]

i agree completely. play where the games are best. but be aware that worse games at lesser rakes can be more profitable. hope dearly that those new places develop and provide competition. thats what will help us all.
my post was basic but i saw a few people saying in the zero rake thread that it didnt matter and a low or no rake site wasnt better. it is way better and would make each winner much more each year. there are many readers of this forum that dont play four tables at a time and ten hours a day. i was directing my comments to them mostly as i thought the more experienced would know that.
i am totally surprised to see from players that i mistakenly thought had a good grasp on poker such resonses and indifference to the rake. i am not talking about you sun devil.

[Drunk Bob]

Got an investment in ZeroRake.com? /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[MicroBob]

while i agree with what you are saying as a whole, i think there is a big difference between a fish's general indifference to the rake....and my indifference to a totally new and unproven site that is promising to save every player hundreds (or thousands) of dollars.


i have not read all of the other threads regardinmg the new site....so maybe there really are a number of players around here who are indifferent to the influence of rake.

but i suspect that many of the players who are indifferent to this new site are merely skeptical of its chances of succeeding.


however, your point about slightly tougher games with no rake being more profitable than slightly fishier games with a brutal rake is obviously accurate.

to that end, i hope the new site takes off....i'll happily sign up once i hear reports of reasonably decent games and hassle-free cash-outs.
but right now, i'm not entirely convinced that the fish will find their way.

[Drunk Bob]

RakeZero.com at2:01 EDST has 6 players at 1 1/2$ holdem table.

Average pot $5.71.

[Drunk Bob]

getting to be laggish up to$5. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
82 at 2:15 EDST

[Losing all]

I don't know. I try to get along and show respect to everyone here. I've had a few problems, but thats mostly because I'm set on my ways(re politics), and have a pretty sick sense of humor.

If he was trying to add something new or help someone out with his post, I was out of line. At first glance it seemed like he was talking down to "us" in a very smug manner. I was most likely wrong, and I'm man enough to eat crow. In the future I'll do my best to keep my opinions to myself.

[Awesemo]

I don't see why there wouldn't be more fish at a free rake site potentially. The losing players will lose their money slower and the break-even players, who are drained by the rake will stay longer. I couldn't believe that any person would participate in a site that had a standard rake instead to one that was cheaper to play on, excepting the player base issue. Eventually, I predict that the free rake sites will be considerably more profitable than the standard ones.

[Lunamondo]

Even many educated players can't make a difference between a good game and a bad game, not to mention a good rake and a bad rake.

To most (tighter or not) players the rake is just a small percentage taken from the pot (you can go to the table and see this fact yourself; it's only a tiny piece taken from the pot), and so has an insignificant effect.

I see a huge amount of (new or some sort of savant idiots) educated players playing at tight sites and tight tables and paying up to double rake.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why there wouldn't be more fish at a free rake site potentially.

[/ QUOTE ]


because they cant figure out that 30 bucks a month is a better deal then the house taking a buck or 2 from each pot.

[_2000Flushes]

No, really ...

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=inet&Number=471685&Forum=A ll_Forums&Words="who%20the%20hell%20are%20you"&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=471497&Search=true&whe re=bodysub&Name=83&daterange=1&newerval=10&newerty pe=y&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post471685 (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=inet&Number=471685&Forum=A ll_Forums&Words=)

-2kF

[Drunk Bob]

columbia house now thats a real blast from the past.

32 or so years ago I signed up for both their book and 8-Track Clubs.

Their books fell apart and the 8 tracks broke after 10 or 15 plays.

So I say up your ass Time Warner@.


And they still wonder why I don't have cable.

[gliam]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why there wouldn't be more fish at a free rake site potentially.

[/ QUOTE ]


because they cant figure out that 30 bucks a month is a better deal then the house taking a buck or 2 from each pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is exactly right. The typical uneducated player is just not going to pay a 'fee' to play poker, nor will they realise that its a better deal, just like they wont learn to stop calling big PF raises with AJo.

I predict the rake free sites wont work, for the same reason they invented rake in the first place, its a concealed charge, fishy player will not ever get it.

[morgant]

this thread has taken a classic zoo turn to nonsense, after reading that link 2kf, i was curious as to the whereabouts of cyndie. is she reincarnated as someone else, or am i clueless?

[Drunk Bob]

I have seen some claims on this site but this one is impossible.

to pay $50 /hr in rake at an online table you would have to play 1667 hands per hour.
/

[Tosh]

You have some serious error in your calculation somewhere. A lot of players are paying in excess of $50 an hour in rake.

