stars or others could really profit here... - Page 3

LinusKS · #21 03-13-2005, 04:30 PM

I'm sure this has been done better by others before, but -

Party charges an extra fity cents at $30-$40 and $50-$60, and an extra $1.00 at $60-$70 for their low limit games - compared to Stars.

That means you're paying an extra 50% on pots between $30 and $40, 25% on $50-$60, and 50% on $60-$70.

If 10% of the pots were in each of those categories, that's an extra $20 in rake that's coming out of your table per 100 hands, or an extra $2 (at a full table) that's coming from you.

If it was 10% for the first two, and 5% for the last (say, at a 3-6 table, perhaps), that's $15 dollars per 100 hands, or an extra $1.50 that's coming from you.

Rakeback, at 3-6 limit, ought to come out to around $2 per hundred hands, on a 25% deal.

Depending on your percentage, your table, and where the pots fall, you probably are making money on rakeback at Party, compared to no-rakeback at Stars, perhaps in the range of .5 cents per hand. Of course, you have to wait until the end of the month to get it, and hope that it actually comes.

Alobar · #22 03-13-2005, 08:38 PM

or maybe they would all just go play at pokerchamps, where EVERYONE gets a rakeback

MicroBob · #23 03-13-2005, 08:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
it will be you, me and 50,000 fish at this rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just make sure you stay off of MY tables!

rivered · #24 03-13-2005, 10:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
or maybe they would all just go play at pokerchamps, where EVERYONE gets a rakeback

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

kdog · #25 03-13-2005, 10:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
or maybe they would all just go play at pokerchamps, where EVERYONE gets a rakeback

[/ QUOTE ]

Except with all these tight asses there'd never be a raked pot.

sumdumguy · #26 03-13-2005, 10:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Except with all these tight asses there'd never be a raked pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's even better.. play rake free! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

pyroponic · #27 03-13-2005, 11:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]

their philosophy has always been to not rely on affiliate promoting.

they are not going to change and give rake-back....the situation with pokernow and IGM isn't going to provoke them to do a damn thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's this attitude which makes them 2nd to Party and it'll most likely always remain that way....

URMeowed · #28 03-14-2005, 12:00 AM

Yeah, the games suck here. Only profit potential is in rakeback.

Meow.

GrannyMae · #29 03-14-2005, 12:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

their philosophy has always been to not rely on affiliate promoting.

they are not going to change and give rake-back....the situation with pokernow and IGM isn't going to provoke them to do a damn thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's this attitude which makes them 2nd to Party and it'll most likely always remain that way....

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm sure they are devastated by their lackluster growth. they are barely hanging on.

pyroponic · #30 03-14-2005, 12:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

their philosophy has always been to not rely on affiliate promoting.

they are not going to change and give rake-back....the situation with pokernow and IGM isn't going to provoke them to do a damn thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's this attitude which makes them 2nd to Party and it'll most likely always remain that way....

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm sure they are devastated by their lackluster growth. they are barely hanging on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you're being sarcastic, anyways my point wasn't that Stars was going out of business or anything, it's just they could use this opportunity to increase their market share but instead by not catering to what people want (e.g. rakeback) they will always be the pint-size Party which only satisfy the desires of tournament players.