WSOP does not offer a product, they offer a service. Two completely different industries, and as such, your attempt at whatever is comical.

Yes..Apples margains are substantial at 23% when compared with the 6.5%- 7.5% (depending on source) average net margain across all industries

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katieso...profitability/

Yes. Not everyone would buy, but with the brands popularity, the company would likely see a significant spike in sales if it were to impliment a noticable price decrease.

FYP

Also the bigwigs will realize eventually that true growth isnt measured by simply adding dollars to entry fees, but in fact measured by the adding of actual entries

Yea, it really isnt $15 in this particular case if rake is what it should be. Its actually an extra $35 if we compare to a rake that was set at a reasonable and consistant 10% on a $300 tournament. The rake was 5-10% for the longest time before and during the early years of the "boom". 10%-15% is sustainable moving forward imho. Wanna make more money? Advertise and promote better to get people in the seats. Do work, think.

Actually no, not by a long shot.

Aww darn , with $30 rape your only bringing in $50,000 (2,000x$25) for the house and $10,000 (2,000x$5) for the dealers in 2 days as opposed to $120,000 for the house and $10,000 for the dealers in 2 days....awwwww

How much did you pull in slots and table game revenue in those same 2 days with 2,000+ extra peeps in the house?

There should be a max rape of $100 @ the 1k+ (shouldnt even be that high imo)...below that, 10-15% straight imo

Charging higher rake cause the money that goes to the prize pool is higher is absolute bs. Nothing is better at higher buyins other than level times and prize pool . Both of which are expected and obv at higher price points. Its about what we the players get, not what the house gets as the buyins increase (service industry?).

Greed gonna greed

Why isnt Allen ITT yet?

How many extra players would an event draw if it was $365 (335+30) instead of $365 (300+65)?
Of those players who would only play with the lower rake, what percentage would play slots and table games?
How much would each of that extra slots and table games players spend on average and how does that number compare to players who don't care about the rake?

What do you want to regulate next? The max. amount a casino hosting the WSOPC is allowed to charge for a hotel room or the price they are allowed to charge if you order room service?

Maybe we should force airlines to lower their prices for flights that take people to WSOPC cities? Maybe gas prices at stations within 50 miles of the WSOPC? All of that would be so much better if people had a fundamental right to play in low rake poker tournaments!

You think a tournament shouldn't be allowed to charge a higher rake for tournaments that have longer levels? The fees should be the same no matter if they finish a 1000 player event in 1 or 3 days?

People like Allen are the prime example why lower rake wouldn't help the casinos bottom line. How much does he lose in the pit or spend in fine dining restaurants at a casino resort? Is he shopping at Gucci after busting from a tournament at the Bellagio?

I wish rake was lower. For cash games and tournaments, live and online. But those companies have (at least somewhat) smart people use (at least somewhat) sophisticated software to optimize their numbers. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. Just one thing I know: We won't find out about that by pulling numbers out of a hat or use logical chains that end around the next corner.

That post by NoQuarter is so absurd that I can only hope they were trolling.

The huge majority of players don't know or care what the rake is so there's fairly inelastic demand based on that. I had a discussion online with some players that were bitching about a WSOPC event's rake. I responded with "well then why play it" and the response was that the value of the event was too good to skip. So their argument was that the tournament was already so valuable to players that it was impossible to skip, but yet, the casino should just take money out of their pockets and give it to the players on top of that sick value. Why exactly would they do that?

Also LOL at saying that rake shouldn't be higher on more expensive tournaments, that the only difference is longer levels and more chips. Uh, yeah, that increases the overhead cost of the tournament. More tables in use, more dealer downs, etc.

Also a hearty LOL at the guy who thinks he has figured out what Apple hasn't re: iPhone pricing, etc.

Please google elasticises.

Free market gonna free market.

I did. Googles answer: Did you mean elasticised

I'd recommend looking for "elasticity" instead.

Actually, the rake is 65/365 or 17.81% not "over 20 percent". But it is high. Anything over 12.5% is high IMHO. I remember 25 years ago standard rake was $200 + $20 on live events or 9.1%. Rake was also 5%, $2.50 max in cash games (and thank goodness no stupid jackpots!!!)

