Rake Free Sites
 

this whole fiasco has made me realize how ridiculous rake is. another user mentioned paying close to 100k rake a year. that's absurd to play online poker. if i worked out my monthly average it would probably equate to 12k a year.

Are there currently any operating rake free sites? i will start playing there even if there's limited amounts of players. all of us need to make a move together against this capitalist system.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

Dutch Boyd arrived in living rooms around the country during ESPN's 2003 World Series of Poker. His poker career began four years before that, at age eighteen, when he started adding tournament wins to the list of accomplishments that already included a law degree. As an insightful youth in St. Louis he played guitar, enjoyed movies, and read avidly, first honing his card skills in games with his mother and brother.
After the 2003 WSOP, Dutch formed a crew of young poker players to attack the game collectively. Within one year they were competing with the world’s best, winning tournaments and traveling to high-stakes poker games throughout the United States. Dutch continues to play poker, advance the cause of “rakefree” cardrooms online, and has established a website of poker advice at ......

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
this whole fiasco has made me realize how ridiculous rake is. another user mentioned paying close to 100k rake a year. that's absurd to play online poker. if i worked out my monthly average it would probably equate to 12k a year.

Are there currently any operating rake free sites? i will start playing there even if there's limited amounts of players. all of us need to make a move together against this capitalist system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to sound harsh, but...

You worry about rake first, I will worry about my opponent first. If I can then work something out with the rake, so be it, but I want loose passive opponents who play poorly and only the big places have those. If a rake free/rake reduced site gets the masses of these players, you won't need to post about it here for 95% of the 2+2 crowd to move over. Opponents are just more important than rake.

Vern

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

No, people tried, it didn't work. Dutch Boyd's projects failed and Gus Hansen has a nice site with 50% rakeback, but there has been like no traffic there.

People go were fish are, fish don't understand rake, so rakefree doesn't do anything to get them.

You need money and fame to start a poker site. No one will put up the money if they don't think they will get money in return.

The existing poker sites have a vested interest in keeping the rake scheme. They will try to crush opposistion.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

Party has one of the worst rake structures out there and is the largest site online. To get the biggest traffic and profit rake is not the most important obviously.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, people tried, it didn't work. Dutch Boyd's projects failed and Gus Hansen has a nice site with 50% rakeback, but there has been like no traffic there.

People go were fish are, fish don't understand rake, so rakefree doesn't do anything to get them.

You need money and fame to start a poker site. No one will put up the money if they don't think they will get money in return.

The existing poker sites have a vested interest in keeping the rake scheme. They will try to crush opposistion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, It will take a wealthy company who is willing to pur lots of money into advertising in order to get it off the ground, however, once the site is off the ground it will be a smooth and fast transition. The market is ready for a shift. The fish dont care aobut rake, but they want games. We are the players that creat the games, we 8 table, we make up a strong portion of the player base, they come with us, we determine the market.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

[ QUOTE ]

Not to sound harsh, but...

You worry about rake first, I will worry about my opponent first. If I can then work something out with the rake, so be it, but I want loose passive opponents who play poorly and only the big places have those. If a rake free/rake reduced site gets the masses of these players, you won't need to post about it here for 95% of the 2+2 crowd to move over. Opponents are just more important than rake.

Vern

[/ QUOTE ]
That is just stupid. The casinos in miami used to rake $2 and $1 jackpot on $10 pots, because they could and no one knew any better. Now not even the biggest fish would pay this . We need to use our power to lower rakes and incresse compition. Party rapes us worse than Tony Soprono would. I pay $5,000 a month in rake accourding to PT. I don't acctullay pay this because I always play under a bonus. Any one who would accutualy pay this money for a service thay cost the at most 10 a month per person is a sucker, pure and simple.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Not to sound harsh, but...

You worry about rake first, I will worry about my opponent first. If I can then work something out with the rake, so be it, but I want loose passive opponents who play poorly and only the big places have those. If a rake free/rake reduced site gets the masses of these players, you won't need to post about it here for 95% of the 2+2 crowd to move over. Opponents are just more important than rake.

Vern

[/ QUOTE ]
That is just stupid. The casinos in miami used to rake $2 and $1 jackpot on $10 pots, because they could and no one knew any better. Now not even the biggest fish would pay this . We need to use our power to lower rakes and incresse compition. Party rapes us worse than Tony Soprono would. I pay $5,000 a month in rake accourding to PT. I don't acctullay pay this because I always play under a bonus. Any one who would accutualy pay this money for a service thay cost the at most 10 a month per person is a sucker, pure and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

It costs party less than 1 dollar per person per month.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Not to sound harsh, but...

