Quote:
Originally Posted by baldpope
yea, truce.
I wasn't trying to start a flame war or anything like that. Partially agree with akashenk, I'm not sure if I've seen a live game advertised as entry+fee; online is a different story - Pokerstars / Bodog (or whatever it is now) typically listed as entry+fee.
That said, I only added the comment above (sharing the $100+$35) as a heads up. Saying that ~26% of the $135 is the rake is an accurate depiction as well.
-baldpope
Most venues now list their tourney entry costs as base cost + rake/fees. However they don't list them as base cost + rake%, and that's all I am getting at. Poker players discuss/debate/bitch about rake percentages. They don't do the same about actual rake amounts. So, if we're going to talk about the thing that players discuss/debate/bitch about, then we should do so based on what actually gets discussed... the rake percentage advertised by venues, and that isn't the 35% mentioned in this thread.
This actually brings up an interesting point. As an example, a player entering one of those $365 tourneys with 17.8% rake at the WSOP this summer is going to pay about $65 in actual fees. A player entering the ME will pay $600 in fees. So the ME costs nearly 10x more to the player in fees than the $365. Now, its clear the ME is a longer tourney, and the average player will play for longer, which means more overhead for the venue. But other than that and I guess "opportunity" cost to play for such a large prizepool, there really doesn't seem to be a heck of a lot of difference in the product being sold by the WSOP. I mean... is the drink service better at the ME? Are the seats more comfortable? Are the dealers better?
I bring these two tourneys up only as examples. I think while players get all bent out of shape when they see rake percentages in the high teens, 20's or even higher, a case can be made that its these larger buy-in tourneys, with smaller rake percentages, where players really get fleeced.