Positive Promotion vs. Boycotting

[O Doyle Rules]

As a player who plays a high volume of online poker, (as many others on this forum) I am greatly concerned about the high amount of rake that I pay month after month. The discussion of boycotts have come up in the past, (and more recently with pokerroom's rake increase) after actions of sites were obviously taking more money out of our pockets. In one older thread, I even stated I would support such a boycott.

However, the more I thought about this, (with the help of Stu Pidasso's post about a High Volume Players Association) a better alternative to boycotting sites would be to promote ourselves to the sites as a "group" to poker sites. The sites that want our play will then start to make offers for it. (Thus greatly reducing the cost of playing for that group)

Postively promoting ourselves to poker sites (IMHO) has more long term potential than a short term boycott. I am not saying a boycott cannot be effective, just not longterm and definitely not positive.

[brazilio]

Almost anything is more useful than a boycott, especially those useless 1-day boycotts. It's just as useless as those 1-day gas boycotts. It's a required good, if you don't get it today, you're going to get it tomorrow. Most of the sites pay attention to what goes on here anyway, having a union-type group may just get us perks that justify the amount of money we pay to play.

[Shoe]

True, one thing about increased rake though, is that even if we get a good deal, the vast majority of players on the site will not have a good deal like ours. Thus, high rake will still cause the games to dry up faster, which hurts us in the long run as well (even if we are getting 100% rakeback).