So far you've stated that rakeback attracts loosing/breakeven players and new low quality bots (LOL) but somehow makes the games tougher?

Yea, the proof of it is so widely available I saw it on NBC this morning.

And for the fact that rakback doesn't equal lower rake... Does 2+2=4?

Im kind of being a dick im sorry. I dont agree with lowering table limits either. I do agree that rake is high for cash games, hu. I don't think HU should even be available as it allows for more efficient bum hunting. I know the rake in stts is higher than anywhere else in the industry also for the structure offered but im nt asking for rb... Because of the game quality hehe..

I agree no affiliates should be allowed, and that cash games should be competitive relative to quality of game offering. To make a very polarized example.. I am a very long term winning mtt player but I wouldnt play on WPN rake free due to overall site's likelihood of failure, lying or messing things up, on top of their miserable game structures. Stts dont really run so not worth talking about other than jpps and im not a fan. Im not a cash game player but I undrestand the beast, so not only is there no reason for me to play there I can't suggest or encourage anybody else to.

Comprimise - slightly lower rake but still just above industry standards, no rb and same advertising budget to maintain game quality and traffic, grow? It just seems really futile and almost biting the hand that feeds you, killing the golden goose asking for rb on top of the game quality and cashier, cs speed and functionality.

I said losing or beak even players are the ones probably asking for rb. As for bots, either your leveling or you're so uninformed its not worth debating with you. Im not the one disagreeing with Global Poker and asking for and expecting the best games and lowest rake on the planet from a very new site. Never know till you ask though so doesn't hurt I guess.

If you mean a flat rb % then ya it = 4 but most if not all are progressive and benefit high volume players the most. Ive placed top 10 on many leaderboards myself I know all about it, pre and post bf.

and I find it interesting that it's all about lower rake while game quality is being ignored by the people asking for rb? I think I've made my point but just felt the need to ad that. TD -74 did say at what point he would stop asking for rebates but ignored the part about game quality correlation in my initial question.. Is the point of poker to have fun and make $ by winning pots and tournaments or pay the least to play and pick people off n get rebates I guess I'm not following lol.

This site has given us an opportunity not seen for years in the US we(you) dont have to be rb grinders anymore, lets make the game fun again, pay to play the good games, watch and help the game we all love grow and come back to the USA!

ill try to sum it up real quick - if im making 15-25% more roi over a decent sample size than I would be on other sites im not worried about paying 1-4% higher rake. Ill keep doing that and good job site and good job me if we're all makin $ and it aint broke dont fix it. Im happy site is making $, they deserve it, I know they're spending a lot and I'm more than happy with my results too.

How about playing 3 or 4 tables instead of 12. Your winrate might go up.

Amen

How about reading the thread before posting.

It was proposed in many posts including mine that there should be a limit of tables allowed to 4 - 6 to discourage mutitable rakeback players.

Again, I'm advocating for rakeback in whatever form not to encourage mass tabling but to insure a lower rake for players, that's all.

And rake is one of the biggest direct hits on your win rate, provided you have one to begin with. If not then I guess I could understand why one would be against rakeback and advocate for paying higher rake.

Game quality has nothing to do with rakeback.

Conditions that encourage mass tabling do.

Take away mass tabling, not rakeback. Or lower the rake to were it's equal to what it would be after the rakeback.

And yes, it's great that this site came along and is giving us a great opportunity to play. But it would be even greater if it didn't charge the highest rake in the industry.

You have to admit that a juicy rakeback is one of the conditions, albeit not the only one. I think it is probably the biggest one though.

Global has loads of fish and casual FB players. It seems like a never-ending supply. It is not difficult to have a ridiculously good ROI on this site right now and I would hate to have anything potentially disrupt that.

@ TD how can you say rakeback or lack of has nothing to do with the quality of the game? You are losing your side of this debate hre badly buddy..

It costs money to run a poker site, software, cs, ADVERTISING (some do little very little) cashier processing. Sites make $ from rake, Global doesn't have a sportsbook or casino. The $ the site spends on marketing to atract new players for us to play with could just be given as rakeback, which sounds like what you're advocating for.. Peolpe paying absurdly high rake in underground home game to play against high rolling fish is just one more example of willingness to pay rake being in direct correlation with quality of games.

Basically you're asking for the best games and lowest rake in the industry.

Sure I agree, but not if you limit the amount of tables one can play at the time. And limiting the amount of tables along with rakeback has been part of my argument since the first post I made in this thread.

Or, instead of limiting the amount of tables and paying out rewards match the rake to what it would be after rakeback and rake that amount.

I hope I'm wrong but I don't think it's realistic to expect a never-ending supply of casual FB players. And once that supply dries up everyone will be feeling the squeeze of a high rake. That's why now is the time to show that you care how much you're being charged to play. And again, GP's rake is highest in the industy.

Ok so a couple things, first I think rakeback does attract more grinders. Yes everyone who understands rake should inherently like getting some of that back. But let's be real, not all recreational players care or even think about the rake. Some not insignificant % of them just don't have a clue. Versus regs/grinders who all think about that sort of thing. I'm not saying rakeback has no impact on the game quality or a significant impact on the game quality, I think the right answer is somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.

