Re: The case against RB
 

they aren't giving it away for no gain

they are getting the players who pay them 10/20k/etc in rake EVERY MONTH

those players will lose 5k+/month in rb and WILL go to other sites that give rb if they can't get it at party...

they give rb in order to attract the price elastic consumers, which also happen to be their best customers

Re: The case against RB
 

[ QUOTE ]
the fish don't know about table texture

they don't care about the pros

they just wanna play poker in their pajamas

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The case against RB
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the fish don't know about table texture

they don't care about the pros

they just wanna play poker in their pajamas

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The case against RB
 

[ QUOTE ]
the fish don't know about table texture

they don't care about the pros

they just wanna play poker in their pajamas

[/ QUOTE ]

If two of those three items are true, does that make one a fish?

Re: The case against RB
 

[ QUOTE ]
they are getting the players who pay them 10/20k/etc in rake EVERY MONTH

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, no they aren't. First of all as previously pointed out MGR is miscalculated and TAGs do not pay rake nearly in proportion to what they are credited.

Second of all if the internet multi-table break-even rakebackers are all playing through skins then Party is giving the skins a big piece of their MGR - and bear in mind that MGR is already disproportionately credited to the player. If your affiliate can afford to give the player a 30% rakeback then what is the affiate getting? 35%? 37%? And if the affiliate is getting 35% then I guarantee that the skin is getting at least 50%.

So in the end Party is losing 50% of rake that they aren't even collecting in full. But it doesn't quite stop there.

Consider the Party landscape if every shark decided to stop playing. What percentage of gambled dollars ends up in the pockets of internet poker pros right now? 10%? 25%? 50%? Even at 10% this represents far more rake than the pros ever pay. If Party could eliminate the sharks then the site would just be fish passing cash back and forth. Eventually 90% plus would be plunged through the rake-hole.

Face it. Rakeback junkies need Party much more than Party needs them.

Re: The case against RB
 

[ QUOTE ]
Face it. Rakeback junkies need Party much more than Party needs them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be so sure about that. The fish don't like starting new tables or playing shorthanded. Take away 10 guys 8 tabling and that is 80 seats. Multiply that by a few hundred and you are looking at a drop of 16000 seats for just 200 guys 8 tabling it.

I imagine on this forum alone there are easily 200 people playing an average of 8 or more tables at once. I feel that if it weren't for these people taking up space in the games, the fish would all sign up in waiting lists because there aren't enough full tables around and eventually get bored with all the waiting they have to do and the games would dry up.

Re: The case against RB
 

[ QUOTE ]
If Party could eliminate the sharks then the site would just be fish passing cash back and forth.

[/ QUOTE ]

But they would see a massive reduction in games/rake. I would imagine your standard fish plays a couple of hours a week for amusement, and drops maybe a couple of hundred dollars. Eliminate the sharks and you end up with fish being able to keep their bankroll from weekend to weekend, but see a massive drop in players. Fish are not suddenly going to be playing 8 tables for 30+ hours a week simply because they are not losing their money to sharks.

Joe

Re: The case against RB
 

Lemme check your math... 200 guys 8-tabling would be 1600 seats, not 16000.

Re: The case against RB
 

Here is my defense of rakeback and why it is good for poker rooms.

Player A has rakeback. He is a -.5BB/100 loser. He plays 3/6 4 tables at a time learning to be a pro. He plays 3 hours a day so every day he loses $30 on average. At the end of the month he has lost about $1000. Then this player gets about $1200 (at 25% this is $800 in total rake) in rakeback. He can then play another month without another reload. The house made $3600. Next month he does the same, house makes another $3600 and he gets his losses back. At what point would this player bust and not come back? After losing $2000? $5000? Instead Party makes $50,000 in a year, this rakeback is money they would possibly have to pay an affiliate anyway that would not get recycled.

Would a poker room rather have players generate $50,000 a year or have them play a couple of months and leave? I think the logical choice is obvious.

Re: The case against RB
 

[ QUOTE ]
I imagine on this forum alone there are easily 200 people playing an average of 8 or more tables at once.

[/ QUOTE ]

My SWAG

Most of 2+2ers 2-3 table.
Hundreds that play 4 mostly, some do it well, many give up too much.
~100 that 6-8 table. Many give up too much.
~20 that can 8+ table well.