ONLINE RAKE STRUCTURES AND THE DIRTY LITTLE SECRET

[krazyace5]

[ QUOTE ]
heh, I'm sure this is going to get me flamed (but thats kind of my point), I had never heard of dutch boyd until ESPN WSOP coverage (which is what got me playing poker in the first place). so I knew nothing about his failed poker site until way after the fact when I saw people bad mouthing him here and then read about it. I read an interview with him talking about the whole thing (if I wasn't lazy I'd find it and link it) and he doesnt seem like the evil a-hole every says he is. I've never heard anyone rationaly explain their side of the story, I've just seen them say bad things about him. He ran a buisness and it failed due to him getting screwed over by his credit merchant. How would any of us done anything differently in his shoes? You can't pay back money your company doesn't have. And everyone always forgets that a company is a seperate entity. everyone here talks about how they got screwed out of lots of money, don't you think boyd lost a whole lot more money?



[/ QUOTE ]

We open our poker accounts, this is our money not the poker sites money right. So how come these people did not get there money back regardless of what happened with the site? If the site goes under how can it take the players accounts down with it? It should not even be on their books since it is not their money. Can someone explain this to me? Thanks

[MicroBob]

"with a more equitable rake treatment, or fee system, up to 60% of online poker players could be making a profit."


wow!! this is so true!!
a more equitable rake structure leads to 60% of all players showing a profit.
and if there was NO RAKE (such as is opposed by some amazingly well thought-out future sites) then that number would be up to 80% of all players showing win after win after win!!!
and if these sites offered bonuses ALONG with the elimination of rake then 92% of all players would be profitable!!

on top of that, if we were to do this and bring all the fish over from party with better quality games and better software, then 104% of all players will be profitable.

finally, if we tweaked that pesky blind structure a bit then we should be able to increase the number of winners to 112.4%.

anyone who claims these facts to be erroneous are clearly affiliates of the current major sites who just want to spread their propoganda and fleece the same old poor saps in the same old way.


thanks for spreading the word about how evil the current sites are and how great the new sites can be.....despite any silly mathematical evidence to the contrary.

[Lunamondo]

The rake might be less of a factor at low limits when there are worse players, while at high limits that might also be so as the rake is proportionally less. Just in the middle the online rake is more or less the same as before but the opponents are better.

What comes to the guaranteed level, I have run shorthanded simulations about fluctuations from a shorthanded game and it told that if one wins just one small bet (plus the rake) with that lineup, it won't guarantee a win for years if even then. The fluctuations that are hard to get rid of are just that much, anything above being guaranteed sooner or later during a reasonable timetable. I don't play shorthanded games where my expectation might be just one small bet per 60 hands.

[Dingo Puppet]

[ QUOTE ]
finally, if we tweaked that pesky blind structure a bit then we should be able to increase the number of winners to 112.4%.


[/ QUOTE ]

Microboy, the only thing you left out was the "if pigs could fly" argument. So I take it you are for rakes at the present rates, correct? Fair enough.

[Lawrence Ng]

Hello Ujek,

Very interesting post you have put up and though I do not agree with everything you say I think propose a very hot and interesting topic worthy of flame and discussion. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

I am curious as to where you obtain your absolute figures of %25 of players making a profit and 75% losing?

Is the rake too high on the top 3 poker sites at the moment? Surely so. Given the number of hands dealt per hour and the ability of have an infinite number of tables per site makes it so that the top 3 online poker sites have a mega multi-million dollar monthly profit.

Is this unfair? Well, online poker has been existence for a good number of years now and the player base seems to be content for the quality and service offered by the top 3 sites enough that they are willing to continue to play.

The laws of supply and demand work themselves well here I believe. If there is even a slight shift in the rake for the top 3 sites, I am sure there will be a very noticeable movement with player number bases from site to site.

Having said all this, I think there are other important factors to consider when playing online poker.

Integrity, fun, safety, and the fact that I will actually get paid make it a priority on my list before a more evenly distributed number of winning/loser players will matter to me.

Sometimes, however, I do wonder if there is a collusion system in effect with the top 3 sites. But each site offers different rewards and bonuses to attract different types of poker players.

I for one would love see a rake rebate system after so many hands played. But I find it highly unlikely to think it will happen so.

[TheGrifter]

Yeah, bar someone for a couple rude posts instead of barring someone who obviously has a hidden (spammy) agenda.

Just reading these posts makes it incredibly obvious that I'm being advertised to in some way.