[Fish Stalker]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why there wouldn't be more fish at a free rake site potentially. The losing players will lose their money slower and the break-even players, who are drained by the rake will stay longer. I couldn't believe that any person would participate in a site that had a standard rake instead to one that was cheaper to play on, excepting the player base issue. Eventually, I predict that the free rake sites will be considerably more profitable than the standard ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

If casual players really cared about such things as rake, they would also care about being losing players, and would do one of the following:

1) stop playing (break even is +EV versus being a losing player)
2) learn how to play, becoming a winning player.

The fact that they don't do these, shows that they are really just playing for fun. What they lose (both in rake and from bad play) is the cost of their entertainment.

[DarkKnight]

Many of you are missing an important point.

If rake is decreased the fish with limited bankrolls will play more because less money will be leaving the tables.


DK

[ctv1116]

Some people pay tens of thousands of dollars a year in rake, but for the casual micro-limit player (the vast majority) $30 a month is significantly more than what they probably pay in rake. If the typical player only wants to deposit $50 to Party Poker, why would they deposit $50 to ZeroRake when $30 of it gets eaten up by the "membership."

Granted, Ray makes a fantastic point. Because the game does play rake free (the membership fee is a sunk cost), when ZeroRake does get a decent amount of games and a track record of secure cashouts, it probably will be a more profitable option to even Party Poker.

[Flawed]

[ QUOTE ]
i agree completely. play where the games are best. but be aware that worse games at lesser rakes can be more profitable. hope dearly that those new places develop and provide competition. thats what will help us all.
my post was basic but i saw a few people saying in the zero rake thread that it didnt matter and a low or no rake site wasnt better. it is way better and would make each winner much more each year. there are many readers of this forum that dont play four tables at a time and ten hours a day. i was directing my comments to them mostly as i thought the more experienced would know that.
i am totally surprised to see from players that i mistakenly thought had a good grasp on poker such resonses and indifference to the rake. i am not talking about you sun devil.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mightve missed a post or 2 but I didnt see 1 post where anyone said a no rake/low rake site wasnt better than a rake site. Most of us are just saying it will never get off the ground. Id love to see the site take off, it just wont happen.

rakefree on the other hand has a small chance of success

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
$30 a month is significantly more than what they probably pay in rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe this then you are one of the fish that have no clue how much they actually pay in rake

[MicroBob]

i agree.
i still haven't seen a single player who actually doesn't WANT this to succeed (i also have not read all the posts).

if all the fish went to a rake-free site then everyone would be thrilled.
but this site has to draw the fish first and has to establish themselves as a credible site that will honor cashouts reasonably quickly.


party has proven that quality customer service is not a necessary ingredient to success.
being able to bring in a few players is a necessary component however.


as i stated previously...
i am not indifferent to rake...i am merely indifferent to a new site that has not proven a thing as of yet.

until the site actually succeeds i see no reason to get any more excited here.
while it's starting up, i'm about as excited for this as i was for choice-poker, nightorday poker and nutz-poker (all sites that i have not played).

[Syntax]

have you read the comments from the cardroom manager? I posted them in a thread "last night at zerorake"?

It seems like they have plans to bring the fish. This site might actually be worth getting at least a little more excited about then Nutzpoker....

[MicroBob]

choicepoker's manager posted on here quite a bit as well and represented himself quite professionally.

if i started a room, i could post here with great plans and professional sounding ideas....it's called good PR.

it certainly doesn't mean they will actually be able to bring it the players.
representing your site in a professional manner is a nice first-step....but does not necessarily mean they will bring in the players nor does it mean they honor cash-outs in a quick and hassle-free fashion.

the nutzpoker guy started off representing himself and his group reasonably professionally and extremely enthusiastically. he turned pretty darned hostile pretty darned quick.


anyone can SAY they are fully covered regarding the initial start-up costs of a company and won't have to dip into player's funds.
that doesn't mean that they actually are (obviously it doesn't mean that they aren't either).
anyone can also say they are convinced they have a GREAT business plan.



get back to me when they have more than 1k players every once in awhile (or just 300...i'm not too picky) including a handful of fish in the group.

[ctv1116]

I know exactly how much I paid in rake last month ($457.75). In fact, I know about how much the average Party 1/2 player pays in rake ($8.80/100 hands). Thus, they need to play 350 hands/month to cover the membership fee. OK, so most Party players would benefir from ZeroRake, but it doesn't change the fact that the casual player who just wants to put $50 to start their bankroll will NOT put up an additional $30/month just for the right to play on the site rake-free. They do not know the intricacies of the rake structure of online poker sites.