The reason ACR's cash games are infested with MMT grinders and bot rings isn't because of rakeback, at least not primarily, it's because of the Beast rake race promo. They are dangling a lot of money out there so anyone who's got the time to grind 20 tables for 10 hours a day is going to go get some of that money, and the bots that aren't losing at a huge clip will be "grinding" for the beast bonuses too.

Last thing, and I think this is kind of an important point that I haven't seen mentioned here yet. Global already has rake back essentially, it's just modeled differently than the traditional method. They have the 100 flops daily $500 freeroll for 50nl+ players, and the weekly 500 flops $2500 freeroll for 20nl+ players. You have to generate rake in order to gain entry. Now hold on, before the high volume cash game grinders come at me with that's BS, we generate a ton more rake than the minimum requirement and we don't want to waste time with those stinking piddly freerolls... yes I feel you. Totally get that. And don't disagree. It's true that many regs who are grinding good volume don't care for these freerolls, perhaps even tournaments in general. Fair enough. But, you know who does like freeroll tournaments? Recreational players sure do. In fact I'll bet many recreational players would prefer to just play the small tournaments, but the lure of the qualifier freerolls brings them into the cash games to get their flops in (benefiting regs indirectly). These qualifier freerolls are a form of rakeback in an unorthodox model. Yes that model limits the "upside" for regs, if I see 100 flops at 50nl today and you see 2000 flops at 200nl, you obviously will contribute a lot more rake than I getting only the same "rakeback benefit", anything you do above the minimum requirement is unaccounted for in this model. And you as the 2K flops reg may have little to no interest in the freeroll anyway. But this model is consistent with what Global's objectives are in terms of trying to maintain a more rec friendly environment.

If Global isn't interested in going to a more traditional rakeback model, then maybe they could expand the current model to show a little love to the volume players. Just throwing numbers at the wall, maybe something like 2000 flops at 100nl+ weekly challenge with a 5K freeroll on Sunday. No idea if those numbers are reasonable for GP or not, or what the sweet spot is, just giving an example. The higher volume players that want the rakeback may not have any interest in a daily $500 freeroll and may balk at this over all model as a result, but if you give them a reasonably decent prize pool and a short field once a week, they'll come out to play. And, they'll get the benefit of more rec players trying to get some volume in at their limits to qualify as well.

Rake less rakeback = net rake.

It's a simple subject but surprisingly confuses a lot of people, so you're not alone. Even Negreanu has no idea what it is, or at least he gets paid to pretend not to. Presumably Amaya don't pay you to understand it incorrectly, so you have less of an excuse. Rakeback has nothing to do with "getting paid to play."

@ gluten - awesome post well done

@ td - I think asking for lower rake and rakeback under the assumption games will get worse is putting the cart before the horse so to speak. If the site were to agree (which would be absurd) and do what you're asking where would the $ come from? From their adv budget and $ currently being spent on fb ads and the coin freerolls? Or would if come off of the sites bottom line out of the kindness of their hearts? Makes no sense to me, now if they were to stop the ads and the freerolls and the quality of games dropped significantly then ya.. I would either stop playing there or ask/hope for changes but right now it aint broke so dont fix it!

@ meleaB - I completely understand what net rake is. When I said "paid to play" I was referring to some rewards programs that create an environment where players can be losing or break even players, and if they do enough of it they can make $100k+/yr in rakeback. From a players standpoint I'd much rather the sites $ be spent on bringing in new traffic or maintaining same rec/reg ratios than give the $ back to the highest volume losing or break even players/bots.. But I think you know what I meant.

This x 100

For all the disconnects or glitchy tables sometimes or leaving a table and balance not being updated for 20 minutes, I don't care. It's all worth it. Cashouts within hours, and now no fees?? I love this site.

No, no, no. I'm sorry, but you do not understand it at all. Players can not- and never could- be "losing or break-even players" (in the strictest sense) and make $100k+. They are/were winning players pre-rake and winning players with rakeback (net rake) They were "losing players" only with the the extortionate pre rake-back fees. "Break-even" players in many of these games would have been in the top 5% (or higher) of the player pool. So your perception (and Anaya's "propaganda") that one "simply" had to break-even is complete nonsense.

trolling lol..?. Using your logic I guess it could work if there were rake free environments. If a player chooses to play an unbeatable game after net rake however its calculated (as 1 # or several exchanges of #s) that's on the player. People have the right to choose where to play or not to play at all if no games are available that they can beat. "extortionate pre terms" is just lol and a very relative thing. Side note, these player pools you are referring to specifically have/had major issues with bots according to threads all over 2+2. If a person wants to perfect a weird variant of poker only offered by 1 or a few sites (spins, zoom) and that NEW form of poker goes to the wayside then well.. Global offers a few simple formats that have been around for years that everyone can play, reducing bumhunting those weird variants that fleece sheep faster.

The rake im paying to play my games would be unbeatable on other sites but as I keep repeating Im happy to pay it in the current high quality gaming and cs, cashier situation on this site. I haven't even brought it up and it's just to illustrate a point.

