Dutch Speaks Out on ZeroRake

[Freudian]

There is no inherant contradiction between believing Dutch Boyd being a lying scumbag and believing that lower rake would be good.

I would love a zerorake concept that was attractive to the fishes. That doesn't mean you can add me in the column of Dutch Boyd supporters.

[Freudian]

They went about it the wrong way. The only way a rakefree site is going to work is by raking normally up to the 30$ or whatever a month, then no rake at all.

Asking people to put up the money up front will scare away pretty much all casual players. And a site without casual players is dead.

[DesertCat]

Thanks for pigeon-holing me when you know nothing about me. I was just making fun of him for taking Dutch at his word. It would be like taking O.J. Simpson's word on whether he killed anyone or not.

As far as the Rake Free concept, I'm not opposed to it at all. But someone has to bring fish to the site. Currently that's done through affiliates, deposit bonuses and marketing programs. Going RakeFree means no affiliate rake kickbacks (hence no affiliates), and I don't believe it provides enough revenues for deposit bonuses (hence no affiliates) or large marketing programs. So no marketing, no fish, no business.

[UncleDuke]

[ QUOTE ]
You are trying to reason with the same people who think it's better to be getting a 20% rake kickback as opposed to not paying any rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, I usually try to stay out of emotionally charged conversations like this one, but you're really starting to get on my nerves. You've been saying the above or similar for months, and it's quite obvious that nobody here would *rather* pay rake and get 20% back than pay no rake, all things being equal. However, as many have pointed out, all things are far from equal. We'd all flock to a reputable zero rake site that had soft and plentiful games where we could expect to play winning poker and have something extra in our pockets because there was no rake.

The problem is, of course, there is currently no such site. We can find tables at one of the major sites 24 hours a day, at the stakes we want to play, with players we can expect to beat in the long run, even taking rake into account. Nobody is telling you "rake is good; we love paying rake!" And I think you bloody well know that. For the most part people are saying, "It's going to be hard for the zero-rake sites to make a go of it, and until they do, we're going to play where we can make a profit, rake or no rake." A few people may be all bent out of shape about Dutch Boyd, but I, and probably the majority of the others here, don't really give a rat's ass about Dutch Boyd one way or the other. Deliver the no-rake site with plentiful good games, and we'll come in droves. Until then, kindly spare us the broken-record act.

[Synergistic Explosions]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are trying to reason with the same people who think it's better to be getting a 20% rake kickback as opposed to not paying any rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, I usually try to stay out of emotionally charged conversations like this one, but you're really starting to get on my nerves. You've been saying the above or similar for months, and it's quite obvious that nobody here would *rather* pay rake and get 20% back than pay no rake, all things being equal. However, as many have pointed out, all things are far from equal. We'd all flock to a reputable zero rake site that had soft and plentiful games where we could expect to play winning poker and have something extra in our pockets because there was no rake.

The problem is, of course, there is currently no such site. We can find tables at one of the major sites 24 hours a day, at the stakes we want to play, with players we can expect to beat in the long run, even taking rake into account. Nobody is telling you "rake is good; we love paying rake!" And I think you bloody well know that. For the most part people are saying, "It's going to be hard for the zero-rake sites to make a go of it, and until they do, we're going to play where we can make a profit, rake or no rake." A few people may be all bent out of shape about Dutch Boyd, but I, and probably the majority of the others here, don't really give a rat's ass about Dutch Boyd one way or the other. Deliver the no-rake site with plentiful good games, and we'll come in droves. Until then, kindly spare us the broken-record act.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reality is, a no rake site gets sabotaged before it can get off the ground. Look at Zero and how it was slandered from day one. If you don't realize what was going on, you need to become aware.

No new site is going to open on day one with plentiful tables. It will have to be a slow process, like all new sites. But when the forums spread lies as truths about a site, it has little chance to suceed.

So you say you want a no rake site with plentiful games offered, as if by magic that will happen. It won't. It has to be a slow process of building a player base. But if all it takes is to label a new site as being a 'Dutch Boyd' opereated site for it to fail, then there's no chance to better our future as online poker players. Because that will happen.

I mean, even Holy Cow has been tainted by the Death touch, or should we say the Dutch touch.

As far as you not agreeing with what I say, thats cool, I don't expect most to.

[Synergistic Explosions]

[ QUOTE ]
Follow the reasoning here:

They had no games. That is why they failed. No smear campaign, no smug minions, just no games. I would have loved to been wrong, along with everyone else that pointed out that they were underfunded at start-up. No ads, no killer promos, no prop team so that there would be some games. nothing. nada. zero. zilch.

The big sites, and their evil minions the affiliates, didn't decide in some smokey backroom to have ZeroRake pushed in front of a bus. ZeroRake was in the middle of the street trying hug the oncoming bus. This was self-inflicted.

MS Sunshine

[/ QUOTE ]

Fuzzy memory. Go back and read the zero threads when the site started up.

[UncleDuke]

[ QUOTE ]
The reality is, a no rake site gets sabotaged before it can get off the ground. Look at Zero and how it was slandered from day one. If you don't realize what was going on, you need to become aware.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if we assume this is true, it doesn't really make that much difference. It's not the people who read poker boards who are going to make the difference in the success of these sites. It's the casual player of that kind that generates such a high player population at places like Party and Stars. These people will never hear about it if a site gets badmouthed in the Zoo. What makes the difference with them is flashy ads on TV, famous player endorsements, mass marketing, etc. Actually, being badmouthed in the Zoo would probably be a good thing in terms of the quality of the games you could expect at the site. As charming as I find some of the people in the Zoo, I don't really want to see them in the seat next to me at the poker table on a daily basis. It would be bad for my wallet. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[daveymck]

Zero Rake was said to have had links with Dutch, this was denied by all involved with the site, months later someone who knows him better than anyone on here has stated Dutch was involved, so it seems to me that the site was correctly called out by those here.

It was the people involved in Zero who sabotaged it anyway going on that Party affiliates etc were trying to stop it getting off the ground when it was not, there were no players and where there are no players there is no point any decent payer going over there. The concept is flawed there were many posts on why it was flawed at the time.

I for one am pleasded the site went under if its true Dutch was behind partly cos he was behind and partly because they lied about it, if he had a 30% stake and they had come out and said that yes hes a shareholder the rumours would have been put to bed people would know the situation and I beleive the site might ave had a better chance of getting off the ground.

However any new site is going to have problems the market is saturated and with the exception of Full Tilt which has had huge exposure on TV and links to many pros none of the new sites have really taken the world by storm, the fact is for the average 2+2 player there is no real reason to leave the big 3 rooms, even the prospect of no rake will not get me moved until there are enough games 24/7.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

Fuzzy memory. Go back and read the zero threads when the site started up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fuzzy thinking. No post on 2+2 had any impact on the failure of zerorake whatsoever. If anything it was 2+2ers filling up the few games that were going on there.

[Instyle007]

[ QUOTE ]
Zero Rake was said to have had links with Dutch, this was denied by all involved with the site, months later someone who knows him better than anyone on here has stated Dutch was involved, so it seems to me that the site was correctly called out by those here.

[/ QUOTE ]

The site was incorrecly called out. Try reading my post which started this thread.


[ QUOTE ]
It was the people involved in Zero who sabotaged it anyway going on that Party affiliates etc were trying to stop it getting off the ground when it was not, there were no players and where there are no players there is no point any decent payer going over there. The concept is flawed there were many posts on why it was flawed at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly disagree. Nearly everyone here bashed ZeroRake from the very beginning. There were hidden agendas at work here without question.

Instyle007