You worry about rake first, I will worry about my opponent first. If I can then work something out with the rake, so be it, but I want loose passive opponents who play poorly and only the big places have those. If a rake free/rake reduced site gets the masses of these players, you won't need to post about it here for 95% of the 2+2 crowd to move over. Opponents are just more important than rake.

Vern

[/ QUOTE ]
That is just stupid. The casinos in miami used to rake $2 and $1 jackpot on $10 pots, because they could and no one knew any better. Now not even the biggest fish would pay this . We need to use our power to lower rakes and incresse compition. Party rapes us worse than Tony Soprono would. I pay $5,000 a month in rake accourding to PT. I don't acctullay pay this because I always play under a bonus. Any one who would accutualy pay this money for a service thay cost the at most 10 a month per person is a sucker, pure and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

What power do we have, "Hey all the good players are gonna leave so all your weak players won't lose as much to use, play more and make you more in rake!" I don't think if the entire 2+2 community left Party we would even be a blip on their radar, at least a negative one. If the rake gets to high to make a profit, as in your example, then yes, I move on, but if Party, after rake, is still the place I can make the most $/Hr, then that is the place I play. Sure I want the rake reduced, but the chances of that are slim and I don't see us as having any power to affect it.

Vern

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
all of us need to make a move together against this capitalist system.


[/ QUOTE ]

Lenin: Leo, I raise, and don't think about dropping 1 ruble of the workers money you pig.

Trotsky: Vlady, you're intimation that I would make a capitalist drop w/ the profit of our comrades' labor is a disgusting attempt to intimidate me. I reraise. And don't go praying to some poker god or I will call Stalin in to teach you about religion.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, people tried, it didn't work. Dutch Boyd's projects failed and Gus Hansen has a nice site with 50% rakeback, but there has been like no traffic there.

People go were fish are, fish don't understand rake, so rakefree doesn't do anything to get them.

You need money and fame to start a poker site. No one will put up the money if they don't think they will get money in return.

The existing poker sites have a vested interest in keeping the rake scheme. They will try to crush opposistion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, It will take a wealthy company who is willing to pur lots of money into advertising in order to get it off the ground, however, once the site is off the ground it will be a smooth and fast transition. The market is ready for a shift. The fish dont care aobut rake, but they want games. We are the players that creat the games, we 8 table, we make up a strong portion of the player base, they come with us, we determine the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is part of the problem, you cannot effectively market a poker site in the U.S. because of restrictions on promoting gambling. I am not arguing whether that is really legal or not, it is just the way the big TV companies perceive and apply it. No new site is going to challenge Party w/o U.S. players and a new site is limited in getting new players through advertising avenues. Personally, I think Party loves the advertising restrictions in the U.S. because of that.

Vern

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

If all the winning players moved from party, the fish would follow. Note the fish think they are winning players, they want the best deals too. The fish wants lots of games and lots of players. 1 winning player has the usage of 5 fish.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
The market is ready for a shift

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not. I (and many others here), wish the market was ready for a shift, but it's not. Like others have said, the masses don't care about rake enough.

If a rakefree site is going to succeed, it is going to have to have a regular name, like partypoker, pokerstars, etc.... and have some type of rakefree scheme that goes along with it. It will probably need to start out high, like after you pay $1,000 in rake per month the rest of the month is rake free (so they can afford to offer bonuses and other promotions), once they have a big enough customer base, then they can gradually reduce the monthly fee.

Any new site that comes out with "rake" in it's name will most likely be destined to fail. Also, it's main focus can't be reduced rake. That will attrack the sharks and mega players like us that will go there anyways. They will need some type of promotion to attract the masses. Which, as demonstrated by many new sites today, is very hard to do.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

I'm not sure what the restrictions are here in the US, but here in Wa. State, where online poker is banned, PP underwrites NPR's all things considered. Pretty ballsy if you ask me

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

Geez, what is the different between a rake free site and a normal rake site?

At a rake site, you pay as you play.

At a rake free site, you pay up front. A rake free site is not truly rake free if you pay that rake in advance.

I would rather play at a rake site.

Meow.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
What power do we have, "Hey all the good players are gonna leave so all your weak players won't lose as much to use, play more and make you more in rake!" I don't think if the entire 2+2 community left Party we would even be a blip on their radar, at least a negative one. If the rake gets to high to make a profit, as in your example, then yes, I move on, but if Party, after rake, is still the place I can make the most $/Hr, then that is the place I play. Sure I want the rake reduced, but the chances of that are slim and I don't see us as having any power to affect it.


