In case you weren't paying attention (I was) the rake on ALL poker tournaments has been steadily climbing year after year since the Moneymaker boom in 2003. Prior to that you could play a $300 tournament for $325 with a $25 rake. It went to 330, then 340 and now 350 is standard fare. Same for a $500 event, where you could buy in fifteen years ago for $530. Now it's progressed to where 550 and 560 is the norm. PLUS they are often taking an additional hidden 3% for the dealers and yet they have the nerve to ask you if you want to tip the dealers when you cash.

This is when I choose to vote with my wallet and not support all these outrageous tournaments. One thing is certain, the players pool and their backers are getting drained. You need to be an extraordinary player (or extremely lucky) to overcome the rake! Have you seen the new trend toward multiple first day events at low entry fees. That's all they have in Los Angeles anymore. Sixteen or more starting days where they are raking off 20% or more from every entry, and the players come in droves to support them.

Take a look around at these low buy-in events (anywhere from $135 to $375) and check out the players. They remind me of the bums who used to hang out at the racetrack and drive twenty year old clunkers. They are all chatting it up with their fellow poker "pros" and having the time of their life while they are being ripped off. You know what they say, a sucker is born every minute!

a sucker may be born any minute so as long as the wsop is jam packed with suckers why the hell would they lower the rake?

i actually think the tournament industry on a whole is basically a racket with a bunch of people buried in makeup with delusions or grandeur and a bunch of frauds with no real edge trying to sell at heavy markup. but that doesn't change the fact rake is a supply and demand issues- wsop would have to lose its mind to lower the rake with people happy to pay current rake.

Sounds like the housing market in 07/08.

Who gives a rat's ass if he was in for multiple buy-ins...it was STILL a choice they CHOSE to make. Who says they are disappointed to at least be making SOMETHING for their effort? After all, IF they were in for multiple bullets, then ANY cash is a good cash...

You didn't make anything resembling a cogent case.

I just hope I don't start running into people at the tables in the future that ask if I know that raving lunatic on 2P2 that also claimed to be from Austin...

Are you seriously saying that 15% is harder for bigger tourneys than smaller? 15% is 15%, it takes the same amount of chips to achieve. In a field of 100, 85 players need to bust. In a field of 10000, 8500 need to bust. Are you saying the latter is more difficult?

Also your multiple buy in argument is nonsense. Re-entering in one tournament is the same as entering a new tournament. Are you saying he should win more because it is possible that he re-entered? If he re-enters 100 times should the mincash be at least 100 buy ins? It's no different than bricking 100 individual tournaments and then cashing the one.