Hey Dikshit

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
You pay the rake, but it doesn't come from you, it comes from the people who re-deposit.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it does come from me. If I withdraw my roll and stop playing at a site, that's a seat (well, multiple seats) that go unfilled. That's that much less rake that can be generated for the site.

Moreover, rake comes out of pots that I've earned. If it weren't for rake, my bankroll would be significantly larger than it is, as would everyone else's. If that isn't "paying the rake," then you're defining "paying" in a highly non-standard way.

[kiddj]

[ QUOTE ]
Party's ideal cutomer is a compulsive gambler, twice as hooked as your average heroin addict, who sucks at poker (or who prefers blackjack and "sidebets") and has millions of dollars.

[/ QUOTE ]
This person is much more valuble than multiple sharks, playing multiple tables around the clock. Regardless of the rake. These sharks will eventually probably bust-out thousands of recreational players who don't have an endless bankroll, or (after losing) think that online poker is rigged.

When I put my 1st $100 on Party, I lost it within a few weeks playing $0.50/1. It was over 2 years before I played there again; and the only reason I did is because I learned the game and was finally winning. If I didn't have the desire or ability to learn the concepts of correct play (which I suspect a HUGE majority of people don't), I would have been done forever.

The more fish there are (or a high fish/shark ratio), the more Party makes.

somapopper,

this is an excellent analysis. Between you and mackthefork I think everything has been covered.
But firstly, please explain this:

[ QUOTE ]
10,000 players- 1,000 MT 9,000 fish

scenario 1: MT's leave. Fish play each other at the same rate. 9,000 fish play in 900 cash ring games generating x rake per hour.

scenario 2: MT's stay. 3,000 cash ring games run (MT's account for 70% of action). 7 MT's and 3 fish at each table generating 3.33x rake per hour.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do 1000 multitablers account for 2,100 full tables, unless they play 21 tables each?

Assume each one 5 tables, that's 500 extra tables on top of the 900 existing. That's about a 50% increase in rake, not 333%. In addition, the games tighten up considerably (which reduces ave. pot and the 50% figure), and the fish go broke quicker and are more likely to not return. Less action is also a disincentive for new players. So it's far closer than it would seem.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say for the sake of argument that multi-tablers seeking rake back do account for 10% of the player base and 70% of the rake contributed (where rake contributed indicates the share of total raked hands played).

[/ QUOTE ]
The 10%/70% statement has a lot wrong with it. I don't even know how or why it found its way into the Party press release quoted, but it's easily explained.

According to their own numbers, Party has 9 million registered players. Most of those play very rarely and at smaller stakes. By sheer number of hands played, the top 10% who play regularly will generate almost all of the rake. How many of these are multi multi tabling pros who care about rakeback and read 2+2? I suspect less than 2%. So your numbers don't really apply to this case imo.
The assumption that these 10% are multitabling pros is a big one to make.

I'll make up some numbers of my own, here. All of this is a simplification, but it may prove useful.

Say you have 1 table of 10 fish, badly playing away. They are generating $100 in rake per hour, with each fish on average losing $10 per hour.

Now add 10 sharks to the equation. We have 2 tables, each with 5 sharks and 5 fish. So now $200 in rake is being contributed, but the average fish is losing $30 per hour, while the sharks are making $10 an hour each.

The question is, is this good, or bad, for the poker room? They're making twice as much money, which sounds good. But will they make twice as much in the long run? Or will too many of the fish quit playing altogether, or play many fewer hours, thus lowering the poker room's income in the long run?

If the average fish, the average losing player, ends up playing half as much as he would have without the sharks present, then the poker room breaks even. Less, they lose money and want the sharks gone. More, they make money and want the sharks there.

I think nobody actually knows the answer to this. Variance makes it difficult for most players to even know if they're winning or losing players, and some players will keep right on playing large numbers of hours no matter how much they lose, and some will allocate a certain amount to lose and then never play again once it's gone. Nobody really knows what the net effect would be of removing the winning players from the system.

