To all of you who are so upset by this... - Page 4

blackize · #31 10-09-2005, 05:36 AM

The decision is bad business all around. First they made the switch on a Saturday afternoon, one of their busiest days. The weekend also being particularly juicy is prime time for TAGs to play. This is utter disregard for their high volume players.

They cut thousands of players out. The are no longer getting rake from these players. They are at least temporarily losing revenue.

They add blackjack and side bets giving them an interest in how the flops come. The already large group of players who think the games are rigged will have even more reason to believe so now.

blackize · #32 10-09-2005, 05:37 AM

Have you ever had a downswing? Rakeback allows you to take a rather sizeable downswing and keep on ticking.

toxtox · #33 10-09-2005, 05:40 AM

Bob, i never said that winning players shouldnt sign up for rakeback when its available....hell if its there go for it. I have.

You quoted my statement that said that players who rely on rakeback to win at poker (i.e break even players) and make a living at it that way probably shouldnt be playing poker for a living anyway! do you really think thats a dumb point?

toxtox · #34 10-09-2005, 05:42 AM

black u also seem to be misunderstanding my point.

blackize · #35 10-09-2005, 05:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose you think that people who need rakeback to play poker for a living should be relying on poker then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not missing anything. This is like saying that someone who relies on his Christmas bonus needs to change careers. Or someone who needs to use tax loopholes to have a decent quality of life should do the same.

handsome · #36 10-09-2005, 06:07 AM

Is this guy banned yet??

toxtox · #37 10-09-2005, 06:15 AM

aww stewie dont ask to ban me, youre the most handsome and talented 1-year old poised for world domination that ive ever met. (and im a girl).

toxtox · #38 10-09-2005, 06:18 AM

but black the reason i have this opinion is becuz people who rely on their christmas bonuses usually have a steady source of income...they know how much theyre gonna get. whereas if they arent good enough to win at poker without rakeback then i think its silly for them to rely on poker in the first place. a few bad months where they rakeback isnt enough to get them through and then what happens.

just my opinion [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

John Ho · #39 10-09-2005, 06:35 AM

Good point here.

But why worry about them? They'll figure it out eventually.

Anyone who can not maintain a decent standard of living without income from non poker playing activities should not call him/herself a pro poker player. This includes rakeback, endorsements, and getting sponsored into tournaments because you are gorgeous or made one final table and acted like enough of an ass to because somewhat famous.

I almost miss the days before poker was big. I look around at all the hacks you see at major tournaments or high stakes games and it's just revolting.

scrapperdog · #40 10-09-2005, 06:50 AM

You dont have to call yourself a pro poker player to be upset that you are losing money. You dont have to play poker for a living to be upset you are losing money. What is all this lame obsession with being called a pro? It is money in the bank that is taken out of the bank, that is the bottom line. I dont think too many pros are upset that the rakeback is lost...what about the rest of us. Lame high handed post.