[augie00]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose you paid the rake because you were the last person to touch the money, but that's not how I choose to look at it.

If my boss gives me $50 and says "go buy lunch for the team", then I come back and someone asks "did you pay for lunch?" , what should I say?

I would say "the boss paid". You would say "I paid". I suppose you did hand the money the cashier, so you are right at some level

[/ QUOTE ]

What a horrible anaolgy. Here's a better one:

You and your boss play heads up in a freezeout. This is called "the boss game." The only stipulation of "the boss game" is that the winner has to buy lunch for the entire office. So after the freezeout, you clean out your boss, and you buy the office lunch.

I guess you could say that "the boss paid for lunch" because the money that you used to pay for lunch was won off of him, but that would be silly because the money is clearly yours as you beat him in a heads up freezeout. Just because the money USED to belong to him doesn't mean it's his money anymore.

[ QUOTE ]
The valueable player is not the one who pays the rake. It's one who provides the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. And a core group of 100 players would certainly be valueable to a site that is struggling to keep games going. O'Doyle's plan is not to have 100 2+2ers log on to pokerstars and demand 30% of their rake. O'Doyle's plan is to have 100 2+2ers log onto your average crappy site and get the games going.

As this thread progresses, you just keep getting wronger and wronger. Stop posting now before it's too late.