[Alobar]

There is a big difference between the willingness to put in an extra $30 and it not being worth the extra $30.

I agree with you that most players wont want to do it. Thats why education by any rake free site is key. I wished zerorake would adopt what rakefree says it will do, where your first $30 in rake goes towards paying your membership fee, instead of it being a $30 upfront payment. I even emailed zerorake about this, they said they arn't going to adopt this because you don't have to be a member to play at zerorake, i.e. you can play with the rake. I Think its a mistake, but what do I know? Hopefully they offer a first month $5.95 membership to new accounts as I think that would definately be helpful

[Syntax]

I think its a definate mistake to require an upfront fee. They will collect the amount through rake in like 1-2 sessions anyway. Maybe we are both wrong.

[Syntax]

[ QUOTE ]
. They do not know the intricacies of the rake structure of online poker sites

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but I think people need to stop making this blanket statement and give the 'fish' a little more credit. Not many people are that retarded that they don't understand less "tax" is better.

Also, keep in mind that any 'fish' even considering putting money into a new poker room with the name and concept ZeroRake will probably have a clue what its about. The Rake-O-Meter will probably drive the point directly home.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but I think people need to stop making this blanket statement and give the 'fish' a little more credit. Not many people are that retarded that they don't understand less "tax" is better.


[/ QUOTE ]

The fish ARE that retarded. When I first started playing poker I couldn't fathom why people bitched about not playing heads up because they couldn't beat the rake.

I once got annoyed at a guy at my local B&M because he held up the game because he wanted the dealer to get the floor person because he wanted a rake reduction because we were playing short handed. "jesus, its just a couple bucks, lets play!"

I was uber retarded and didn't know any better, just like your typical fish

[Syntax]

I never said to give the credit to fish that they will ever fully understand the rake unless they become students of the game.

A fish probably should understand that if site A charges $3 a pot and site B charges $1 a pot then SiteB is better.

If that goes over their head completely and the rake-meter fails to make an impression, they have to realize they experience better results at siteB.

[Alobar]

true.

and I don't see how the rake o meter could fail to make an impression. That thing is addicting in itself, I want to play just to make the damn thing go up, heh.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
A fish probably should understand that if site A charges $3 a pot and site B charges $1 a pot then SiteB is better.


[/ QUOTE ]


yet they keep playing at party.


[ QUOTE ]
they have to realize they experience better results at siteB.

[/ QUOTE ]


they won't realize a thing if they think that plopping down $30 up front is a lousy deal. they just can't freaking figure it out.



if a regular B&M casino charged $30 to walk in the front door but offered an 'even-money' roulette game (that paid 38:1 instead of 35:1) or paid 2:1 on BJ (instead of 3:2 or 6:5) i suspect they would only draw mostly intelligent players who were smart enough to realize this was a good deal.

most of the potential customers would be playing next door where they didn't have a $30 cover-charge.


people just don't notice the $1-$2 being taken out of every pot.

afterall, they're already winning $50 or $70 in a pot (or whatever) so it can't possibly make that much of a difference....but paying $30 up-front?!?! Outrageous!!!! there are a zillion other sites where I can play for Free!!

this is how most fish will think on such matters imo.
if you can actually educate them otherwise then you are more talented than me.

[Syntax]

Last night I watched a game there for a few minutes but left the window open while playing a UB sng and a hour or two late that thing was up to like $30.

Ever since this whole norake thing started, I've been much more sensitive to the rake and tourney fees ive been paying and it makes me nauseaus thinking about it.

[Syntax]

I understand your argument. I think 'fish' are probably more followers by nature as well so they will go where the big games are.

The difference of rake at party and other sites is not as immediatly noticable as $3 vs $1, and its designed that way.

I think anyone that goes to zerorake to sign up will have a sorta idea of what the goal of the site is, no matter how fishy they are. They are supposed to plan more education, hopefully it will reel in the fish when they come poking around. We'll see how if its effective or not.

I think if they just drop the subscription fee and collect rake as they go untill the requirements are met, they will get em hook line and sinker.

However, the fish CAN still play without paying a subscription. They will just pay the normal rake. I think a few sessions with the rakemeter telling them how much they could be making will open their fishy little eyes.

