[ QUOTE ]

This is true. I don't think I'm articulating my point well. The idea is the poker sites would rather have recreational players pass money around amongst themselves >>> they play more hands >>> they pay more rake. A winning player wins that money then cashes much of it out instead of losing it to other players and paying rake.

The winning player does not pay less rake, you are right. But he/she prevents other (losing) players from paying MORE rake. Does that make sense?

As for Mason, he has forgotten more about gambling than I probably will ever know. (I would love to hear his comments on this topic!) I have never read that essay you are refering to, and perhaps that does change the dynamic of my argument somewhat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I understand your point now. I'll have to think about this. I'm not sure if this is true either.

But I do believe that a poker room would rather have a player's longterm play and contribute to the rake for an extended time. Bad players will often play, lose whatever their point of pain is (unless they are degenerates [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]), and not play anymore. Perhaps that what bonus reloads are intend to do--keep bad players playing.

Rooms will probably get away with higher rakes as most people have no idea what the rake is or means. Either way, there will always be sites with reduced rake as a competitive measure. New sites esp. have reason to do this.