Online cardrooms rake too much for their own good

[AngryCola]

Most online poker sites have a significantly LOWER rake than brick and mortar casinos.

You are actually getting a pretty good deal by playing online. No tokes for the dealer, gas, etc. Combine those costs with a higher rake, and online poker starts looking like a pretty good deal at the lower limits.

As for the online sites lowering their rake. It's not happening. If anything, you should be expecting an increase within the next couple of years. They don't care about you, and they know there still will be more than enough action if they raise the max. rake by a dollar.

Think about it...
People gamble in casinos all the time knowing they are playing at a significant disadvantage.
They just don't care.

Example:
Slot Machines

[cnfuzzd]

you would be amazed by the number of poker players who dont know there is a rake.

You would be amazed at the number of low-limit 2+2ers who dont understand how the rake should affect their game.

Sites such as rakefree and champs, along with the "discounted" rake of rakeback deals, are out there. No one, and i mean no one, chooses a site based on its rake. Well, there are probably a few of us who refuse to play somewhere that the rake is such and such. But those are rare.

peace

john nickle

[34TheTruth34]

we missed you Syntax

[UncleDuke]

[ QUOTE ]
More than half of people would be winning players if there was no rake at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you contend that a relatively small number of deep-pocketed losers would subsidize everyone else, this statement is hard to agree with. At best, one would suspect it would be about an equal split between winners and losers if there were no rake. Obviously, no rake implies there would be an expected (and actual) win/loss of zero for all players taken as a group. My guess is that we'd actually see more losers than winners because winners would tend to play more often than losers, thereby concentrating the winnings into the group of better players while many losers would dabble a bit, conclude they weren't going to be very successful at online poker, and do something else.

[Cardzy]

Party has the highest rake on the net for the lowest limits it has (.50/$1 and $5+$1 sng's, not to mention the new BBJ tables). It doesn't seem to affect their customer base much. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] I think your theory is flawed.

[MicroBob]

Agreed.
I would go so far to say that if Party INCREASED their rake they would actually be more profitable because so many players wouldn't care or notice.

Party increased their rake at this time a year ago....and I believe the only people who noticed are us uptight 2+2'ers who have a handle on how much the rake effects the game.
for most people, if you pointed it out to them they would say "ummmm....it's only $0.50. What's the big freaking deal?"


If party lowered their rake by 25% would they get 25% more action (or more players) as a result. I think not. There just aren't that many people out there who say, "I won't play at party because the rake is too high." Yes, there are some.....but not enough to make it worthwhile for party to lower the rake to try to get them back. They have plenty of fish who are more than happy to pay and pay and pay as the rake structure is now (if they actually know they are paying).


BTW - please don't tell party I said any of this.

[Mr_J]

I think bad players lose more to good players than they do in rake.

[Awesemo]

Obviously they draw the most customers on the internet. I contend that it does affect their customer base though. Because of the higher rake, more people bust out, and don't buy back in. If the rake was lower, medicore players would be more successful and not even realize it. This would contribute to the growth of the poker website.

[Awesemo]

Online poker has more than twice as many hands per hour. When you are getting a better deal per hand, I bet that you're paying about the same or more per hour. In addition, you can play multiple tables, which also increase the amount of rake generated. As for your idea of raising the max rake a dollar, I agree that it might not affect their action that much. What I'm talking about is the percentage of the pot that is raked. The less percentage of the pot raked, the more players able to be successful in the games. The population growth on the site will grow, and I don't see why it's not possible for an online site to actually make more money because of a lower rake. Obviously if they charge 0% rake, they will make no money. However, if they charge 50% rake, they will also make no money. This should illustrate my point that there is an optimal amount to rake the pot to lead to highest profits for a website. The websites just choose an arbitrary value of 5%.

[Paul2432]

[ QUOTE ]
I think bad players lose more to good players than they do in rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the lower limits this is not true. A typical on-lin 2/4 or 3/6 table probably pays more than $100/hr in rake. A winning player at 3/6 probably makes at most $15/hr. Any one table probably has at most one player winning $15/hr, maybe two or three winning $5-10/hr and the rest break even or losing players.

Paul