[UncleDuke]

[ QUOTE ]
You are trying to reason with the same people who think it's better to be getting a 20% rake kickback as opposed to not paying any rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, I usually try to stay out of emotionally charged conversations like this one, but you're really starting to get on my nerves. You've been saying the above or similar for months, and it's quite obvious that nobody here would *rather* pay rake and get 20% back than pay no rake, all things being equal. However, as many have pointed out, all things are far from equal. We'd all flock to a reputable zero rake site that had soft and plentiful games where we could expect to play winning poker and have something extra in our pockets because there was no rake.

The problem is, of course, there is currently no such site. We can find tables at one of the major sites 24 hours a day, at the stakes we want to play, with players we can expect to beat in the long run, even taking rake into account. Nobody is telling you "rake is good; we love paying rake!" And I think you bloody well know that. For the most part people are saying, "It's going to be hard for the zero-rake sites to make a go of it, and until they do, we're going to play where we can make a profit, rake or no rake." A few people may be all bent out of shape about Dutch Boyd, but I, and probably the majority of the others here, don't really give a rat's ass about Dutch Boyd one way or the other. Deliver the no-rake site with plentiful good games, and we'll come in droves. Until then, kindly spare us the broken-record act.