TruePokerCEO, if you really want innovation, how about this deal?

[SinSixer]

I don't know how this could be any clearer.

What would you rather have? 100% of a player who generates $2,000 in rake a year, or 25% of a player who generates $100,000 in rake a year? Who makes you more money, even after expenses?

[ QUOTE ]
Rake is revenue, not profit. What percentage of that revenue do you think goes to taxes, salaries, servers, bonuses, advertising and other expenses? Even if it's less than 25%(and I would be very surprised if it is), what the site makes on a 75% back player is negligible

[/ QUOTE ]

TP is incurring these costs whether or not such a rakeback existed. The only thing negligible is the amount those costs rise by brining in 10 NEW high volume players who will generate 50k more "revenue". Also, no bonuses would be in effect for these players, nor would advertising be neccessary. The modest amount of actual high volume players will know about this without banner farms.

And for the record, I dont even think Party pays close to 25% of its revenue for expenses.

[kdog]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rake is revenue, not profit. What percentage of that revenue do you think goes to taxes, salaries, servers, bonuses, advertising and other expenses? Even if it's less than 25%(and I would be very surprised if it is), what the site makes on a 75% back player is negligible



[/ QUOTE ]

I probably should have been more clear with this. What I intended to say is that AFTER expenses and 75% rake back what the site makes would be negligible. As Stu points out in his post, the rise in both fixed and variable costs would be relatively small compared to the increased revenue generated. Taxes would probably be the biggest additional hit. I still think 75% is an unrealistic number though.

[ QUOTE ]
And for the record, I dont even think Party pays close to 25% of its revenue for expenses

[/ QUOTE ]

Party would be the only site that had a chance for this based on 1- sheer volume and 2- monies collected from the skins. However, when you consider their advertising budget and payments to affiliates I would still be surprised to see them come in with expenses at less than 25% of revenue.

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
75% rakeback. riiiight. Laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is even more laughable is that I believe you have absolutely no clue how much rake a high volume player pays or how rake works in general.

FYI, For 2/4 and 3/6 the house collects, on average, about $1 per hand. If you dont believe that, look at your PT stats. If you dont have PT, ask TruePokerCEO, he runs a site and can tell you its correct. If youre too lazy, just think about it. He offered to send O'Doyle to the WSOP for 120,000 hands. Doyles contribution to that total rake (1/10 players) would be $12,000, hence a "free trip"

If a "players association" brought 10 new players to TruePoker (or anywhere) with a gaurantee to play 200,000 hands each, it would generate $200,000 in new rake. If the house distributed back 75% to the players, they would "only" get to keep $50,000 for dealing the cards.

Keep in mind we are talking about 10 players that wont ever give this site a shot otherwise. I don't think TruePoker would find and extra $50,000 per 200k hands funny. Still think its laughable?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's infinity more laughable is that you just explained to me how rake works as if I don't have a clue. I've paid about $50,000 in rake already this year, and don't like it any less than the next guy...but try for something attainable. This 75% stuff is over the top.

[pokerplayer28]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
75% rakeback. riiiight. Laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is even more laughable is that I believe you have absolutely no clue how much rake a high volume player pays or how rake works in general.

FYI, For 2/4 and 3/6 the house collects, on average, about $1 per hand. If you dont believe that, look at your PT stats. If you dont have PT, ask TruePokerCEO, he runs a site and can tell you its correct. If youre too lazy, just think about it. He offered to send O'Doyle to the WSOP for 120,000 hands. Doyles contribution to that total rake (1/10 players) would be $12,000, hence a "free trip"

If a "players association" brought 10 new players to TruePoker (or anywhere) with a gaurantee to play 200,000 hands each, it would generate $200,000 in new rake. If the house distributed back 75% to the players, they would "only" get to keep $50,000 for dealing the cards.

Keep in mind we are talking about 10 players that wont ever give this site a shot otherwise. I don't think TruePoker would find and extra $50,000 per 200k hands funny. Still think its laughable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes its laughable
what about the players already there theyre going to want 75% too
so for every player who is playing 10k hands a month you need to bring in 3 new 10k per month players, added to the fact that the games will get tougher with all these rocks joining the idea is laughable

[Beach-Whale]

[ QUOTE ]
This 75% stuff is over the top.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just as well might add to the discussion that I believe that you can get about 80% rakeback at PokerChamps, if you are clever about it and play a lot.

[bicyclekick]

Fine, you guys take your super inflated rakeback and play at the crappy sites with little to no game selection for a few bucks an hour while the rest of us play at the sites with the good games where the money from the bad players far outweighs the extra rakeback.

Fine with me.

[grimel]

[ QUOTE ]
Fine, you guys take your super inflated rakeback and play at the crappy sites with little to no game selection for a few bucks an hour while the rest of us play at the sites with the good games where the money from the bad players far outweighs the extra rakeback.

Fine with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

{blows whistle, throws flag}

10yds unsportsmanlike conduct - introducing logical thought in a flame war!

[Beach-Whale]

I don't play at PokerChamps - yet. But I like the place, and hope they pick up some players. For the good of the whole market.

I don't understand why you seem so angry. I see this as a discussion for how to make things better for us players in the future, not where it is best to play today. I thought poker players should be naturally long-run thinkers.

[bicyclekick]

Angry?

No way.

Just being reasonable. I never raised my voice or called any one names. I did laugh at a few things and people though. Sue me.

[Derek in NYC]

[ QUOTE ]
Fine, you guys take your super inflated rakeback and play at the crappy sites with little to no game selection for a few bucks an hour while the rest of us play at the sites with the good games where the money from the bad players far outweighs the extra rakeback.

Fine with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding ding! Im stuck at Party like it or not, until another poker site demonstrates the ability to fill its tables with idiot fish.