Is a no rake site inevitable?

[djack]

What is the future of the online poker industry?

Is it inevitable that the #1 site of the future will be a no rake site?

Heck, will poker sites ever start competing on rake? Few sites even attempt to compete on rake. I can only think of a few that have -- ZeroRake, ChoicePoker, didn't Nutz as well? -- and they've all failed or are struggling.

I've been wondering about this for a few weeks ever since ZeroRake spammed these forums. I'd love it if there were a popular no rake site, but I'm unsure that there ever will be one. It's obviously better to have very poor players than to have no rake. This is the commodity that PartyPoker has right now.

But if the fish pond ever starts drying up, then I think that would increase the possibility of a no rake site becoming popular.

And at low limits a no rake site wouldn't have to have that bad players to be more profitable for a good player.

My guess? In about 2 years, one of the norake sites will start to catch on.

[TxSteve]

I personally kind of doubt it.

The vast majority of online players do not understand the rake and certainly don't understand how much money they are paying.

These recreational players are also not going to want to pay X$ up front for a "membership" to a site. They won't want to commit to that and just don't care about it.

Just my opinion

[cthomer5000]

I think whichever site has the best advertisining will ultimately be #1. It's simply the way things work.

[TxSteve]

I agree ct...and since sites with a rake are ALWAYS going to be way, way more profitable than a no rake site...

I think they will be the ones advertising.

[ElSapo]

I don't think casual players (i.e. the weaker ones) are going to pay to gamble, and those are the ones you want at the tables.

[adamstewart]

Why would this be inevitable? Besides charging an upfront fee, there's no other way for a site to make a profit... If there's no money to be made, why would anyone/company waste their time running a site?

[Randy_Refeld]

I want a site with the highest rake. Let all the nits and players looking for a deal go someplace else so I can play with the players that are unfamiliar with rake.

Randy Refeld

[Rudbaeck]

I think so, except that the development costs were significantly lower online poker provides a service that is very comparable on online roleplaying games, and there the industry standard is $12.95 a month.

But the site doing shouldn't charge a dime up front, instead use something like the rake-o-meter that ZeroRake tried and stop raking pots once someone has paid $20 or so that month.

Several of our top players here on 2+2 are basically paying $4-5k a month for a $12.95 service.

I wish I owned iGlobalMedia. :/

[fnurt]

That depends how you think of it. To some people, the "service" of online poker sites is providing a place where they can make a six-figure income. They don't like paying so much in rake, of course, but they're willing to do it because the "service" they get in return is worth so much more.

[Rudbaeck]

On the other hand economy predicts that it will eventually solve itself, markets with 90% profit margin almost invariably turn into markets with <9% profit margins in a few years. Hopefully this won't be brought about by online poker dying out.

ZeroRake's imminent failure will probably save the rake sites another year or two, but a successor will succeed.