[MicroBob]

hey...if you're correct about this i'll be the happiest player there.

but right now the fish don't even know they are paying terrible rake at party...and they don't even seem to realize the customer service is awful as well.

the fact that they aren't ALL leaving party for sites with better software, better rake and better customer service right now pretty much indicates where they stand.

it's a big-time uphill battle for the zero-rake site (and other copycats if they come along) but i certainly hope they win

[Syntax]

[ QUOTE ]
they aren't ALL leaving party for sites with better software, better rake and better customer service right now pretty much indicates where they stand.


[/ QUOTE ]

The fish aren't leaving Party because they know that's where all "the fish" are /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Piers]

I think the reason many think the rake is not so important, is that most card rooms give back a large proportion of the rake in the form of promotions.

If you are careful about when and where you play you can get back from the card room in the form of promotions at least as much as you pay in rake.

[Fnord]

Poker is an ecosystem and at the root of it are the fish, action players, producers, etc. whatever you call them. They bring money into the game, attract strong players (to take their money) and other fish because it’s no fun being the only guy playing A2o and 72s while the strong players take turns pummeling you with stronger holdings played well. They’re the plankton of the poker ocean, without them everyone slowly starves the death.

The fish are looking for action. It’s the guy that came home from his shitty job looking for some excitement. Someone who says “you can win at craps” with a straight face. A novice that just watched a WPT episode and thinks this can’t be too hard. …and so on.

The dominant site(s) have their business built around this. Affiliate pimping, sign-up bonuses, reload bonuses, juiced games, jackpots etc. It’s all built around getting fish to put money into their site and not too far removed from the casino comp system. Because they know where the fish go everyone follows.

So the challenge for a discount poker site is how do you compete with an infrastructure that attracts weak players and subsidizes their weak play without a huge revenue stream via a large rake? Also, how do you deal with the big network effect (feedback loop) the Party skins have?

[Wayne]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand your argument. I think 'fish' are probably more followers by nature as well so they will go where the big games are.


[/ QUOTE ]

The fish will follow the bonuses and marketing dollars.

Poker is still a huge growth industry. Catching new players is the way to go now. You catch new, uninformed players with bonuses and marketing.

Once the growth dies down, there will be more competition for existing players. Then you will see rake-wars. Something like zerorake.com will be successful in the future, but it may be trying it too early.

[Syntax]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are careful about when and where you play you can get back from the card room in the form of promotions at least as much as you pay in rake.


[/ QUOTE ]

No

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are careful about when and where you play you can get back from the card room in the form of promotions at least as much as you pay in rake.


[/ QUOTE ]

No

[/ QUOTE ]

Assume the average pot size is about ten small bets. Then the average rake paid per raked hand per player in a full ring game is about 10*SB*0.05/10 = 0.05SB.

A typical promotion might be of the form you get $10 for every 100 raked hands played or 10cents per hand.

If the money paid in rake equals the amount got from the promotion we get:

0.05SB = 0.1

or

SB = 2

In other words if you play 2/4 or lower you are getting more from the promotion than you pay in rake.

Ops /images/graemlins/blush.gif edited to correct arithmatic

[Syntax]

No again. The rake costs you about .5 BB an hour.

Rake (http://www.rgpfaq.com/rake-low-limit.html)

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
No again. The rake costs you about .5 BB an hour.

Rake (http://www.rgpfaq.com/rake-low-limit.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

So What.

The rake is about 0.05SB per hand. This assumes an average pot size of ten times the small blind and ten people at the table.

At high limits the average pot size is a little below 10SB while it is a little over at low limits. Just go to an online site and look at the average pot sizes.

Just repeating the word "no" over and over again does not make something flase. Not even if you make the "NO" louder each time.

[mackthefork]

If this new site charges a fixed monthly fee instead of a rake, it is not likely to attract small stakes casual players (fish), people who lose at poker are less likely to be either interested or knowledgable about how much they are paying. My conclusion is that this site is likely to attract a load of good/excellent/decent players but very few awful players, thus being a fish myself i will be avoiding it.

I know i can clean up in the games i play in, but likewise there are 100's of players on here who could beat me without hardly trying, in my opinion one persons shark is another persons fish.

Good luck, play well

Regards ML

[Syntax]

Your point was that these cardrooms offer promotions that is worth the cost of the rake. Show me one site with a continuous promotion that can is worth .5BB an hour. You might get a deposit bonus once every two months that is worth that for 600 hands but after that you are back to paying .5 BB an hour

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Your point was that these cardrooms offer promotions that is worth the cost of the rake. Show me one site with a continuous promotion that can is worth .5BB an hour. You might get a deposit bonus once every two months that is worth that for 600 hands but after that you are back to paying .5 BB an hour

[/ QUOTE ]

I regularly play at around 20 sites. Across these sites you can usually get between 100 and 200 hours of promotions per month at a rate that coves the rake. The Cryptologic sites contribute a regular 50 hours a month and other sites variable amounts.

