|
|
#21
10-10-2005, 03:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The case against RB
[ QUOTE ]
Eliminate the sharks and you end up with fish being able to keep their bankroll from weekend to weekend, but see a massive drop in players. Fish are not suddenly going to be playing 8 tables for 30+ hours a week simply because they are not losing their money to sharks. [/ QUOTE ] You are assuming that poker rooms make money from superior players. They don't. They make money from equally skilled players, and lacking that they make money from bad players. Any player that is extracting money from the site is not a profit center. 
|
|
#22
10-10-2005, 03:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case against RB
correction: any player that is PLAYING at the site is a money maker
when a winning player withdraws his profits, that doesn't affect Party all that affects them is how many hands/tourneys are being played with what rake... winning players tend to play more hands/tourneys and thus party gets more money from them...
|
|
#23
10-10-2005, 03:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case against RB
[ QUOTE ]
correction: any player that is PLAYING at the site is a money maker [/ QUOTE ] This is a false dichotomy. Clearly if Party could only choose between a great player playing a terrible player or nothing they would take the former, but that really isn't their choice, is it? A player deposits $100 at Party. A day later he withdraws $150. Where is Party's profit?
|
|
#24
10-10-2005, 03:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case against RB
party's profit is the $400 in rake he paid to make that $50
again, party is NOT the 'house' in poker...if this were bj or craps, then yes...but players do NOT win or lose to the house...they win or lose against each other while party gets paid to provide that medium for doing so so the more rake that's paid, the more party makes which is better for them? a) fishy deposits $55 into party, plays 5 10/1 tournaments, gets ootm in all of them and is done party made: $5 in rake from this person b) pro deposits $50 and builds it up to $300 by playing 5 10/1 and 10 20/2 tournaments then cashes out party made $25 in rake from this person the profits the person cashed out were NOT party's money...the money belonged to other users
|
|
#26
10-11-2005, 01:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case against RB
They don't keep 100% of the rake.
Don't they still pay affiliates? the problem was with affiliates being able to play those they signed up. Party poker banned rake-back programs and eliminated individual trackers from what I understood and this is what prevented players from getting rakeback not Party deciding not to pay affiliates.
|
|
#27
10-11-2005, 02:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case against RB
What's better for Party?
10 fish trading pots all the while losing their money to party rake. OR 7 fish, 3 sharks with the sharks taking the fish's money before it can be completely lost to rake? Also, the fish are more likely to be dabbling in the blackjack while also experimenting with the retarded side bets.
|
|
#28
10-11-2005, 02:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case against RB
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously rake should be defined as the amount a player actually paid, not as 10% (or whatever) of the total amount paid at the table. [/ QUOTE ] A poker network is going to have an agreement governing how the different skins divide the rake when their players share a table. That agreement will inevitably determine how rakeback and other affiliate payments are computed. No skin wants to pay an affiliate for revenue that the network never credited them with.
|
|
#29
10-14-2005, 08:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case against RB
It depends on what limits the fish's playing. Is it cash or is it time?
If the fish is time-constrained then sharks don't cost the site anything. The fish just loses more. If on the other hand the typical fish has a certain bankroll to spend playing poker then everything the shark takes eats into the site's profit, because the fish would have lost the money in rake eventually. I'd guess it's a mixture, but weighted more towards the fish being limited by bankroll. I'd imagine if a fish wasn't being eaten by a shark, he'd move up to a higher limit where the tougher play and higher rake would take his money. That's what i did!
|
|
#30
10-14-2005, 09:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case against RB
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Am I the only one that did not understand the point of this? What exactly are you trying to say? You raise pretty cards in position? [/ QUOTE ] That having fleets of profitable 8-tablers subsidised by RB creates table textures that aren't very exciting for the fish because you no longer have to play as much poker to take enough money off the table to generate a profit. [/ QUOTE ] Guess that's why it was so hard to find a table of fish before they cut rakeback. Oh, wait.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
