So, the Zero Rake research begins.

[TOEJAM3 on xx/04 PM 4 PW]

At least then people who got screwed by Boyd may actually have a hope of getting some money back.

how do you figure?

these guys are twenty year olds, some a bit older. what makes you think that the first 100k they make will go to old creditors?

what you are suggesting is to support the site so that he can make the money to pay everyone back. what assurances does anyone have that once the money is made, that anything will be used to pay old debts?

if the guy offers, PRE-launch, a promissary note contingent on revenue to all creditors, then he may see some support. he has shown that not only can't he be trusted to keep his word, but that he also has no problem telling outright lies. on top of all this, he has a nasty attitude and no remorse toward the people he burned.

if you ask me, you are expecting quite the leap of faith be adopted by those he stole from. that's unlikely to happen without legal assurances.

[jasonHoldEm]

I was going to stay out of this, but I'll chime in with my .02.

Rake free won't work as an upfront cost, the fish won't pay it. No fish = no games, period. The reason the fish won't pay an upfront cost is because they can play at <insert name of any other site here> for "free".

A rake free site has to make the mechanics of the rake transparent to the fish. They do this simply by changing their point of attack. Rather than charging an upfront cost they simply say that after you play X number of raked pots (where x approximately equals their monthly membership fee over a wide spectrum of players) they will start getting PAID to play poker (where PAID means they just get their rake back). Insert some code in your client program to give a pop-up box at the end of each players sesssion, for example:

Congratualtions! You only have to play 32 more raked hands to quailfy for our frequent player club where you get PAID to play poker. Only at GetPaidToPlayPoker.com!!

Congratulations! As a memeber of our frequent player club you earned $12.92 playing poker today! The more you play the more you get PAID! Only at GetPaidToPlayPoker.com!!

Problem solved, please send my check.

J

[Alobar]

The way it stands now, they have NO chance of getting repaid. Even if rakefree gave them a small chance to get repaid its better than the one they currently have, so it would be +EV

[Lori]

The way it stands now, they have NO chance of getting repaid. Even if rakefree gave them a small chance to get repaid its better than the one they currently have, so it would be +EV

If he were to Scam $1,000,000 again and put 50,000 or so fish off internet poker for life, it would be -EV to let this scumbag near a poker site ever again.

Please note, for now I'm treating this as a seperate issue to zero rake.

Lori

[NotBannedYet]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah, me posting is bad for the zoo, but you creating other accounts and posting under aliases is good for the zoo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets see, I have the sub troll Dorien, and the guy who thinks giving money to Boyd is good for his bottom line, who both think I'm using an alias to post under. Who could argue against that pair of brilliant minds?

[Alobar]

I agree with you completely, either the fish have to be educated on how much they pay rake, or you just present the same concept to them in a way they understand. The latter is much easier.

However, I'm wondering if that is completely legal? Can you advertise that you will pay them when all they are doing is getting their own money back? Course I guess even if it isnt legal, they cant really be sued, so who cares.

I liked the idea that rakefree had much better than the way zerorake handles it. That you don't pay upfront your membership is just paid by your first $30 (or whatever) of rake. I think thats much more fish friendly. Zerorake won't do this though because you can play at their site without getting a membership and just pay the rake, so that would effectively ruin that. I have no idea why they would do this though, because if someone does go there to play it will be very obvious how much they've lost in rake (at the site with the biggest rake structure on the net) due to the "rake o' meter" so after they see they've already lost $10 in rake, now they are confronted with having to pay $30 for a membership, so they see it as costing them $40 and just get upset about it and leave.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]


If he were to Scam $1,000,000 again and put 50,000 or so fish off internet poker for life, it would be -EV to let this scumbag near a poker site ever again.


[/ QUOTE ]

good point

[Lori]

I have no idea why they would do this though

I have no idea why people pay a mortgage that costs them lots of money instead of just paying up front for a house.

Lori

[Alobar]

you admit to being a troll, you have 34 posts yet seem to know an awful lot about the state of poker of the last several years, your name suggests you've prolly been banned before, and yet I'm supposed to believe this is the only account you've ever had here......riiiight

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea why they would do this though

I have no idea why people pay a mortgage that costs them lots of money instead of just paying up front for a house.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a little bit different. Most people dont have the money to pay for a house up front, while the vast majority of people have $30 to pay for a subscription.

I was merely stating that I think its a mistake for Zerorake to collect the subscription the way that they do. No one is going to play there paying rake, so what little they would make on rake before the player wakes up and realizes how much they are losing, is waaay offset by the amount of fish they lose to the upfront cost of $30.