A player can 100% be a losing player according to their database at the end of year from games played +rake, many are losing pre rb, rake enough and how much did the old SNE or current WPN 5 star pay..? I guess we all could play with #s and see how much rake we could afford to pay based on our skill level or lack of and preferred game type?

What about flat rates like some live card rooms do, would you be ok with that? Pay x$ for x# cash game hands and maybe 3-5% for mtts, .5% for hypers? Is that "non extortionate" rakeback IYO? Do we need to see all the financials for the site to determine what we think is fair rake for us to pay? Im just throwing ideas out there.

As opposed to rakeback maybe just calculate what you think is fair, taking into consideration the coin freerolls and challenges they run (or in your model remove them and pay yourself directly) and lobby only for a rake reduction as opposed to a reduction and a rebate as is taking place now? Don't worry about the cashier or other CS stuff they do as that would be to difficult to figure for quantitative analysis.

im going in circles but i guess you and many others just expect sites to provide this wonderful free service for all of us how nice that would be lol

I think through some slightly imprecise wording, you two are creating an argument over something where you don't really disagree as much as you think.

bb, your earlier post made it sound like you were making one of those "if you're not beating the game before rakeback, you're a losing player" arguments. I almost made a post calling you out for it as MeleaB did, but then I saw a later post of yours where you at least partially clarified that your main issue was that many sites use RB as a way to reward higher volume players more than lower volume (and likely recreational) players. I agree with the point you made that what really matters is your profit once all is said and done - many pros are fine with high rake and no rakeback if they still end up with a good profit at the end. I don't think MeleaB is taking issue with that so much as he is with your somewhat imprecise statements about rakeback not equaling lower rake, and players who make $100 K with rakeback being losing players because they were down before rakeback. I get the point you were trying to make, but neither of those statements are correct on their own.

This. People have such a negative view of rakeback because of the reg infested WPN games, but the state of their games is due to the beast, not rakeback. Rakeback simply lowers the rake and does it (basically) by the same amount for every single player that plays. The Beast is a rake race that rewards the players that rake the most by taking rake from everybody and then distributing it out as rakeback only to those players that rake the most for the site. It's like a welfare system for high volume grinders, so those players are going to be the ones that are attracted to the site and the ones that thrive. Rake race and rakeback are not the same thing.

Why all the questions on my opinion as to how much rake I'd be OK paying, and the like? They are irrelevant to the simple point I'm making. It's perplexing that you can't grasp the concept. Anyway, Bobo Fett made a nice summary so I'll try and leave it there.

LOL people bitching about rakeback killing the games. It's cuz people can play 24 ****ing tables and timeout on every table playing nit poker, not getting a percentage back on rake. Doesn't matter if you have rakeback or no rakeback if you play on a site that has a 6 or less table cap games are gonna be on another level. Hell I watched it happen with Stars and Full tilt back in the day when they increased their tables limits. Games went from nitty to as tight as a nuns **** on comparison.

Get rid of mass tabling and you have a quality product, if not you have WPN.

LOL I still can't believe on a vice forum with degens you can't swear.

No rakeback please

ACR is a trash site, and a big reason for that is the mass tabling hud nits that ruin the experience for the average player.

@bobo – Thanks for your post and I agree with most of it.

@ bozo – good post. The beast and SNC are forms of rakeback, just not flat rate ones. The negative views started before WPN (they have just really polarized it IMO), views started with SNE and other poorly designed rake races or leaderboards on various sites. With SNE the more you played the higher rb% you got, in levels. Hence all my questions for meleaB that ill get to next. A flat rate rakeback for players of all volume and buy in ranges I’d be ok with, but that’s just essentially lower rake so why not just make it simple and not take it and give it back in the 1st place? Gluten said earlier that most recs don’t know about rb, @ least the fb players don’t.

@ MeleaB- - The questions are very relevant and also to polarize a simple point I’m making. It’s perplexing to me that you can’t grasp that . I was tired when posting last night, up late watching wsop me on pokergo. I agree with bobo and appreciate his “mediation” and clarification for us lol, I feel you and I have different communication styles but are sort of on the same page and have player(our) environment whatever it is as the goal.

@ doodoo – Mass multi tabling is what encouraged and almost what rakeback was created to start people doing back in the day. No worries of 24 tablers on GP due to the UI and timebank being so so short it’s not humanly possible to do it profitably, well unless one were to just click buttons and try to keep up and break even and basically only see their account balances grow when they get rb transfers but not from making any $ in the games.. Oh wait whats that again? Playing more than 6 games at a time on Global is tough to say the least unless one has a 30”+ or dual monitor setup. Mass multi tabling won’t/cant happen on a large scale on Global the way it is set up now.

@ Rika - +1 and thanks for posting

Rakeback was so popular back in the day because there were tons of poker rooms and they needed to compete for players. Now, since there's few sites to play on, Global doesn't need it.

Instead of promotions that reward hands played, I like how Party used to offer re-load bonuses often. They were easy to clear, and the bonus money, probably cycled back into the poker ecosystem.