O Doyle's Army - WE WANT YOU!

[augie00]

Okay, hypothetical situation:

You started with $50. You now have $10,000. You say you have generated $10,000 worth of rake. Although you have profited $9,950 over the last two years, if there were no rake, you would have profited $19,950.

I do not see how you don't understand this. Do you even know what rake is?

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are a winning player, you don't pay any rake: the losers paid your rake for you, so giving the rakeback to you is overkill.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're saying is, that gigantic number in the corner of my pokertracker stats, that's not actually rake? It's just a pretend number? So where's my $25,000? I want another car. Man I hope you're right and I actually haven't been paying rake since I started playing poker because I could really use that money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I deposited $50 into PartyPoker 2 years ago. This has been my only desposit of my own money. I've probably generated $10,000 in rake.

How much money has Party made from me?
a. $0
b. $10,000

The answer is a.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO. You're kidding, right? You can't be this dumb. You are pretending.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. To use the other guy's example, if I start with $50 at blackjack, run up to $10k, then lose it all except $50....how much money has the casino made?

The answer is $0, of course. The casino did not make anything. If every customer did this, the casino would go out of business.

You can't lose money unless you deposit money. This is why rakeback is dying, but you see an unlimited amount of deposit bonuses at every site.

Unless you are Enron, you can't create profits out of thin air. You need to have more cash coming in, than you have going out.

If you are like me, you put very little in, and have taken a lot out. Now you want them to pay you more? Unlikely.

If you've won $20k and paid $10k more in rake, that means there's some poor jackass who deposited and lost $30k.

If Party had $5k sitting around, should Party:
a. Give you that $5k as rakeback so you can buy a motorcycle.
b. Give the jackass a 50% deposit bonus if he deposits another $10k of his own money into Party.

If you were Party, would you do A or B? Which player is more valuable?

[augie00]

Well done. You just made a huge post w/o refuting my point. If you generate 10k in rake, you paid the site 10k.

Obviously poker sites don't want to give you rake back. That is not your point that I was refuting. This is the point I was refuting:

[ QUOTE ]
If you are a winning player, you don't pay any rake: the losers paid your rake for you

[/ QUOTE ]

[Smackdab]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, the answer is b) $10,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

AGREED. That 10K came directly out of pots I won.

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, hypothetical situation:

You started with $50. You now have $10,000. You say you have generated $10,000 worth of rake. Although you have profited $9,950 over the last two years, if there were no rake, you would have profited $19,950.

I do not see how you don't understand this. Do you even know what rake is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say I deposited $50 and you deposited $20,000.

We play heads-up every day for 2 years until you go broke. I now have $10,000 in my account.

I made $9,950.
Party made $10,000.
You lost $20,000.

I suppose you could argue that I paid the $10,000 in rake, but that's just semantics. The reality is that your money provided my winnings and paid the rake.

[augie00]

OF COURSE YOU PAID THE 10K IN RAKE. Where else did the money go? I didn't pay it, cause I'm broke and you won all the pots. Wtf, seriously. This is the worst argument ever. You are silly. I can't believe I'm arguing about this. My 11 year old cousin is in town. I'll ask him about it. He might know the answer.

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
OF COURSE YOU PAID THE 10K IN RAKE. Where else did the money go? I didn't pay it, cause I'm broke and you won all the pots. Wtf, seriously. This is the worst argument ever. You are silly. I can't believe I'm arguing about this. My 11 year old cousin is in town. I'll ask him about it. He might know the answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose you paid the rake because you were the last person to touch the money, but that's not how I choose to look at it.

If my boss gives me $50 and says "go buy lunch for the team", then I come back and someone asks "did you pay for lunch?" , what should I say?

I would say "the boss paid". You would say "I paid". I suppose you did hand the money the cashier, so you are right at some level.

Howewer, if people expect to make a business deal with a poker site, you might want to stop thinking in these absolutes, and start using some common sense.

The valueable player is not the one who pays the rake. It's one who provides the money.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
An idea- The prizes won by the army are split among the winner of the prize and rest of the army. I don't know what percentage is best.

That way some sort of cash is expected from this venture, plus a great rooting interest in other memebers of this army.

[/ QUOTE ]
No player in a tournament should have a financial interest in any other player's finish. I'm aware that this sort of thing happens, but it is something ugly that poker needs to clean up, not extend to a highly visible "army".

Soft playing in a poker tournament doesn't even require a conspiracy. All it takes is one big stack BB deciding not to call a small all-in raise on the bubble and you don't even get to see his cards. If you're both wearing the same army shirt and sharing winnings there is going to be a cloud of suspicion hovering over the table.

The tournament doesn't need that, the players don't need that, and SmallOnlinePoker.com certainly doesn't need that. Poker's long term popularity depends on keeping all the tricky stuff between the lines. If the public perceives big-time poker as corrupt our futures are much dimmer.

[augie00]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose you paid the rake because you were the last person to touch the money, but that's not how I choose to look at it.

If my boss gives me $50 and says "go buy lunch for the team", then I come back and someone asks "did you pay for lunch?" , what should I say?

I would say "the boss paid". You would say "I paid". I suppose you did hand the money the cashier, so you are right at some level

[/ QUOTE ]

What a horrible anaolgy. Here's a better one:

You and your boss play heads up in a freezeout. This is called "the boss game." The only stipulation of "the boss game" is that the winner has to buy lunch for the entire office. So after the freezeout, you clean out your boss, and you buy the office lunch.

I guess you could say that "the boss paid for lunch" because the money that you used to pay for lunch was won off of him, but that would be silly because the money is clearly yours as you beat him in a heads up freezeout. Just because the money USED to belong to him doesn't mean it's his money anymore.

[ QUOTE ]
The valueable player is not the one who pays the rake. It's one who provides the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. And a core group of 100 players would certainly be valueable to a site that is struggling to keep games going. O'Doyle's plan is not to have 100 2+2ers log on to pokerstars and demand 30% of their rake. O'Doyle's plan is to have 100 2+2ers log onto your average crappy site and get the games going.

As this thread progresses, you just keep getting wronger and wronger. Stop posting now before it's too late.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
O'Doyle's plan is not to have 100 2+2ers log on to pokerstars and demand 30% of their rake. O'Doyle's plan is to have 100 2+2ers log onto your average crappy site and get the games going.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I'm not sure I'm on board with O'Doyle's plan.

I wish everyone the best of luck, but I think my idea (for Stars rakeback) is pretty different.

I just think Stars (and perhaps only Stars) is in position to steal lots of market share from Party by offering rakeback to high volume players. I offered an idea to how this might be done. I'm not trying to wield a collective bargaining force... I'm just sharing an idea that would seem to be beneficial for both parties (Stars and HVPs).

The reasons Stars might succeed in this.

1) They're already big and have good games. As sthief pointed out, pro and semi-pro grinders aren't going to leave party to play on startuppoker.com for 50% rakeback. The games won't be juicy enough, and it'll be too hard to multitable.

2) They've already got a very good reputation and excellent support.

3) It seems that Party is doing everything it can to alienate its best customers. I think a lot of people would switch to Stars in a second if the rakeback was comparable.