Paying less rake sites

[Syntax]

[ QUOTE ]
Im with most here I dont like the zerorake/rakefree ideas

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG! WTF? Have you lost your friggin mind?

[ QUOTE ]
I am an affiliate

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh.

[Flawed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im with most here I dont like the zerorake/rakefree ideas

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG! WTF? Have you lost your friggin mind?

[ QUOTE ]
I am an affiliate

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice

Im agaisnt it simply because it wont work. We could all ban together and promote the hell out of it, it still wont work. Dutch boyds idea is much better and has potential unfortunately his name eliminates that potential.

Educating the fish on how much they're losing in rake is not a good idea, they'd quit poker before theyd move to zerorake and pay a monthly fee.

[Tachyon]

MARKETING,MARKETING,MARKETING - thats what it is all about.

It is not what you actually offer it is how you present it to the fish:

1)Charge a monthly fee instead of the rake

2)Charge standard rakes - at the end of the month subtract the monthly fee and return the excess to the player in one lump sum "The more you play the more we pay"

Fish don't care about the rake - it is irrelevant to them. Fish think that (2) is better than (1); Pro's know that (1)==(2)

Then at the end of the month all the fish have something to look forward to... and another rack or two to lose...

JMHO

John

[Losing all]

Where is all this marketing cash coming from? I doubt they've made enough to pay the July air conditioning bill yet.

[Flawed]

[ QUOTE ]


1)Charge a monthly fee instead of the rake

2)Charge standard rakes - at the end of the month subtract the monthly fee and return the excess to the player in one lump sum "The more you play the more we pay"


[/ QUOTE ]
3) dutches idea

4) crytos idea

5) How about a weekly freeroll where about 80% of the rake goes toward the freeroll and it has a very flat payout so a lot of people come out a winner
if everyone had to play 1000 raked hands in the week to enter and 1000 people did the freeroll would be worth around $40,000! hmm pay 30 bucks a month or play here and get entered into a $40,000 freeroll every week if this is not appealing to fish I dont know what is. of course when the sites starts it would be around 100 people and a $4000 not quite as appealing to the fish but exactly the same for us.

[Myrtle]

This is an extremely complex subject, and I can’t pretend to know the answer.

For my 2 cents worth, as a businessman, the word “VALUE” ought to enter into this conversation somewhere.

IMO, it’s not simply how little you pay in rake that is paramount….It’s what you get for what you’re paying that ultimately counts.

Unfortunately, as consumers, most of us have been trained to equate “cheapest” with “best”…….and the marketing angle-shooters know very well how to exploit that state-of-mind, as they created it.

Personally, I think MS’s suggestion in the OP of “Stick with the big sites, or those small sites, that can be trusted.” Is pretty damned good advice.

Trust in an earned characteristic…There are some small sites that I play on that I have had extremely positive experiences with in that regard, and I will remain very loyal to them because of it. Trust is also based upon one’s experiences with a site, and hence is subjective.

In the end, it boils down to being a “smart consumer”, and that means knowing what you want and what it’s worth on the open market.

[UTGunner]

This is how I'd market to existing players:

1) Do a Crypto style monthly bonus for hands played (of course I would make sure the bonus was less than the rake earned on the hands played)

2) As soon as someone fails to play a hand for a week, send them an email with an offer for another bonus for hands played.

3) Offer the freerolls and other special events.

Bottom line, I would save all the neteller fees charged to my site for uneccessary reloads, but still keep drawing people back with bonus enticements. If the rake always covers the bonus amount then bonuses can be nearly constant, but you want a # of hands played goal set up to encourage long bonus clearing sessions by players ($100 free to play 1000 raked hands can sound quite attractive to casual players).

[cjs]

I don't propose that I am well informed on this subject but will offer an opinion anyway. I thought choice poker had a very nice idea and joined as a charter member. I played there and even got out before the fiasco of non payment to players. With that in mind why would anyone risk even a small portion of their bankroll on an upstart site until it shows it will be around for the long haul and many players have a positive experience.

cjs

[Pokeraddict]

I love the zero rake idea, will it fly? Well....... I doubt it. Why?

I got on live chat with them. I told them I help Bryan moderate the poker forum at casinomeister. I told them I was going to post in their poker forum their poker room and its concept. I asked them to give me a short not too spammy press release and I would post it with my story. I was told thank you very much for free advertising and to email support and they would get back to me ASAP. That was Thursday. I STILL have not heard back from them about this.

WTF????

I basically tell them I am going to give you free neutral advertising/coverage on a large gambling portal, tell me what you want me to say and they did not even reply. That right there tells me there is a problem.

I still have played there. Obviously not many games but I'm up $200 from $100 deposit and it saysI've saved $50 (inflated because rake is $.25/$5 no matter the limit) but I still support the concept even though I agree I doubt they have paid the power bill yet.

[GrannyMae]

it could be just one regular guy who got overzealous and decided to "help" the site out on his own because they really want it to succeed, and spammed away thinking he was doing some good.

i agree. i don't think (hope) that the plan was to come to the two biggest pokerforums in the world and make sure there was a hundred threads at each with the the name of the site in the thread. i think it was a player or two and before ownership realized what was happening, the tide turned against the over zealous posters and backfired. i still beleive this is a great model, but for myself i want a larger base before i join.

my "accusation" that zero rake was superior poker was based on the same software being present. i never said there was a scam involved, i just suggested that people go through sharetherake and get 110% instead of going to zero rake and paying a fee for only 100% return.

my comment that rake free may be associated was stated with a disclaimer that the only reason i had to suspect it was because i think boyd will never try to use the rakefree url and do this under his name. it has been pointed out that the software authors are the same, but the players are not. that's actually a shame because superior poker has MANY more players than zero rake and would have made a better base.

finally, as far as syntax being involved in the site, i don't know and don't care. i have nothing against his pushing zero rake, i just hated the party bashing.
(and i don't even play at party)