Here is a chart I made showing the effect of rake on a player's ROI:



For example, if you play online with an average rake of 9% and have a 27.08% ROI, then your ROI would be 40% if there was zero rake, and it would only be 14.9% for this $365 event above. Also, your after tax ROI would be -13% for the event above. But this aftertax number is actually based on a big 10k buyin event with over $5 mil to 1st where the top rate is 39.6%. It won't be that high for a $365 buyin event. The after tax ROI means your pretax ROI needs to be 43.47% if playing 10% rake events for your after tax ROI to be profitable at 5.99%. In other words, only a handful of players ever show lifetime net aftertax income from player poker tournaments.

To achieve a 27.08% ROI with 9% rake means you would have to get your money in on average as a 52.47% favorite. At 50% avg. rate, you would just be an average player and your ROI would be equal to the rake. If you could average just 55% favorite, your ROI would be 81% with 9% rake and you would be one of the top players in the world. So you should be happy to get allin with QQ vs AK if given the opportunity.

Its not the rake(at least directly) killing live tournaments. Its the shrinking player pool and complete desperation of those running the tournaments.

I'd happily pay the rake for a 500+ player freezeout. Not so much when they are forcing players to cannibalize themselves with re-entry and 5+ flights on any tournament with more than 100 players guaranteed.

Its a ****ing death spiral. Lower turnout so they try to generate more entries from the players they do get and it just repeats from there. The format appeals to essentially no one but circuit grinders.

Its insane. Guarantees on low buy ins have actually increased while the player pool has decreased.

So true. I don't usually play because I'm only going to have one bullet. Not going to ruin my fun with people who are willing to put in multiple bullets.

Formulas and spreadsheets are irrelevant here. Some large X percent of players are losing players. Negative ROI is negative ROI whether the house takes it or other players take it. If somebody has taken the effort to even consider ROI then they're that much closer to being in the (100 - X) percent of winning players.

I'm not saying rake is irrelevant to profitability, but most players don't even consider rake. As it has been mentioned already, they bet $365 with $94k up top, let's play.

Distinction without a difference. The principle is the same. Your attempt at explaining how business works is what's comical.

Brilliant. Call up Apple and let them know your revolutionary idea. Maybe they should make their phone $1 and sell billions! The idea is to maximize profitability, not growth. See below:

Unless executed properly, growth can hurt your profitability.

-

If I don't cash, does it really matter if the rake is 10, 20, or 30%

Had some friends from back home buy into a $1200+$300 NLHE tournament this week.

Safe to say I nearly threw up when I saw that figure. 20% is beyond ludicrous.

Please also google Pedantic.

Apple makes the majority of the profits in three enormous markets, smart phones, tablets, and pcs. in PCs it makes more than all the other competitors combined, in smartphones/tablets closer to 3x the rest of the market.

But please, coach them up on how to really run their businesses.

They answer like they have an MBA and are evaluating a business proposition.

Here is how the prize pool changes based on different rake amounts. This assumes a large 10k buyin event like the WSOP main event with 6737 players paying 15% of the field and a 1.5x min cash. Note if top 9 not paid 1 mil, 9th would pay 700k and 8th would pay 901k with 6% rake.

It's actually higher, because they take 3% or maybe 6% from the prize pool as a tip. It's probably closer to a 285+80

This is wildly inaccurate as far as any WSOPC event I have been to in the past two years.


http://www.wsop.com/m/results/?tid=14990&grid=1208


You can do the math on this event and see the $300 goes into the prizepool. The structure sheets for those events also state the $65 includes all tokes for dealers/staff.

Whoops, disregard. Shouldn't have trusted what the person at the rio said.

Isn't that a pretty good general rule of thumb?

as is the case with many NVG threads, most that can be said is said in first 20 or so posts,

cliffs

1) WSOPc rakes $65 from their $365s because they can ( fyi.... even with current rake norms, nobody gets rich running live MTTs btw )

2) vast majority of players in these events are joe the rec, who plays a few events per year, and could care less about rake.

3) grinders play these fields while knowing and caring deeply about rake, because joe the rec fields offer great value.

so, no OP, WSOP has not lost their mind.

Truxster is the winner!!!!!! They have done their research and run the numbers and done the projections...

But you forget most poker players aren't into the concept of a business making money.

Maybe someone will start up a dollar poker club based on Dollar Shave Club's business model...

Wrong. Why spout lies if you are clueless on a topic?

Yes it does. If it was 350 instead of 365 youd have 15 more in your pocket after busting.

Why do clueless people on this topuc keep spouting garbage.