the rake in poker

[Drunk Bob]

columbia house now thats a real blast from the past.

32 or so years ago I signed up for both their book and 8-Track Clubs.

Their books fell apart and the 8 tracks broke after 10 or 15 plays.

So I say up your ass Time Warner@.


And they still wonder why I don't have cable.

[gliam]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is exactly right. The typical uneducated player is just not going to pay a 'fee' to play poker, nor will they realise that its a better deal, just like they wont learn to stop calling big PF raises with AJo.

I predict the rake free sites wont work, for the same reason they invented rake in the first place, its a concealed charge, fishy player will not ever get it.

[morgant]

this thread has taken a classic zoo turn to nonsense, after reading that link 2kf, i was curious as to the whereabouts of cyndie. is she reincarnated as someone else, or am i clueless?

[Drunk Bob]

I have seen some claims on this site but this one is impossible.

to pay $50 /hr in rake at an online table you would have to play 1667 hands per hour.
/

[Tosh]

You have some serious error in your calculation somewhere. A lot of players are paying in excess of $50 an hour in rake.

[Fish Stalker]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

If casual players really cared about such things as rake, they would also care about being losing players, and would do one of the following:

1) stop playing (break even is +EV versus being a losing player)
2) learn how to play, becoming a winning player.

The fact that they don't do these, shows that they are really just playing for fun. What they lose (both in rake and from bad play) is the cost of their entertainment.

[DarkKnight]

Many of you are missing an important point.

If rake is decreased the fish with limited bankrolls will play more because less money will be leaving the tables.


DK

[ctv1116]

Some people pay tens of thousands of dollars a year in rake, but for the casual micro-limit player (the vast majority) $30 a month is significantly more than what they probably pay in rake. If the typical player only wants to deposit $50 to Party Poker, why would they deposit $50 to ZeroRake when $30 of it gets eaten up by the "membership."

Granted, Ray makes a fantastic point. Because the game does play rake free (the membership fee is a sunk cost), when ZeroRake does get a decent amount of games and a track record of secure cashouts, it probably will be a more profitable option to even Party Poker.

[Flawed]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mightve missed a post or 2 but I didnt see 1 post where anyone said a no rake/low rake site wasnt better than a rake site. Most of us are just saying it will never get off the ground. Id love to see the site take off, it just wont happen.

rakefree on the other hand has a small chance of success

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
$30 a month is significantly more than what they probably pay in rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe this then you are one of the fish that have no clue how much they actually pay in rake