|
|
#2
10-22-2005, 11:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: if rakeback is so important how come PokerStars is a major player?
Stars isnt that much of a "player" in the cash game department. I play 3-6 and 5-10 and there are often 10 or less games going at those limits. When I do happen to play there, sometimes I can't even get four tables going.
Pokerstars cornered the tournament market right from the beginning with far superior structures. They earned a great tournamnet rep and backed that up by "producing" two World Champions. The real question is: "how big could Stars be IF they offered rakeback"? 
|
|
#3
10-22-2005, 11:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: if rakeback is so important how come PokerStars is a major player?
In the general scheme of things, rakeback is not important, because very few people understand either how much they are raked when they play, or what rakeback is.
It is important to the players here on 2+2, because the average player here understands these things and is trying to maximize their returns from playing poker (as they should).
|
|
#4
10-22-2005, 02:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: if rakeback is so important how come PokerStars is a major player?
similar to what sniper said, RB isn't important to the 3 biggest rooms. Paradise, Pokerstars, and Party don't allow it. That should give you a good indication of what the major players think about it.
The percentage of RB players to the total amount of players is pretty small. Only 2+2 frog's out about rakeback.
|
|
#6
10-22-2005, 04:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: if rakeback is so important how come PokerStars is a major player?
[ QUOTE ]
If rakeback is so important how come PokerStars is a major player? I know thier rake is lower, but it is not 25% lower at most levels. [/ QUOTE ] Everything I read seems to say that Stars has by far the best product in the industry in terms of software, service, and rake schedule. Let me turn your question around. Party has mediocre software, poor service, and an onerous rake schedule. Why does Party have several times as many customers? Party motivates their affliates with a share of the rake and Stars doesn't. The affiliates steer the fish to Party and away from Stars and (former #1) Paradise. Rakeback-motivated players undoubtedly also play a small role on this. Of course Stars and Paradise have much lower affiliate expenses. Since the real idea is to make money they may be doing very well. The biggest companies are not always the most profitable.
|
|
#7
10-22-2005, 04:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: if rakeback is so important how come PokerStars is a major player?
Based on information I know I would say that rakeback accounts for no less than 20% of all revenues online. More importantly, some form of rake reduction is going to become more common. Could be rolexes or cars but people will give value and that will drive future play.
|
|
#8
10-22-2005, 07:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: if rakeback is so important how come PokerStars is a major player?
beanie...
Taking Party as an example, and using round numbers for simplicity... In 2005 Party will rake roughly $1 Billion Party will pay affiliates (roughly 10%)... around $100 Million Only a few million of that was/is being returned to players thru rakeback affiliates, at best.
|
|
#9
10-22-2005, 07:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: if rakeback is so important how come PokerStars is a major player?
I think TV advertising plays a much bigger role than rakeback or affiliates ever could.
The only reason I use an affiliate is because I HAVE TO (I have nothing against affiliates though). If sites where willing to return a portion of my rake directly to me (without an affiliate), they could keep the affiliates profits for themselves.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
