Why don't David and Mason start a poker website?

ggbman · #1 05-13-2005, 05:09 PM

As i was reading yet another thread about how rake was killing players earnings, i got to think, why don't David and Mason consider creating poker software. Obviously the online poker market has had it's huge expansion, but many people play on several sites. Here on 2+2, they have thousands upon thousands of posters that they could get to sign up because of their association with 2+2.

If there was every a situation where a poker site could be created charging a monthly fee, this would be it. There would be tons of people signing up right off the bat, and while the games would be tough innitially, any site that generates volume will experience an influx of players, and the poorer players would come over soon enough. I know this sounds like it's out of left field, but when i thought about it, i could not think of people with better resorces to start a rakefree website then David and Mason. What do you guys think?

IggyWH · #2 05-13-2005, 05:13 PM

Why would you pay a monthly fee to play with a bunch of 2+2ers? Where would the fish come from? Fish definitely aren't paying a monthly fee when they can play for "free" on any other site.

ggbman · #3 05-13-2005, 05:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you pay a monthly fee to play with a bunch of 2+2ers? Where would the fish come from? Fish definitely aren't paying a monthly fee when they can play for "free" on any other site.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love how people make the ridiculous assumption that fish are stupid people. Does it not occur to you that someone who has enough money to lose at 15-30 probably has a solid job making more money then we do playing poker? Just because someone is bad at poker doesn't mean they are stupid, and i'm sure people can figure out that $3 a pot adds up to a lot of money.

IggyWH · #4 05-13-2005, 05:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I love how people make the ridiculous assumption that fish are stupid people. Does it not occur to you that someone who has enough money to lose at 15-30 probably has a solid job making more money then we do playing poker? Just because someone is bad at poker doesn't mean they are stupid, and i'm sure people can figure out that $3 a pot adds up to a lot of money.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they don't. Why do you think all other zero rake sites have failed? Fish are fish because they don't care to learn. I would imagine most fish don't even know what the rake structure on the site they play at is.

Shoe · #5 05-13-2005, 05:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I love how people make the ridiculous assumption that fish are stupid people. Does it not occur to you that someone who has enough money to lose at 15-30 probably has a solid job making more money then we do playing poker? Just because someone is bad at poker doesn't mean they are stupid, and i'm sure people can figure out that $3 a pot adds up to a lot of money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, that is why zerorake is thriving right now. Look at all the fish flocking to their site.

nnoobi · #6 05-13-2005, 05:37 PM

I posted this in another hate-rake thread, but didn't receive any comments on it. What do you think?

Instead of the hard to sell monthly fee, what about just capping the amount of rake you pay each month at $100, $250 or $1000 or whatever amount is necessary.

Small players would be unaffected. Frequent players would be rewarded. Affliates would perhaps be damaged but not crippled if they removed rakeback.

For ring games, the rake schedule is multipled by percentage of players at the table who have not met the monthly rake requirement. If 7 players at table have not met the rake requirement, then the $1 pulled from a $20 pot would actually be $0.70 pulled.

As implemented above, the benefit is diluted over the whole table. Small and Frequent players are rewarded equally. To reward Frequent players only the standard rake would be collected and the Frequent player's portion instantly credited to the account.

IggyWH · #7 05-13-2005, 05:41 PM

Doesn't sound like too bad of an idea. One thing that does bring in fish though is free money. Everyone can understand free money for playing and your system doesn't really seem like it would allow for many bonuses. Frequent players are the most profitable to sites and when you put a cap on how much a site will take from a frequent player, it really hurts the bottom line.

GrannyMae · #8 05-13-2005, 06:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you pay a monthly fee to play with a bunch of 2+2ers? Where would the fish come from? Fish definitely aren't paying a monthly fee when they can play for "free" on any other site.

[/ QUOTE ]

at the start there would probably be many sharks.

however, if they can get the site name on the books FAST, then the fish will follow.

no fish, no good.

new sites can and will launch in the coming year but it will *always* come back to needing fish for it to be popular.

ggbman · #9 05-13-2005, 06:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I love how people make the ridiculous assumption that fish are stupid people. Does it not occur to you that someone who has enough money to lose at 15-30 probably has a solid job making more money then we do playing poker? Just because someone is bad at poker doesn't mean they are stupid, and i'm sure people can figure out that $3 a pot adds up to a lot of money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, that is why zerorake is thriving right now. Look at all the fish flocking to their site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right because they had a few thousand people who knew about the sight when it opened... Your overlooking how much it helps that there would be a lot of users right off the bat to attract the fish.

Shoe · #10 05-13-2005, 06:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Right because they had a few thousand people who knew about the sight when it opened... Your overlooking how much it helps that there would be a lot of users right off the bat to attract the fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your overlooking how easy it is to have lots of users right off the bat.