So, the Zero Rake research begins.

[Lori]

I'm certain that someone will have posted this, but the very first port of call reveals the following.

[ QUOTE ]
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.ACTIONPOKER.COM
NS2.ACTIONPOKER.COM


[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone still need a reason not to play there?

Lori

[LinusKS]

What's the significance of "NS1.ACTIONPOKER.COM"?

Thank you.

[TimM]

There was a heated thread about this a while back:

[Lori]

Interesting that people are saying that Dutch has nothing to do with the site, that evidence seems pretty conclusive that he does.

Thanks Tim.

For the other poster, Actionpoker were the guys who ran GUTS poker.
They did pay some people.

Lori

[TimM]

Luckily all this stuff is before my time, except for Choice, but I'm not the type to get too involved with a fledgling new site, especially when I was just starting out.

So I want to take the time to thank Lori and all of the other "old timers" on this board for keeping this kind of information alive for us "newbies".

[Thythe]

I made a tiny deposit for some unknown reason a few weeks ago, haven't played a hand yet. The Neteller withdrawal comes up as Action Poker also.

[Bob L]

I heard that action poker stiffed quite a few people.

[Thythe]

[ QUOTE ]
I heard that action poker stiffed quite a few people.

[/ QUOTE ]

It could be, I'm not really into the scene of bad card rooms to much and have never had any problems anywhere. If Zerorake goes under, I won't feel too bad losing my $26 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[JayCo]

[ QUOTE ]


Does anyone still need a reason not to play there?

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Lori, you've had more credibility with this newb than more or less anyone else on 2+2. I've benefited from your clear writing, insightful analysis, and enjoyed your wit as much as any of the lurkers around here. So while I very much doubt you'll care, and fully realizing that you owe me or anyone else nothing but your honest opinions, I wanted to pass along that your post disappointed.

While I tend to have a jaded, cynical, and slightly mistrustful perspective on most things (particularly in arenas where my and other people's money is on the line), I try to keep my mind open at least a crack and not jump to immediate conclusions. I believe there are others like me thinking that even if there's a chance (10%? 50%? 80%?) that this site crashes and burns, the upside to all online poker players for potential competition on rake is so great that maybe, just maybe, it could be better to give this specific site a shot rather than actively campaigning against it from the get-go. Warnings to potential players that there is risk seem 100% appropriate to me, definitive statements that imply only fools will tread there are over the top, IMO.

FWIW, I come down very squarely on the side of sympathizing with people like MS Sunshine who lost money at the hands of Dutch Boyd. I tend to be ambivalent regarding affiliates as long as they do not poison these waters with ill-disguised spam, while recognizing they have both a cost and benefit to the online poker community.

I abhor the ridiculous ZeroRake spamming and shilling on this board and I am not so naive to be unaware that ZR may be controlled by Ponzi-scheme-inclined bloodsuckers. That said, I've seen more than enough of those taking a holier-than-thou "I have quickly decided that this is BAD and therefore will attempt to pound anyone who has a different perspective into like-thinking", and to me they show up only a notch or two higher on the credibility ladder. Balance, intelligent analysis, objectivity, logic, and open-mindedness are virtues that while largely absent in the Bush administration IMO are also sadly lacking in this particular debate on 2+2.

I am a player and not a shill or affiliate, and I have benefited from the generous sharing of other players knowledge and time here on 2+2, and as such, I am on the side of what I think will ultimately benefit the players in the long run. I believe the Concept of lower or zero-rake online sites is a net Good. Can we please hold off on deciding whether this particular incarnation or execution of this concept (ZeroRake) is on the equivalent scale of evil as DutchBoyd-BinLaden-GeorgeSteinbrenner until we have something marginally solid?

Lori, you obviously deserved none of this vitriol based on a quickie post, and I apologize if my response would be more appropriate for a PM- I'm still unclear on the unwritten code of conduct here. I am also aware that this is a knee-jerk over-reaction of the highest order, but your comment to me was a microcosm both of what's good and bad about this forum. I, and I am sure many others who are less active on here, highly value and respect your opinion. I for one believe you have a great impact on people's perspectives and final judgement, and wanted to remind you of that fact and thank you for your good intentions.

(stepping off from soap box now)


Someone else who needs more

[Lori]

Forgetting the potential crookedness of the site, the whole rake free thing is a bad concept.

I have 17 poker sites on my PC at the moment, and to pay $40 per month for each of them would cost me $680 a month before I even play a hand.

I need this many sites because I like my game selection.

A SNG costs me $1 or $2 in rake, and a hand where I see the flop costs me a few cents.

Whilst I am aware that many higher limit players would benefit a lot from the zerorake concept, the players who become the fish at those higher limits would be spending way too much money before they even got there and bust out.

Still don't believe me, then I'll elaborate.

Most players have several sites on their computer, this is good for healthy competition and therefore keeps the sites, at least to some degree, improving their products.

If people have to pay $40 to be a member of a site, not only is that $40 less they have to put on the table and lose, but it also pretty much ties your average fish to that one site, therefore removing them from the pool at all other sites and making us pay another $40 to take them on.

Ultimately this will lead to people playing less sites, therefore making promotions less successful and with less impact and also lead to fish only playing one site each and dispersing them across the net.

If a fish has $100 to lose and has to spend $40 of his money up front before sitting down, that's $40 per fish that isn't in the pool to be won.

Remember that our winnings come from many many seperate fish, not a few repeated fish, and this will eat heavily into what we win.

For these reasons, even before looking at the potential other problems, 0-rake sites are doomed to failure.

Lori