party big games

[jomatty]

does anyone know why these are not on skins, or if this may change?
matty

[highlife]

$5 rake, and likely not.

[Jeffage]

I really dislike the $5 rake. I mean, ok, if you want to increase it, how about $4. They are charging 66% more than the online norm for these games! If the games are butter soft, maybe I'll play anyway. But if not, why bother?

Jeff

[Ezcheeze]

I don't get why everyone is complaining about the rake. At 50-100 the rake is in proportion with a $3 rake at 30 60 and at 100-200 it's a smaller rake (proportionately). So Party has (yet again) reduced their rake when adding a higher limit game.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get why everyone is complaining about the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because from my understanding it is lower on other sites.

[capone0]

In comparison to rakes elsewhere (Stars and UB), the rake is high. I believe the highest rake online at the major sites is now the Stars 50/100 and 100/200 Tables. Imagine if they play 80 hands an hour. That means on average 2 bb = 400 / hour are taken off the table. I know at lower limits, it's much higher % wise, but paying 400 dollars an hour to play poker for a table is kinda high for online, isn't it?

[Jeffage]

Say you play 100-200 for a living. You play 40 hours a week in full games on Party. Discount any other factors and hypothesize you win 10% of hands dealt, all at full rake. Say 80 hands an hour. That's 40 an hr in rake you pay or 1600 a week ($76,800 per year). At a site that tops the rake out at $3, the same player would pay 24 an hr, 960 a week or 46080 a year. Much more money is coming off the table. It's a bad deal for players esp. when compared to the competition.

Jeff

[Your Mom]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get why everyone is complaining about the rake. At 50-100 the rake is in proportion with a $3 rake at 30 60 and at 100-200 it's a smaller rake (proportionately). So Party has (yet again) reduced their rake when adding a higher limit game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your location says it all.

[Ezcheeze]

[ QUOTE ]
I know at lower limits, it's much higher % wise, but paying 400 dollars an hour to play poker for a table is kinda high for online, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think it is wrong then you should think its even more wrong for the lower limnits. The amount relative to the real world doesn't really matter. It's the ratio of the rake to the limit you're playing that counts.

I understand that there are other sites that have a cheaper rake and this is a valid argument, but it's illogical to think the rake at 100-200 is worse than the rake at 30 60.

As far as the other sites go, those games can't be counted on to run 24/7. The party games will run 24/7 on lots of tables if they add more and the games will be better than most of the games at similar limits on other sites. I'm pretty sure that of the poeple who play 50-100 and higher and are currently complainging about the rake, almost all of them would play on party if they didn't cap the number of tables.

Sure it would be nice if party just said "ok this is the maximum we'll charge ever for any higher limit" but it's not reasonable to expect it. I imagine the other sites have a small rake to encourage higher limit games that aren't stable. They are afraid to increase it becuase those games might dry up all together. Party doesn't have this problem and if the other sites had the player pool party does then I'm pretty sure they'd have a higher rake.

[capone0]

Why does Party have to be the exception? 3 Dollar Max is true at the other 2 major sites. As Jeffage says, look at the results. The difference is 30k a year for a full time player. % wise it might be small, but if your paying 40 bucks an hour to play poker instead of 24 it's a big difference.