[/ QUOTE ]
It is possible for say a site to cap your monthly rake at 500 or even 1000 per month and return the rest of your rake to high volume players. I am sure some site might be nice enough to let me only pay 12,000 a year to play poker. Seems like a lot of money to me. I could get a vacation house for that. Things like that will only happen if the level of disatifaction rasies. Teach the fish that excsive rake sucks, I hate those users.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The market is ready for a shift

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not. I (and many others here), wish the market was ready for a shift, but it's not. Like others have said, the masses don't care about rake enough.

If a rakefree site is going to succeed, it is going to have to have a regular name, like partypoker, pokerstars, etc.... and have some type of rakefree scheme that goes along with it. It will probably need to start out high, like after you pay $1,000 in rake per month the rest of the month is rake free (so they can afford to offer bonuses and other promotions), once they have a big enough customer base, then they can gradually reduce the monthly fee.

Any new site that comes out with "rake" in it's name will most likely be destined to fail. Also, it's main focus can't be reduced rake. That will attrack the sharks and mega players like us that will go there anyways. They will need some type of promotion to attract the masses. Which, as demonstrated by many new sites today, is very hard to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why the hell would they start to gradually lower the rake, I would move to a site that capped rake at 1k a month, just hope they wouldnt gradually raise it.
The poker market is ready for a shift, the players are becoming smarter. Realize that the "fish" are intelligent people often very smart businessmen, people that think they are winning players. Both types of fish would enjoy lower rake. It is the BRAND NEW PLAYERS that dont understand rake or care, not the fish. When i was new, i signed up with the first site whose name i saw. After that, while I was still a losing player, I knew what rake was, and knew I wanted to pay as little of it as possible.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

Yeah, they do small things, PartyPoker.Net gets a couple of commercials in, but the big networks, TV and Radio, will not take ads even for these. ABC grudginly lets ESPN & Travel do it because they are making money off the poker Fad, but they won't let a commercial, even for PartyPoker.Net, on ABC. Imagine if a new site could advertise during March Madness, the superbowl, primetime TV (halfway through ER a new site makes an offer), etc. Then a serious heavyweight could make a challenge, right now, making a challenge is very difficult because of the restrictions in place.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

Maybe once or twice per day, each of us here on each of our tables makes a comment like "Man the rake here is so high, i would be a winner if it wasn't for the rake"

Eventually, we might get the general fish population believing that too.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
Geez, what is the different between a rake free site and a normal rake site?

At a rake site, you pay as you play.

At a rake free site, you pay up front. A rake free site is not truly rake free if you pay that rake in advance.

I would rather play at a rake site.

Meow.

[/ QUOTE ]

often you dont pay up front, they simply start raking you after the monthly cap is reached, 30 bucks at the curring no rake sites running. you dont pay up front.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What power do we have, "Hey all the good players are gonna leave so all your weak players won't lose as much to use, play more and make you more in rake!" I don't think if the entire 2+2 community left Party we would even be a blip on their radar, at least a negative one. If the rake gets to high to make a profit, as in your example, then yes, I move on, but if Party, after rake, is still the place I can make the most $/Hr, then that is the place I play. Sure I want the rake reduced, but the chances of that are slim and I don't see us as having any power to affect it.


[/ QUOTE ]
It is possible for say a site to cap your monthly rake at 500 or even 1000 per month and return the rest of your rake to high volume players. I am sure some site might be nice enough to let me only pay 12,000 a year to play poker. Seems like a lot of money to me. I could get a vacation house for that. Things like that will only happen if the level of disatifaction rasies. Teach the fish that excsive rake sucks, I hate those users.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not agruing that I like to pay rake, I just don't see us as having the power to change it so we have to evaluate based on our win rate. I would love for a site to offer a rake cap. I think if Party offered a rake cap each month most of us on rake back programs at other sites would switch back, but only after evaluating whether a rake cap at Party saved me more in total rake than rake back at another skin. That would depend largely on where they set the rake cap. A rake cap of $50 would mean even .5/1 players would come screaming back, but a cap of $2500 would mean my current rake back deal is better for the amount I play.

Vern

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
they simply start raking you after the monthly cap is reached

[/ QUOTE ]

That's even stupider.

Meow.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they simply start raking you after the monthly cap is reached

[/ QUOTE ]

That's even stupider.

Meow.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? The monthy cap is what they use to attract players. they use their low rake scheme which is implemented in this way, which imho is the best way to implment it.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

and has established a website of poker advice at ......

www.IKillKittens.com

Lori

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
Geez, what is the different between a rake free site and a normal rake site?

At a rake site, you pay as you play.

At a rake free site, you pay up front. A rake free site is not truly rake free if you pay that rake in advance.


