Yes insuring fish get fleeced faster,play less rake and don't come back.

How is this good for the site?

It's terrible for the fish too.

Games become more reg infested.and it's bad for even decent casual players.they could play someone hu,win more money from their opponent their opponent does from them and lose the match.

As usual it's a fantasy land suggestion by a poker player who expects businesses to forfeit money so that regs can make more money from people who actually deposit lose and have games run around them.

I would give you an easier and more effective job. Offer a Poker site with a lot lower rake for everyone than competition (net depositors and no net depositors), and give all rakeback to fishes in promotions and stuff I don't care (net depositors)

I like this idea. Has it been discussed? What are the downsides?

The sites currently rake 90%+ of deposits. Would you be ok with a 90% withdrawal fee?

Can you confirm that 90% is accurate or just a guess? Always assumed it was something ridiculous but presumably the sites would be reluctant to release that kind of info.

Ah true, instead of everyone paying rake, only the winners would, so they'd pay a much bigger rake. Bad idea. It would turn slight losers into slight winners, but it would also turn big winners into slight winners.

Edit: What if everyone pays a rake up front on their deposit (instead of monthly), and if you cash out, your deposit rake counts toward your cash-out rake? I wonder how big the rakes would have to be in that scenario.

Rakes 90% of deposits?

I cant believe that, makes no sense at all

I think its more close to 20%

I think this is pretty short sighted imo. There may never be a boom like there was a couple of years ago, but "fads" like poker go through life cycles like any other form of entertainment. On top of this, I think you are vastly underestimating the demand that online poker would still have in the states if it became properly regulated and advertised as daily fantasy is now.

no no no

There was a site called World Sports Exchange (I think) that had a 100% rake free poker room many years ago. The games were the worst on the internet.

So it wouldn't be no rake, it would just be "pay your rake up front once a month". It would only work if the monthly rake was remarkably cheaper than the rake you currently pay less rakeback. However, you will never get recreationals to pay up front so it would only ever be taken up by regs as a way to make an overall monthly saving.

lol

of course im not talking about a change in any network that already exists

they will not change of course

what im saying is about a new network

we are clearly paying too much for the product, both pros and recs, so theres an opportunity screaming in front of every one who wants to take it

thats how market works, the estabilshed ones never change unless a new one sees the opportunity to charge less offering the same or better service

So, a site where the pros pay very low rake, and the recreational players pay full rake...sounds like what we had several years ago, taken a little further. And yet, the sites are going the opposite way now, which should tell you all you need to know about the viability of this idea.

Or if not the viability, then at least the willingness of a current site to do it. As for a new site trying it, sites have tried different variations without a lot of success thus far, but of course that doesn't mean it's impossible - just quite unlikely.

I agree that rake is far too high. The thing is, most fish don't care. Look how popular Spins are despite launching with absurd rake and multiple subsequent rake increases.

"Offer a better product for less and let the market decide" doesn't work for poker - you need to understand what the "product" is for different player types. A 100% recreational fish might not even know what rake is.

I don't blame you since you probably haven't been around online poker for long enough, but the markets did work. (Almost) every company in the marketplace (slowly) moved from a product that charged significantly less and had better service to the current status quo.

The problem is that very few in the industry except for Phil Galfond think that the current poker landscape offers that "screaming opportunity" that you see. Instead, most people see a market that's more or less saturated (at best) with comparatively high cost to enter.

Growing maket + low cost to enter = good. Saturated market + high cost to enter = bad. That's why not that many new companies see a screaming opportunity to jump into the business of building oil rigs or nuclear power plants.

And I'm sure the change has nothing to do with losing a massive chunk of the industry on one day right? Poker was at it's peak when rake was fair enough to beat games and move up while also railing those above you as they won massive amounts of money.

If online poker is ever to gain traction again, proven winning players (and a lack of bots) are fundamental to the next generation noticing poker, who see it as a means of making real money though skill.

Exactly. People seem to be glossing over the fact that poker did work with fair rake models before it lost the USA. Full Tilt might have been fraudulent due to management, but Poker Stars thrived under the very model that people say doesn't work anymore.

The only thing that's changed is the massive shift in corporate guidance due to being public and the insane amount of debt that Amaya took on to purchase Stars in the first place.

If another one of these "pay monthly for unlimited volume" threads pops up I'm going to feed a puppy to a lion. Stop it already.

vip/benefits should be based off deposits not rake and bring the fun back

top 25% of depositors get benefits (less rake, deposit match, free welcome back bonuses, tourney tickets, etc)

top 5% should be treated like kings (option to label yourself in the table/lobby as a 5%er and get free money and other perks while you play. imagine the fun and possibilities with this

top 25% of withdrawing players get less and less benefits (higher rake, withdrawal fees, etc)

What color is the sky in your world? It would take one thing and one thing only to create a poker boom far larger than the one we experienced a decade ago - full legalization. A global player pool that was all legally allowed to play together. Legal advertising. What killed online poker wasn't the rake or the shady operators or anything aside from the heavy boot of the government. As long as player pools are segregated and most people (rightfully or not) think that online poker is illegal you will never have a thriving site. Absent these two obstacles online poker would be healthier than ever. Unfortunately our corrupt, dog-**** government makes this scenario very unlikely.

I'm not sure why you're making this point by flipping it around as a question, as if I had said or implied the opposite. I would imagine it had a great deal to do with that. I think it also had even more to do with the best players improving over time and increasing the skill gap from top to bottom, making the sites feel like, rightly or wrongly, they needed to "tweak" things to stop the sharks from consuming the fish too quickly (and yes, to ensure they made more while winners made less).

But these conditions both still exist, and show no sign of improving any time soon, so pointing this out actually makes the case for going back weaker, not stronger.

Personally I think high percentage rake back for volume players is the best idea. With multiple tiers depending on how many hands you play in a month. With maybe a bonus multiplier the higher the stake you play.

This way they can screw low volume players with high rake but reward people who actually put a lot of time into the ecosystem.

Good rakeback means higher winrates, which enables people to move up faster. This then gives the weaker players at the bottom some breathing room, and the higher stakes players get some fresh meat to abuse

Keep the skill flowing in the right direction at a good pace. Right now it's just a log jam with some quite competent players 'stuck' at 50-100NL.

You don't actually think that. You just want it to be true.

putting a lot of time into the ecosystem makes the ecosystem worse not better

Is this a joke? Clearly you have absolutely no clue how much is taken in rake.

Poker sites rake something like 95% of money deposited for small stakes. That figure is even higher for micro stakes. Can't believe you think it's only 20%.