I don’t find it useful to think in terms of promotions at individual sites when each one is just a mouse click away, rather think across the industry as a whole.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your point was that these cardrooms offer promotions that is worth the cost of the rake. Show me one site with a continuous promotion that can is worth .5BB an hour. You might get a deposit bonus once every two months that is worth that for 600 hands but after that you are back to paying .5 BB an hour

[/ QUOTE ]

I regularly play at around 20 sites. Across these sites you can usually get between 100 and 200 hours of promotions per month at a rate that coves the rake. The Cryptologic sites contribute a regular 50 hours a month and other sites variable amounts.

I don’t find it useful to think in terms of promotions at individual sites when each one is just a mouse click away, rather think across the industry as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think you get enough back in promotions to cover your rake you are in a world of denial. I can only assume you don't own pokertracker (or if you do, you obviously don't look at it) go buy a copy play for a month and then tell me how you even come close to managing it.

[SA-Bishop]

I just had what I think is a great idea. Instead of charging the upfront fee, everyone has to pay rake equal to that of party until they've paid their 30 for that month. That way the fish will still come, and the site makes just as much money, and we realize how much better of a deal it is. Maybe include an option to pay it all up front as well.

[Syntax]

I don't get a rake rebate from any of the big sites because I registered for them long before that all started, so like yourself, I chase bonuses to take the edge off the rake, but it does not "cover" it. I suggest you take Alobars advice and see what you pay in rake for a month. It will make you sick.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
I just had what I think is a great idea. Instead of charging the upfront fee, everyone has to pay rake equal to that of party until they've paid their 30 for that month. That way the fish will still come, and the site makes just as much money, and we realize how much better of a deal it is. Maybe include an option to pay it all up front as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has already been mentioned, and I've even emailed them about this. They arn't going to do it tho.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]

If you think you get enough back in promotions to cover your rake you are in a world of denial. I can only assume you don't own pokertracker (or if you do, you obviously don't look at it) go buy a copy play for a month and then tell me how you even come close to managing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I became redundant about seven months ago I have made about $8K from poker promotions. (Lifted at a top level form Quicken)

I have played around 1300 hours of ring games, mostly playing four to six low limit games at once. 1300 hours of rake from 2/4 games is not going to be more than around $6K.

If I finish all available promotions, I usually start playing tournaments or do casino promotions or take a holiday, rather than play more ring games (Yes I have kept poker and casino promotions separate). Hence the very high ratio of poker promotion returns to rake.

[Inthacup]

yeah, you made $8000 in bonuses. That's great. If you spent more time studying your game and moving up in limits, you could have easily made several times that on ring game play alone.

Bonus whoring works well as a means of building a newbie bankroll, but I think you're making an expensive mistake by making it the reason you play ring games.

Cup

[RollaJ]

[ QUOTE ]
since most regular players play at least above average, it follows that the rake is the biggest deternination of why people lose in games. bad players lose to the rake and good players. medium good players tend to go broke after some time as the rake catches up to them and depletes their starting bankroll.
expenses are the main reason more players dont win and the winners dont win alot.
players that put in major hours pay between ten thousand and fifty thousand dollars a year just in rake depending on what and how much they play. you have to win that just to be even. so any cut in the rake adds that amount plus to your bankroll. the plus comes fom additional money that stays on the table instead of dissapearing.


[/ QUOTE ]

So what you are saying is rake costs un money right?

[Inthacup]

Yes, you are right. The rake costs un money.


Cup

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]


I have played around 1300 hours of ring games, mostly playing four to six low limit games at once. 1300 hours of rake from 2/4 games is not going to be more than around $6K.



[/ QUOTE ]

So in otherwords what you're saying is you have no idea how much you pay in rake......just as I suspected

[Piers]

I can make a similar amount playing less games around the 20/40 level. I used to do this all the time when I had a separate income stream.

However playing six low limit games at once under a promotions earns about the same as a couple of 15/30 games but with a considerably lower variance. If I play any ring games after finishing any outstanding promotions they are always around the 15/30 to 20/40 level. I much prefer playing higher stake games but do not see the point of increased exposure to risk with no extra gain.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
So in otherwords what you're saying is you have no idea how much you pay in rake......just as I suspected

[/ QUOTE ]

Random insults always have a good rhetorical punch, but luck a little in convincing detail.

