So, the Zero Rake research begins.

[Synergistic Explosions]

Why do you even care about a new site, with 5 players at peak times?

In my opinion, the site failed and isn't worthy of discussion any longer.

Move onward........nobody cares anymore.

[Lori]

Why do you even care about a new site, with 5 players at peak times?

In my opinion, the site failed and isn't worthy of discussion any longer.

Move onward........nobody cares anymore.


Assuming your opinion is right, why do YOU think it didn't work?

Lori

[djack]

[ QUOTE ]

High limit fish mostly come from low limit winners

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is anywhere close to being true.

[Synergistic Explosions]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you even care about a new site, with 5 players at peak times?

In my opinion, the site failed and isn't worthy of discussion any longer.

Move onward........nobody cares anymore.


Assuming your opinion is right, why do YOU think it didn't work?

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

The markets oversaturated at the moment. Haven't seen any new site open with any sort of success in many months. The only ones making money in all these new sites opening are the companies selling the poker software.

I'd bet 20 bucks that at this time next year, we will be talking about the dozen sites that closed down and didn't pay its players.

[Lori]

I'd bet 20 bucks that at this time next year, we will be talking about the dozen sites that closed down and didn't pay its players.

I actually agree, just nice to get some reasons into the discussion [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Lori

[t_perkin]

As a tournament player I am surprised that you don't recognise the practicality of a zero-rake policy.

All tournaments are effectively run on a zero-rake policy.
Rather than taking a percentage of the prize pool they take an equal amount from all participants, whether they win or lose.

The alternative would be to simply take 10% of the prize pool and nothing at buyin. This penalises the winners more than the losers. In fact I am amazed that none of the poker rooms run their tournaments like this.


For example:
__________________
2 players play 10 heads up $10+1 SnGs at Poker Stars

Player A wins 9 for a profit of $70
( 9 * 20 - 11 * 10 )

Player B wins 1 for a profit of -$90
( 1 * 20 - 11 * 10 )

Total rake = $20
__________________

__________________
If instead Poker Stars said they would take 10% of the winnings and charged no rake. Again 2 players play 10 heads up SnGs:

Player A wins 9 for a profit of $62
( 9 * 20 * 0.9 - 10 * 10 )

Player B wins 1 for a profit of -$82
( 1 * 20 * 0.9 - 10 * 10 )

Total rake = $20
_________________


It is not quite the same; tournament fees penalise those who win less, whereas the zero-rake site penalises those who play less. But it is a very similar concept. It is just considered more palatable in tournaments, because that is the way it has always been done.

If zero-rake were to be run on ring games as $x flat fee per 100 hands (i.e. somewhat equivalent to a seat charge) then it would be exactly the same as playing in a tournament.

So basically you can set the rake tariff however you like depending on who you want to tax the most.

If you want to tax the bad players:
For ring games you set a flat rake per hand.
For tournaments you have a buyin, just the way it is now.

If you want to tax the good players:
For ring games you have a rake from the pot, just as you do now.
For tournament you have a rake taken as a % of the prize pool.

If you want to tax the players who play a lot:
Don't have a flat fee.

If you want to tax the players who don't play very much:
Have a flat fee.


Just some thoughts


Tim

[Lori]

The alternative would be to simply take 10% of the prize pool and nothing at buyin. This penalises the winners more than the losers. In fact I am amazed that none of the poker rooms run their tournaments like this.


Paradise take 9%, which is a fraction better as long as it's not a rebuy tourney.

Lori

[Lori]

If you want to tax the players who play a lot:
Don't have a flat fee.

If you want to tax the players who don't play very much:
Have a flat fee.


I think this hits at the very heart of the debate.

My stance and experience is that most people don't play much and those that do play a lot are the winners.

It is probably the most important aspect of the whole debate however, and well worth looking into some figures.

Lori

[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
For tournaments you have a buyin, just the way it is now.
For tournament you have a rake taken as a % of the prize pool.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sort of amazed you perceive there to be a difference between these two. Sorry, but your post has some atrocious logic. You're just reducing the money the playerbase puts up front and reducing the money the players take out. Your charted example is exactly the same as having a $9+1 SNG instead of a $10+1, and this ratio is *bad* for the players on the whole. Yes, it saves the guy who loses 90% of the time some money, sure. But that is because anyone who is a net-losing player will always save money by moving down in stakes!

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]


As to Alobar, I am curious as to why you are so bitter about this subject.
You are certainly capable of rational debate, yet everything I've read that you have put on the subject is merely personal attacks and insults.
We have the brains on this forum to come up with something good between us, it seems that the internal fighting seems to have clouded many potentially productive debates.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you go back and look at the early zerorake stuff, I think I was the first player here to make a deposit and then talk about my experience at the site. Then the spamming started, and all the flaming of zerorake started. I took the side of defending zerorake, because I didn't (and still don't) believe that the spam was made by anyone actually affiliated with zerorake. More than anything tho I was just offering a plausible argument against the allegations (I tend to do that with any subject, even if its not what I happen to believe, just to show there are other possibilities). Then I just got pissed off at several posters who without any thought or argument would just jump in and spout insults and make retarded comments. I tend to sink to the level of the opposistion, and it got to the point where even if I posed a logical argument nobody would listen anyway and just shout some lame insult (daryns response in the thread on spam yesterday is a perfect example).

Also I realized the success of zerorake doesnt hinge on the opinion of this forum, so I stopped trying to convinve people here that zerorake might not be scum sucking Aholes, because so far I've made pretty good money playing against the people who currently are regulars at zerorake, so why try and convince the zoo (most of which are prolly far better players than msyelf) to play there.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, I still haven't seen why people think that Dutch isn't involved in this particular venture after what Stew posted was revealed, I'm curious as to what counter-evidence there is.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is one of those things that there is so much hate against dutch boyd that no matter what people arnt going to believe he isnt involved in this site.

The manager of zerorake came on here and posted a reply to the DNS actionpoker thing, and it sounded like a perfectly logical explanation to me. I guess you can either choose to believe it or not. They've denied his involvement many times, and thats good enough for me. I wasnt around for pokerspot so I'm not full of hatred for dutch anyway, so honestly I could care less if he was involved, hell I've been hoping for a long time rakefree would get off the ground because not paying rake would really give me alot more financial oportunities.