[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you. I don't see why people have so much trouble understanding this. If you think the rake is too high, then you should want them to lower it. If you think the rake is too high, having them merely change the manner in which they collect it is pointless. If Party currently makes $1B/year in rake, do you think that if they switched to monthly fees they would do it such that they only collect $100M/year? Of course not. If you think that the price they charge for their service is too high, why does it seem like the best response is to ask them to charge it in a different fashion?

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dutch Boyd arrived in living rooms around the country during ESPN's 2003 World Series of Poker. His poker career began four years before that, at age eighteen, when he started adding tournament wins to the list of accomplishments that already included a law degree. As an insightful youth in St. Louis he played guitar, enjoyed movies, and read avidly, first honing his card skills in games with his mother and brother.
After the 2003 WSOP, Dutch formed a crew of young poker players to attack the game collectively. Within one year they were competing with the world’s best, winning tournaments and traveling to high-stakes poker games throughout the United States. Dutch continues to play poker, advance the cause of “rakefree” cardrooms online, and has established a website of poker advice at ......

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, if I'm not mistaken, Boyd is the same inidvidual who couldn't keep a poker room alive, when it was charging rake.

So, logically, we can assume that when his room isn't charging rake, it will do quite well! [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

Its not that they charge in a different fashion its that htey charge less.
Im not sure where this is hard to understand. The rake free sites cap their rake. They are offering you the service of poker for 30 dollars a month. That is the price, that is waht they charge. Party charges based on how much you play. For me that is 8000 dollars a month. 8k or 30 hmm, which part is difficult?

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
We are the players that creat the games, we 8 table, we make up a strong portion of the player base, they come with us, we determine the market.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are wrong about this. And in fact, I don't know WHY anyone would ever want to run a rake free site (that is, to be the owners of the site, not players), or one where the rake is capped ? The sharks are your worst players - they take money from the poker sites other players and put in their own pocket. If instead everybody was a relatively equal fish they would push their money around until everybody was a loser and Party would make even more ! Honestly, If I had a site I would have some sort of scheme where the rake is really high but you get some large % of it back as a "Bonus" free and clear if you buy back in after busting out- that way you charge the sharks the max but help keep the fish.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We are the players that creat the games, we 8 table, we make up a strong portion of the player base, they come with us, we determine the market.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are wrong about this. And in fact, I don't know WHY anyone would ever want to run a rake free site (that is, to be the owners of the site, not players), or one where the rake is capped ? The sharks are your worst players - they take money from the poker sites other players and put in their own pocket. If instead everybody was a relatively equal fish they would push their money around until everybody was a loser and Party would make even more ! Honestly, If I had a site I would have some sort of scheme where the rake is really high but you get some large % of it back as a "Bonus" free and clear if you buy back in after busting out- that way you charge the sharks the max but help keep the fish.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your logic here is faulty.
So you wouldnt like to run a rake free site and make 1 million a year, if the players wanted rake free, all you ahve to do is start it up and collect money.

Check out this htread

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...=1#Post1913381

we as winning players are not parasites to the poker world.
Many BandM casinos higher props, which are winning players, to play in theri games.
Because if a game is going, the casino is making money. Party is making tons o f money because we 8 table and fill up the games.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

Ok then, what happens in this situation...

A group of friends and I play a lot of poker. Instead of each of us opening up an account at a rake free site and paying $30/month, we all just share a single account only paying the fee once. If you think there aren't players out there who currently share accounts, you would be mistaken.

And what about players who play sparingly? What you are basically doing is punishing them for NOT playing enough. That sure doesn't sound like a fair business model.

Bottom line, as is apparent to anyone with a brain, the BEST and ONLY solutions are to lower the overall rake or give every player rakeback without having to jump through the hoops of an affiliate.

Meow.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

ok, to the first case if you share your account with your friends, then you only have to pay the 30 dollars once instead of once for each of your friends. on the downside, you cant play at the sametime, and you have to work out your own money situation.
2nd of all the user that doesnt play very often STILL PAYS MORE THAN 30 DOLLARS A MONTH IN RAKE. You dont have oto pay up front anyway, you wont lose anything by playing there. They simply rake your pots the same as party does, until it reaches 30 bucks and then it stops. It will never cost you more than party does. Go to one of the rake free sites and check out the model , it works and it works well.
They just need advertising money to make it look cute for the fish.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am not agruing that I like to pay rake, I just don't see us as having the power to change it so we have to evaluate based on our win rate. I would love for a site to offer a rake cap. I think if Party offered a rake cap each month most of us on rake back programs at other sites would switch back, but only after evaluating whether a rake cap at Party saved me more in total rake than rake back at another skin. That would depend largely on where they set the rake cap. A rake cap of $50 would mean even .5/1 players would come screaming back, but a cap of $2500 would mean my current rake back deal is better for the amount I play.



