20% IS CLOSER TO 35-45 THAN 90%

lol

is it so difficult for you to understand this????

how dumb are you?

It's 90%+ now, that data is from over a decade ago when 100nl had 3 fish per table. There are site reps reading this, perhaps one would like to chime in.

This was tried quite a few times durring the boom. Hard to hit critical mass. They all folded.

One site gave 6 months free, 30 dollars a month fee after, good software, imidiate support via a chat feature. They went under due to having too few players!

Hard to draw whatever passes for a "live one" to these sites when the name sites have way more players and pizazz. The big sites even offer promotions (lol)!!!

I can't recall which thread that was, but I'm pretty sure that Stars rep confirmed that effective rake (or w/e you wanna call percentage of deposits being converted into rake) was around 70% about a year ago.

There is also the hidden rake, of currency exchange rates, where you lose when turning non American currencies into dollars to play with, and then when turning those dollars back into your own currency at an unhealthy exchange rate.

with all these drains on bankrolls it is no wonder only 5% of pokerstars players are in profit.

This is really interesting. Did you work for a poker network? Which one was it?

So this is during the poker boom, around 2003-2006.
With such a huge social trend, you'd have a massive increase of depositors who lose very quickly. Seems to me that would be why the percentage figure is so low.
Would you agree? I guess that is what you are saying here.
It makes sense anyway, losing players generate the least amount of rake. Breakeven and winning players generate the most rake.

Although, a lower percentage is not always bad for the site of course, if say the total amount deposited is 10x that of another period with higher %.
(i.e. 35% of $10M > 90% of $1M)

When you say '55%-60% went as cash outs', I find that surprising - wouldn't (at least some) winning players try to build their roll to play higher stakes?
(I'm sure players at all levels wanted to move up and be the next Moneymaker/Ivey/Dnegs)

You are quite a piece of work, aren't you? I don't even know why you started this thread, other than to argue with and insult people.

I've said nothing about which number is closer, nor do I care. My point was that you've already acknowledged that the number you put out there is nowhere near close to accurate, and thus you're on pretty shaky ground to be condescending to others for posting numbers that you believe (but have yet to prove) to be inaccurate.

But before you go hanging your hat on "my number is closer, you're all dummies", you might want to make sure you're actually correct. I suspect that before this debate is over, we may be given more reason to believe that the number is higher than 45% now.

Anyway, I don't know if this whole thing is just a troll attempt. If so, find something better to do. If not, I have no idea what you're trying to do at this point.