Don't be fooled!! The Rake is ......

[SharkBait]

[ QUOTE ]
If you made that much back in rakeback, what must you have paid in rakes???? Think about it! The highest rakeback programs pay 35%.

And as far as them providing a site for me to play, they are charging entirely more then they need to manage a poker table!!!

How can you think it is okay to pay $2400.00 to play poker??? Are you for real??? You think they need to charge that much to stay in business? They could reduce those fees and still make a fortune. They have 70,000 active players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...the primary purpose of most businesses is to make money. Businesses price there products based on the laws of supply and demand. There, you now know everything there is to know about business. Please drop out of high school, skip college and become a professional poker player immediately...You are ready.

[bpb]

[ QUOTE ]
I just talked to ACTION poker support who now owns zerorake.com and he said that they closed it since they were bought and there was just too much money in raking the games!! Unreal, he is basically saying that until these idiots demand cheaper rates, they will continue to charge them high rake fees!!

You guys are freakin morons or affiliates trying to save your incomes!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Your posts are disgustingly insulting.

I will play wherever my hourly rate is maximized.

If I can make $20/hr playing rake free against very good players, or $80/hr against very bad players, but have to pay $50/hr in rake (netting $30/hr) .... where in the unholy [censored] do you think I'm going to play?

Hourly rate is the bottom line.

And I'm not an affiliate. I don't make a [censored] dime off of the rake. You are an [censored].

[bcblack]

I prop full time. My pay is 100% rakeback. I've played about 30 hours a week the last 3 months and earned $22k. My rakeback was $14k while I only won $8k. I would say rake makes a pretty big difference. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[grimel]

The cost of N+1 internet hands is near zero, but the cost of N+0.2(N) is not near zero. Party runs how many thousand tables? Adding 1 table isn't all that much, but adding the infrastructure to take 100 people datamining 4 tables while playing 4 tales and 100 people datamining 4 tables while playing somewhere else while .... is costly if nothing else just the bandwidth costs for online poker at a major site is outlandish.

Yes, Party is making a mint in rake. Other sites aren't charging as much AND offer approved rakeback plans. So, why are the high volume players still at Party? Party offers a service UB, Pacific, Absolute, Pokerstars, etc do NOT offer - mega numbers of FISH at all levels. They (Party) advertise in enough locations to keep the fish coming. The predators go where the food is. In this case, until someone offers a site where the sharks can equal or exceed their current bottom line Party can keep charging outrageous rake and the sharks will pay it.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]


Is it good value for money - no. People are comparing it to B&M poker and saying internet poker rooms charge less rake. If you play only 1 slow table on the internet that's fine. However most winning players are multi-tablers and you can't compare the two.

Bascially tremendous improvements in technology has allowed poker to be played at a much faster rate than in the B&M casinos. Instead of 40 hands an hour players, like me, are playing 250 hands per hour. The cost of an additional internet played hand is close to zero.

In many other business the impact of technology over the last 30 years has led to a much lower price to the consumer. Not, however, in the internet Poker market.

The efficiencies and savings generated by the new technology (computers & the internet - elimination of dealers, casino space etc...) are not being passed to the consumers.

Instead the internet poker site have used the new technology to reduce their costs exponentially (the cost of opening an additional table is virtually nil) passing virtually none of these savings on to the consumer.



[/ QUOTE ]

Actually this is not entirely accurate. How many .50/1.00 games do you see in a casino? That's right, none, because the cost is prohibitive relative to the rake that can be generated.

But the online cost savings allows the online sites to spread .50/1.00 and even lower. At low-to medium low is the rake a bear? Sure. But that doesn't mean small stakes players aren't deriving a benefit from the lower costs of running online tables.

--Zetack