[Petomane]

Over the last few days Party has become incredibly better - it is to the benefit of EVERYONE to get rid of rakeback.

Quite frankly, whether you call it rakeback or bonuses or whatever, it should go to the fish, not the pro's -the pro's are making money anyway.

I joined Party & Empire years ago, probably before rakeback existed or I knew it existed. Then I kept reading here about people boasting about how much rakeback they're getting and I thought this can't be good for the game and it can't last. David Ross was making pretty good money and he gets money on top of that? Why? It'll ruin the game quicker if you ask me.

The most important thing for poker is to keep the casual player coming and rakeback to the pro's was defeating that purpose.

As far as I'm concerned, the rakebackers and affiliates were a bunch of parasites sucking the lifeblood out of poker.

Even though I play 35 hours a week on Party, I was not given any bonus this month. But I had a pretty good month, so in spite of no bonus, I ain't going away, am I? I'd rather the bonus go to some losing player, because he's my bonus in the long run.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

I joined Party & Empire years ago, probably before rakeback existed or I knew it existed. Then I kept reading here about people boasting about how much rakeback they're getting and I thought this can't be good for the game and it can't last. David Ross was making pretty good money and he gets money on top of that? Why? It'll ruin the game quicker if you ask me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ruin for who?

You seem to forget that rakeback not only goes to huge winners, it also goes to marginal losers (who end up breaking even or winning slightly because of rakeback). Furthermore it means a smaller amount of money goes from the poker room to non playing affiliates and instead a larger amount goes to actual players.

Now if you wanted to argue that Party should cancel all affiliate payments and use the money they save to lower the rake for everyone, I would agree it help. But that hardly is going to happen.

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Overview of "The Phantom Menace"

People should read this.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that the fact the argument is still going, I believe that nobody read this [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

i read it, and then proceeded to keep reading linked articles for an hour. i finally just had to grab hold of myself and close all the browser windows.

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
How much money the players have in their accounts at any given time is largely irrelevant. If they play or not is what counts.

Or are you seriuosly suggesting that it would matter if I deposited $1k each week if I still had the same playing habits?

[/ QUOTE ]

Freudian,

I read somewhere that FDIC insured banks have to keep something like 20% of assets on hand for withdrawal, the rest can be invested. I wonder what percent party has to keep on hand? I would venture to say that the amount deposited in PP generates some hefty interest. not that it's really relevant to the argument at hand.

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
You're forgetting the fact that pros are mostly useless customers, since they don't put any of their own money in. What Party is looking for is new money, not people to take money out of the system forever.

Common sense 101

[/ QUOTE ]

OOO,

I've read your posts in this thread on this topic, and it seems that you and the other posters are disagreeing on semantics.

you say that pros are not a source of rake.

this is false from a poker standpoint, because although tight aggro players pay less rake proportionally than loose passive players (Pokertracker data has verified this) everyone pays rake, as the whole affiliate mess has shown us.

However, you are correct from an economic standpoint (lets take a VERY loose definition and define pro as a +EV player who would not play if he was -EV), because without the constant influx of new money that -EV recreational, continuous gamblers provide, the games would eventually dry up. the recreational gamblers are vital for the long term health of the game, which is directly linked to the long term generation of future rake. but in the short term, everyone gets screwed by big poppa rake.


you're arguing with people who aren't refuting your main point, sso hopefully this will clarify things slightly.

[primetime32]

[ QUOTE ]

The most important thing for poker is to keep the casual player coming and rakeback to the pro's was defeating that purpose.[ QUOTE ]


Please explain this one to me.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather the bonus go to some losing player, because he's my bonus in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't there be fish and rakeback/bonuses at the same time? I play at a number of sites and the amount of fish in the pond is pretty high. They are high at the sites that offer rakeback and bonuses and they are just as high at a site like pokerstars which offers no rakeback.

Rakeback should merely be used as an incentive to keep players around.