I am certainly capable of completely messing up a piece of arithmetic, and my recent post might well be an example. However I am as yet uneducated as to what manner if any I have screwed things up.

[Syntax]

I don't know all the exact number, but I think people agree that if you play $2/4, then your rake is about $6/hr. Add up the number of hours you played and multiply it by 6. If you've played 1300 as you say to get your $8000 in bonuses then congratulations, you've nuetralized the rake. I suspect you've played somewhat more then 1300 hours, especially if you've been multitabling and not factoring that in.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So in otherwords what you're saying is you have no idea how much you pay in rake......just as I suspected

[/ QUOTE ]

Random insults always have a good rhetorical punch, but luck a little in convincing detail.


[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't a radom insult. It wasnt even an insult at all, it was mearly a statement of fact

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know all the exact number, but I think people agree that if you play $2/4, then your rake is about $6/hr. Add up the number of hours you played and multiply it by 6. If you've played 1300 as you say to get your $8000 in bonuses then congratulations, you've nuetralized the rake. I suspect you've played somewhat more then 1300 hours, especially if you've been multitabling and not factoring that in.

[/ QUOTE ]

No 1300 hours is accurate, it probably amounts to around 300 hours of butt time. Its manly a mixture of 1/2 and 2/4 with a little 15/30 mixed in. The rake could be as high as 8K. Unfortunaly its only possible to accurately calculate it for sites supported by Poker Tracker.

Now back to my original point.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are careful about when and where you play you can get back from the card room in the form of promotions at least as much as you pay in rake.


[/ QUOTE ]

No

[/ QUOTE ]

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So in otherwords what you're saying is you have no idea how much you pay in rake......just as I suspected

[/ QUOTE ]

Random insults always have a good rhetorical punch, but luck a little in convincing detail.


[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't a radom insult. It wasnt even an insult at all, it was mearly a statement of fact

[/ QUOTE ]

Random insults always have a good rhetorical punch, but luck a little in convincing detail.

[Flawed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just had what I think is a great idea. Instead of charging the upfront fee, everyone has to pay rake equal to that of party until they've paid their 30 for that month. That way the fish will still come, and the site makes just as much money, and we realize how much better of a deal it is. Maybe include an option to pay it all up front as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has already been mentioned, and I've even emailed them about this. They arn't going to do it tho.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Having players earn their first membership is something we have and are
continuing to consider, and may be something we implement in the near
future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe now that a few people have emailed them about it they're changing their mind

[AviD]

Obviously I am kidding (or am I not), but isn't this what Dutchy Boy is pitching?

The whole essence of "saving players money" with less rake and using it as a marketing edge?

Although, conceptually this is quite obvious, it is also just as obvious that the other poker sites will adjust to maintain their customer base...or do some of you think they wouldn't?

If players could double their winnings by playing elsewhere simply with less rake...does anyone here think they wouldn't go?

I don't think reduced rakes for gaining a customer base is a bad idea, just wondering why Ray Zee is pitching it...obviously he is...the question is...what is this a primer for?

Someone sponsored that post...it makes absolutely no sense for RayZee to come out of left field with it...and still no elaboration on his part regarding it's initiation.

[AviD]

I know many people that drive farther for lower gas prices...especially when they have to fill up an SUV! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

So if you have major expenses...seems like going to a lower raked casino with equal profit (i.e. same octane) is more profitable (more mileage for the money).

Of course if you live in a shack (drive a Pinto) and wear the same clothes every day (don't have air conditioning or heat and are willing to push your car when it breaks down)...then I guess it may not matter much to you! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So in otherwords what you're saying is you have no idea how much you pay in rake......just as I suspected

[/ QUOTE ]

Random insults always have a good rhetorical punch, but luck a little in convincing detail.


[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't a radom insult. It wasnt even an insult at all, it was mearly a statement of fact

[/ QUOTE ]

Random insults always have a good rhetorical punch, but luck a little in convincing detail.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess not only do you need education on how much you pay in rake, but also on what an insult is. (hint: now I'm being insulting)

[Syntax]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone sponsored that post...it makes absolutely no sense for RayZee to come out of left field with it...and still no elaboration on his part regarding it's initiation.

[/ QUOTE ]

He did, either you missed it or you don't believe it.

[diamond]

Actually
after checking out the site
players have an option, the can either buy a membership or just play but pay rake as they go.

[Augie]

bump