thanks for your post!
I'll try to answer your questions:
Originally Posted by john kane
1) At what point does $1 invested no longer yield $1 in deposits from a player who will ultimately lose it? If $1 invested does yield >$1 in lost deposits, would it make sense for a poker site to charge much bigger rake, as the games who then financially benefit the site and players more?
Higher Rake Percentages do not utomatically result in higher Total Rake - as the games / activity suffer.
There is probably a golden middle of rake somewhere between 1% and 5% - that of course also depends on other factors.
The fall in player numbers is of course not good - but:
1. Also FTP is a victim to cannibalistic parasites - many rakeback affiliates just burn money that would otherwise be earned directly by FTP to do more marketing.
2. Seasonality combined with the World Cup is indeed bad for Online Poker.
3. If the smaller networks solve their huge problems and begin to invest more into marketing, we will see liquidity growing again across the board.
3) Are you campaigning for the rake system to be changed so that net losses of players would be considered?
Not necessarily the rake system - but certainly the player valuation system. So the payments for skins and affiliates should be gouverned not just by rake, but also by net-loss. Because this would incentivise bringing in net-depositors - and cannibalistic rakeback affiliates would be in trouble as they don't bring in significant amounts of net-depositors.
If so, would you expect current affiliate deals to be grandfathered i.e. affiliates with high volume players wouldn't see their revenues plummet overnight?
Depends on the T&C/contracts and the poker room's decision.
But the priority for poker rooms should be to completely kick out affiliates that violate their rules, stop payments to them, maybe start law suits against them, and better invest this money into marketing or the many honest affiliates who try to bring in genuine new players.
4) Would a change to the rake system lower the revenues of Pokerstrategy, given I assume you have net winning players? If a change were to be implemented, wouldn't it encourage you to give bad advice so your players lost
Our credibility and the quality of our content are big assets that we would never risk.
Plus, we don't really need to as most of the players we bring in are in fact net losers - as our free $50 plus information plus education plus community plus services appeals to a very very broad band of players - amongst them being many that are curious about poker, but without a free $50 offer would never overcome their lack of trust into...
- own skills
- poker operators
- online payment options
We offer beginners great education to improve their skills - but most people don't really use it / want to use it. And this is absolutely fine, as recreational players / fun players are
the backbone of online poker.
5) What do you think about making the games rake-free but having a % of winning cashouts being taken by the site? Therefore those who have benefit from the pokersite are those that pay.
In theory this is a good idea, but it probably be hard to market to players (also recreational players).
I think as long as there are a lot of other things to improve, you should not change a running system.