Rake Free Sites

[The Truth]

ok, to the first case if you share your account with your friends, then you only have to pay the 30 dollars once instead of once for each of your friends. on the downside, you cant play at the sametime, and you have to work out your own money situation.
2nd of all the user that doesnt play very often STILL PAYS MORE THAN 30 DOLLARS A MONTH IN RAKE. You dont have oto pay up front anyway, you wont lose anything by playing there. They simply rake your pots the same as party does, until it reaches 30 bucks and then it stops. It will never cost you more than party does. Go to one of the rake free sites and check out the model , it works and it works well.
They just need advertising money to make it look cute for the fish.

[MrTeddyKGB]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not agruing that I like to pay rake, I just don't see us as having the power to change it so we have to evaluate based on our win rate. I would love for a site to offer a rake cap. I think if Party offered a rake cap each month most of us on rake back programs at other sites would switch back, but only after evaluating whether a rake cap at Party saved me more in total rake than rake back at another skin. That would depend largely on where they set the rake cap. A rake cap of $50 would mean even .5/1 players would come screaming back, but a cap of $2500 would mean my current rake back deal is better for the amount I play.



[/ QUOTE ]
Seems like a rake cap is the best plan IMO. The site still makes a lot of money of me (1,000) mo and I would play more at that site once I capped my rake. They make the same from the fish who would never cap their rake anyway. With all the sites begging for players and looking for props it seems letting a person who plays 40,000 hands per month "only" have to pay $12,000 a year is a good deal for everyone. I used to play long hours in B&M, they know to treat the regulars well. The local rooms in vegas all have comp programs to draw the locals. We (high volume players) should be treated well. If I was lossing 70K a year in black jack at the mirage I would expect VIP treatment. They will never get that rrom me. I chase bonuses all around the net. I have multiple accounts. Seems like a lot of work. If one site with a large player base would let me play for 1,000 a month (a number I still think is high) then the would have a loyal customer to fill their games. Seems like a win/win to me. I will never pay that absurd rake you guys should not either.

[URMeowed]

[ QUOTE ]
They just need advertising money to make it look cute for the fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are they going to get the advertising money from player deposits?

Meow.

[CountDuckula]

[ QUOTE ]
If all the winning players moved from party, the fish would follow. Note the fish think they are winning players, they want the best deals too. The fish wants lots of games and lots of players. 1 winning player has the usage of 5 fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

By your figures, that means that about 16.7% of all players are winning players. So if all the winning players left Party and skins all at once, they would still have 83.3% of their clientele left; I don't think the fish are likely to notice that drop and start asking where the sharks went. In addition, these players would suddenly start doing better because the sharks are no longer around to punish them for their mistakes.

The fish are much more impressed by bonuses than by rakeback, because as has been repeatedly pointed out, the fish don't understand rake. Party raised their rake last year, and as far as I can tell, they haven't suffered for it. The increase in $/hand swamped any loss of customers.

The only way a rake-free site could operate is by charging a periodic subscription fee (say, monthly) or by charging a fee each time a player sits at a table (I don't think advertising is likely to work, because it would require that people intent on playing would take time out and click on links or some such). I strongly suspect that most people aren't likely to want to pay up front, when they can play for "free" elsewhere. Only the player who wins a pot pays the rake, as far as they're concerned, and when they win it, it doesn't bother them to win only $46 instead of the full $50.

-Mike

[jacobsta]

[ QUOTE ]
Your logic here is faulty.
So you wouldnt like to run a rake free site and make 1 million a year, if the players wanted rake free, all you have to do is start it up and collect money.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, your logic is what is faulty. Would you play at a site where you were break even or lost money ? Having ANY kind of charge, be it rake, a monthly fee, or some other kind of structure means that someone has to pay. If you won't play if you aren't winning, that means that somebody else has to be losing as much as you are winning + the rake, and/or a lot of people have to be losing a smaller amount equal to your win + rake (or monthly charge). If YOU won't play if you can't win, you won't play at that room without losing players. And I think that it is well established that losing players don't like being charged up front. So if I have to attract losing players to even have you come to my casino, and you won't play the instant you start losing (medium-long term expectation wise), why would I want you at my room ? Somebody has to lose for me to profit, and if it isn't you, why do I want you ? Losing players fuel the room, not winning players. That being the case, why do I NEED to cater to you ? Clearly you are only playing while you can win, so you are taking money out of our little "economy". Losing players on the other hand are playing for the pure enjoyment - and it probably matters little to them whether it is the casino or other players fleecing them, and all things considered, I want it to be me.

So anyway, think of it this way. I can have a site where I can either charge an unlimited amount of rake, or some limited amount/monthly charge. The former falls harder on winning players, and those who play a LOT (probably winning players or they would soon be broke). The latter falls harder on casual players, as everyone has to get over the first X dollars. Since the sharks follows the fish, I don't NEED to be rakefree to attract players, and clearly a rake benefits me, and the players I need to keep, more, so I repeat- why would I EVER want to run a rakefree room ?

[Nathan_2]

Rake reduction is a business model some new site like Full Tilt should adopt instead of trying to get on the Party, Paradise, Poker Stars, Prima etc. gravy train that has already passed them by. They could drop their $600 bonus deal scheme. Seems now the goal is loyal patrons and volume.

As for marketing to people who may not be aware of rake I suggest the following approach: "IT COSTS LESS TO PLAY HERE"

[KaBoom]

Capping rake to a reasonable level sounds great. After that it would be rakefree for the rest of the month or even better would be continue collecting rake and return it back to players at the end of the month! They could have a slogan "rakefree poker with rakeback"! [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]