|
|
#31
07-05-2004, 01:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: facts
i agree completely. play where the games are best. but be aware that worse games at lesser rakes can be more profitable. hope dearly that those new places develop and provide competition. thats what will help us all.
my post was basic but i saw a few people saying in the zero rake thread that it didnt matter and a low or no rake site wasnt better. it is way better and would make each winner much more each year. there are many readers of this forum that dont play four tables at a time and ten hours a day. i was directing my comments to them mostly as i thought the more experienced would know that. i am totally surprised to see from players that i mistakenly thought had a good grasp on poker such resonses and indifference to the rake. i am not talking about you sun devil. 
|
|
#33
07-05-2004, 01:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: facts
while i agree with what you are saying as a whole, i think there is a big difference between a fish's general indifference to the rake....and my indifference to a totally new and unproven site that is promising to save every player hundreds (or thousands) of dollars.
i have not read all of the other threads regardinmg the new site....so maybe there really are a number of players around here who are indifferent to the influence of rake. but i suspect that many of the players who are indifferent to this new site are merely skeptical of its chances of succeeding. however, your point about slightly tougher games with no rake being more profitable than slightly fishier games with a brutal rake is obviously accurate. to that end, i hope the new site takes off....i'll happily sign up once i hear reports of reasonably decent games and hassle-free cash-outs. but right now, i'm not entirely convinced that the fish will find their way.
|
|
#36
07-05-2004, 02:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the rake in poker
I don't know. I try to get along and show respect to everyone here. I've had a few problems, but thats mostly because I'm set on my ways(re politics), and have a pretty sick sense of humor.
If he was trying to add something new or help someone out with his post, I was out of line. At first glance it seemed like he was talking down to "us" in a very smug manner. I was most likely wrong, and I'm man enough to eat crow. In the future I'll do my best to keep my opinions to myself.
|
|
#37
07-05-2004, 03:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the rake in poker
I don't see why there wouldn't be more fish at a free rake site potentially. The losing players will lose their money slower and the break-even players, who are drained by the rake will stay longer. I couldn't believe that any person would participate in a site that had a standard rake instead to one that was cheaper to play on, excepting the player base issue. Eventually, I predict that the free rake sites will be considerably more profitable than the standard ones.
|
|
#38
07-05-2004, 04:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the rake in poker
Even many educated players can't make a difference between a good game and a bad game, not to mention a good rake and a bad rake.
To most (tighter or not) players the rake is just a small percentage taken from the pot (you can go to the table and see this fact yourself; it's only a tiny piece taken from the pot), and so has an insignificant effect. I see a huge amount of (new or some sort of savant idiots) educated players playing at tight sites and tight tables and paying up to double rake.
|
|
#39
07-05-2004, 04:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the rake in poker
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why there wouldn't be more fish at a free rake site potentially. [/ QUOTE ] because they cant figure out that 30 bucks a month is a better deal then the house taking a buck or 2 from each pot.
|
|
#40
07-05-2004, 05:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the rake in poker
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
