Paradox of rake?

Greetings,

Recently I have been considering the differences in rake offered at various online poker sites.

Some rakes seem reasonable (e.g. Pokerstars, Paradise) whereas other sites have just downright cruel rakes (e.g. Pokerroom, Pacific). It has been said that the skilled knowledgeable players will flock to a site where the rake is lower (and hence more money is left to be won). The more "fishy" players tend to either be oblivious to the negative impact of rake or they are compulsive types who don't care anyway.

Regardless of whether or not this sentiment is true, I often wonder what impact the rake has on the profitability of a game.

Is it true that higher rakes make games much harder to beat? I would be inclined to think that generally speaking, it's obvious higher rakes are bad for poker because they are like a tax. It's like tightening up a slot machine or putting another green zero on a roulette wheel.

But consider this other possibility, that the rake can make many games MORE profitable. This seems counterintuitive but consider highly-raked games getting bad players stuck faster. This could result in the fishy player trying to win his money back faster; hence the fish plays more hands and gives more action.

Even good players could end up playing worse by being more prone to tilt when they see their highly-raked wins not adequately compensating for their losses.

This is just an idea I have been throwing around and I'm wondering if it holds true in the 'real world' online context.

My first guess would be that higher rakes are extremely disastrous on sites that generally have sound players and less damaging on sites like Pacific (where the high rake could induce the fish to play even fishier).

I'm certainly not confident of this notion, which I was decided to post this.

Any ideas?

JeffreyREBT (Wherein I don't promise to make you rich without trying, or even trying very hard; I do promise to say things that will make you FEEL rich).