Internet poker slowdown

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you do this:

[ QUOTE ]
As a mutual fund manager I took part in the IPO with 800´000 shares, and I also met the analysts from the consortium in which Dresdner Kleinwort were the lead.

[/ QUOTE ]

When

[ QUOTE ]
As a poker player it took just seconds to understand that these analysts didn't have a clue about the industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

He's a fund manager, not a day trader. It's not his money.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am still perplexed by the strange acceptance of all these semi-professional internet poker players to pay these enormous sums of money in rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because they're mostly idiots who think they've butchered the fatted calf. I was just at the Commerce Club where they took $70 juice for a $40 satellite. Most of the games are a $4 drop as soon as there is a flop. Poker players are being raped in the B&M and online.

But since everybody here wins their 5BB an hour 8 tabling they don't seem to care.

Personally, I'm sick of getting [censored] by the online sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're a casino owner, why would you settle for less drop when you could just replace all the poker tables with slot machines and make twice as much money?

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're a casino owner, why would you settle for less drop when you could just replace all the poker tables with slot machines and make twice as much money?

[/ QUOTE ]

It really takes a lot of nerve to post this nonsense, but you see it all the time. Do you really think if the casinos took out all of the restaurants, bathrooms, sportsbooks, bars, shops, stores, and poker rooms and installed nothing but slot machines they would immediately fill up with patrons willing to gamble away pulling the silver handle?

This is not about what they CAN do or SHOULD do, it's about what they're doing and how the custmers (poker players) just blithely accept it as if nothing is out of the ordinary.

A $20 sit'n'go on Party is $2 juice. A $100 sit'n'go is $9 juice. Why does the $100 sit'n'go charge more juice? There is only ONE correct answer. Let's see who is the first to come up with it.

Whoa there, let's work on our reading comprehension, mmmkay?

All I'm saying is that a poker table needs to charge what seems like a very high rake in order to make an equivalent amount of money for the casino as a slot/VP machine or roulette table would.

I agree that charging $9 for a $100 SNG and $2 for a $20 SNG is not something they need to do. It's like buying golf balls. If you pay $36 for a dozen ProV1s, it's not like it cost Titleist twice as much money to make them as the cheap balls, but better players are willing to pay more for them. Just like higher stakes poker players are willing to pay more in rake to play poker.

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
Just like higher stakes poker players are willing to pay more in rake to play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are really out of the loop, or you just don't get it. Where on earth do you come up with the ridiculous notion that high stakes players are willing to pay more in rake to play poker? This is nonsense. Utter, nonthinking nonsense.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Where on earth do you come up with the ridiculous notion that high stakes players are willing to pay more in rake to play poker? This is nonsense. Utter, nonthinking nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simple... if the higher stakes players weren't "willing" to pay higher rake, they wouldn't be playing [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Doesn't say anything about whether they are happy about it or not!

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question:

[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that rake used to be much lower in the good ol' B&M-only days, or that you think rake should be lower?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's the former, yeah, let's take up arms against the casinos.

If it's the latter, I wish ya luck, big dude.

Why did we take part of the IPO (Partygaming)? A very good question. The market interest was great, resulting in the book being 10x oversubscribed. The consequese is that the stock was almost bound to go up post the IPO. So that was a no brainer. However I was stupid not to flip the shares atleast a couple of weeks into traiding. The reasoning was that it is very unusual that a company messes up the first quarter like Party did (if it is a bad deal it usaually comes in the second or third quarter).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just like higher stakes poker players are willing to pay more in rake to play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are really out of the loop, or you just don't get it. Where on earth do you come up with the ridiculous notion that high stakes players are willing to pay more in rake to play poker? This is nonsense. Utter, nonthinking nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, I dunno, I might get that utter nonthinking nonsense from the simple fact that higher stakes players have been paying more rake than lower stakes players for decades. They can tolerate it because it's a much lower percentage of each pot than lower stakes.

I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever actually played poker.

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
Gee, I dunno, I might get that utter nonthinking nonsense from the simple fact that higher stakes players have been paying more rake than lower stakes players for decades. They can tolerate it because it's a much lower percentage of each pot than lower stakes.

I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever actually played poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. You're obviously an idiot, who is now on permanent ignore, but I'll give one last response anyway.

Since no one answered my question above, I'll assume no one knows the answer. Casinos and online cardrooms charge more for higher stakes games BECAUSE THEY CAN! That's the ONLY reason. It costs no more, takes no more time, and is no more effort, but because the stakes are higher they use that as an excuse to siphon off more money. I even asked a casino manager at the Commerce one time why they rake off more money in the bigger games and his answer I kid you not was, "the high stakes players can afford it." Some answer, huh?

High stakes players HATE BEING ROBBED. It's nothing but greedy discrimination. But since poker players in general (including high stakes players) are mostly degenerate gambers and not smart business men they pony up the dough. They have all the power and could easily get the raked lowered considerably, but they're too busy trying to stay in action. The same is true for online poker. $9 juice for a $100 sit'n'go? $15 juice for a $200 sit'n go? Are you kidding me? Why? Because they can, that's why.

And I'd also be willing to lay three to one I've been playing poker longer than you've been alive.