[/ QUOTE ]
Seems like a rake cap is the best plan IMO. The site still makes a lot of money of me (1,000) mo and I would play more at that site once I capped my rake. They make the same from the fish who would never cap their rake anyway. With all the sites begging for players and looking for props it seems letting a person who plays 40,000 hands per month "only" have to pay $12,000 a year is a good deal for everyone. I used to play long hours in B&M, they know to treat the regulars well. The local rooms in vegas all have comp programs to draw the locals. We (high volume players) should be treated well. If I was lossing 70K a year in black jack at the mirage I would expect VIP treatment. They will never get that rrom me. I chase bonuses all around the net. I have multiple accounts. Seems like a lot of work. If one site with a large player base would let me play for 1,000 a month (a number I still think is high) then the would have a loyal customer to fill their games. Seems like a win/win to me. I will never pay that absurd rake you guys should not either.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
They just need advertising money to make it look cute for the fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are they going to get the advertising money from player deposits?

Meow.

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
If all the winning players moved from party, the fish would follow. Note the fish think they are winning players, they want the best deals too. The fish wants lots of games and lots of players. 1 winning player has the usage of 5 fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

By your figures, that means that about 16.7% of all players are winning players. So if all the winning players left Party and skins all at once, they would still have 83.3% of their clientele left; I don't think the fish are likely to notice that drop and start asking where the sharks went. In addition, these players would suddenly start doing better because the sharks are no longer around to punish them for their mistakes.

The fish are much more impressed by bonuses than by rakeback, because as has been repeatedly pointed out, the fish don't understand rake. Party raised their rake last year, and as far as I can tell, they haven't suffered for it. The increase in $/hand swamped any loss of customers.

The only way a rake-free site could operate is by charging a periodic subscription fee (say, monthly) or by charging a fee each time a player sits at a table (I don't think advertising is likely to work, because it would require that people intent on playing would take time out and click on links or some such). I strongly suspect that most people aren't likely to want to pay up front, when they can play for "free" elsewhere. Only the player who wins a pot pays the rake, as far as they're concerned, and when they win it, it doesn't bother them to win only $46 instead of the full $50.

-Mike

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your logic here is faulty.
So you wouldnt like to run a rake free site and make 1 million a year, if the players wanted rake free, all you have to do is start it up and collect money.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, your logic is what is faulty. Would you play at a site where you were break even or lost money ? Having ANY kind of charge, be it rake, a monthly fee, or some other kind of structure means that someone has to pay. If you won't play if you aren't winning, that means that somebody else has to be losing as much as you are winning + the rake, and/or a lot of people have to be losing a smaller amount equal to your win + rake (or monthly charge). If YOU won't play if you can't win, you won't play at that room without losing players. And I think that it is well established that losing players don't like being charged up front. So if I have to attract losing players to even have you come to my casino, and you won't play the instant you start losing (medium-long term expectation wise), why would I want you at my room ? Somebody has to lose for me to profit, and if it isn't you, why do I want you ? Losing players fuel the room, not winning players. That being the case, why do I NEED to cater to you ? Clearly you are only playing while you can win, so you are taking money out of our little "economy". Losing players on the other hand are playing for the pure enjoyment - and it probably matters little to them whether it is the casino or other players fleecing them, and all things considered, I want it to be me.

So anyway, think of it this way. I can have a site where I can either charge an unlimited amount of rake, or some limited amount/monthly charge. The former falls harder on winning players, and those who play a LOT (probably winning players or they would soon be broke). The latter falls harder on casual players, as everyone has to get over the first X dollars. Since the sharks follows the fish, I don't NEED to be rakefree to attract players, and clearly a rake benefits me, and the players I need to keep, more, so I repeat- why would I EVER want to run a rakefree room ?

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

Rake reduction is a business model some new site like Full Tilt should adopt instead of trying to get on the Party, Paradise, Poker Stars, Prima etc. gravy train that has already passed them by. They could drop their $600 bonus deal scheme. Seems now the goal is loyal patrons and volume.

As for marketing to people who may not be aware of rake I suggest the following approach: "IT COSTS LESS TO PLAY HERE"

Re: Rake Free Sites
 

Capping rake to a reasonable level sounds great. After that it would be rakefree for the rest of the month or even better would be continue collecting rake and return it back to players at the end of the month! They could have a slogan "rakefree poker with rakeback"! [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]