it's not really about rakeback but about mass tabling. If you keep the software ****ty like it is now, the regs will stay away. For sure rakeback would attract a few, but it would not make the games tougher, it would make them easier. It is the mass tabling that kills games. Anyway, asking a company to give money away with rakeback deals never works.

Feel free to copy and paste:

-----------

Dear IRS,

I no longer want my tax rebates each year. In fact, please tax me more.

Thanks,
[Your name]

its funny you say that i was thinking the same thing.

Dear friends and family, society in general,

I chose to get into a business where i lose $ all year and provide no service or benefit to anybody, in fact many consider me a detriment to my industry overall. I live off of my annual tax refund it carries me through the upcoming year of a losing business but I write off so much loss I can afford to live nicely! I knew this when I started and was comfortable with it. I suggest you all embrace the situation and do the same!

tomatoes tomatos

Tomato, potato.

Perfect summation of arguments against one's own interest in this thread.

I guess it's not that surprising, since people even vote against their own interests, usually due to lack of understanding of issues at stake.

I fel you guys are confusing or trying to equate this situation to the one going on at amayastars. Governments need funds to operate, I dont expect to live in a good country or city etc tax free, I expect and am willing to pay for what I get.

It's not stars guys, its not riddled with 3rd world country players and weird slim margin games. You guys expect the same quality of life and services of the nordic countries and the tax rate of Uganda, unrealistic. So far we are getting great service and product, logic would suggest that that's gotta be financed somehow.

I feel you guys are trying to take the argument against stars over here and make a case on a site you dont even play on. Does MeleaB or td even live in the Us? Should I go over to the stars threads and chime in? Stars is a crap product with tons of competition, Global is a different company in a different market offering a different service. Quit trying to win your argument with stars over here.

We will never agree and Im glad the site agrees with me not you. If the game and service quality of Global declines significantly I would feel differently and either do what y'all are doing or stop playing there.

Side notes, sites are not governments - they don't have to do anything.

Im done going back and forth unless I see something new or think of something, Ive said my piece, the only players that seem to agree with you are bad regs or displaced stars rb pros.

I have given no opinion on game quality or product or anything to do with the site. My only point throughout has been to correct you on your misunderstanding of what rake back is (the topic of this thread.) IF the conversation was extended to the issues you think we've been talking about (maybe you're still drunk?) then we'd probably share a similar view.

To bid farewell to our back and forth I'll respond one last time to your post.

Yes, I do live in US and play on Global daily. That's the only reason I responded to this thread, because I care about the amount of rake I pay. Also, I never was a rakeback player on stars. Nor am I looking to be a rakeback player on Global.

Nor do I want Global to become like Stars. Definitely not like ACR/WPN. But once again you're equating reasonable rake to Stars or ACR type rewards program. You just can't comprehend the distinction between the two. I'm also tiered of arguing that those are two completely different issues. So for the last time - those are two completely different issues. And there are things that can be done to maintain quality and have rakeback(or lower rake). It's not either or situation.

Let's not pretend that either one of us knows how much rake it takes for Global to remain a quality site. Your speculation that if they were to lower the rake their quality would go down is just that, speculation. You don't have access to their books nor have any idea of their margins. Yet without any of that information you are arguing on their behalf for charging you a higher rake. What if I told you that the quality you get right now can be maintained even if you were charged a lower rake? I hope you would choose a lower rake, but who knows anymore..

When/if the game quality goes down on Global it will be to late for players to demand anything, especially a lower rake. By definition the volume will be down at that point. Global is a new site trying to find it's footing and find out what their player base wants. They want to grow and appeasing players and granting their requests is one of the most important things that will help them grow at the moment. That's why this is a perfect time to voice what you want from the site. You're in a position of strength right now, but it will not be like that for long. And yet you're using this unique opportunity to validate them charging you as high of a rake as they want. You're arguing that you and the players(except for me and MeleaB) want a high rake. Of course the site agrees with you.

I'm not saying lower the rake to the point were Global fails as a business. I want Global to succeed more than any other site out there at the moment. I moved most of my action to Global, I want it to grow as much as possible and be around for a long time. But high rake is really really really bad for longevity of the games. And there are industry standards in place for reference. All I'm asking is to adhere to them.

What about flat 25% contributed, same for all players no matter what, possibly payable as MTT/SNG buy ins? Doesn't that sound like it would be a nice little supplement to the current promos and go towards offsetting the high rake? Wouldn't almost every player be happy about that? And wouldnt that remain in line with gp's position on this?

I'm just trying to figure this out, I don't know for sure what's 100% best for the state of the site or even my own pocket. Does anyone really know for sure what the best solution is? How likely is it that the current model is optimal for anyone?

+1

+!

Most of that I can agree with. I guess it's a question of where the rb would come from? the adv budget? and if so would that improve or maintain game quality as much or more so than their current business model of social media marketing? As far as position of strength right now, sites lower and raise rake all the time, I feel thats more of a supporting argument you're using since I think you're a cash game player and the high rake affects those players more than the other formats? I could be wrong, im just guessing.

this I think could work, as long as the $ came from somewhere other than the adv budget? Part of the prob with rewards is when recs figure out the top heavy nature of them they feel cheated, as they should. With the above proposed model players should be automatically included not have to opt in or email cs about it. Maybe finance it by cutting cashier speeds, adding a smaller fee back to them, or quality of cs, # of reps? TD is right we don't know the books but clearly the $ has to come from somewhere. Perhaps the rb would increase traffic and cover itself and more? Thats not impossible either but it doesn't seem to me that GP currently needs table or game starters.

I think everyone would agree lower rake would be a good thing. Everyone wants to argue for/against rakeback and the quality of the games but the fact of the matter is if the game quality is still great then good players are going to keep flocking here. That's the truth of the matter no matter which side you are on.

Obviously.

The argument should really be spelled out as...

What does the quality of the games look like if GP decides to give out rakeback (along with their freerolls and overlays) and drastically decreases their Facebook advertising, which would lead to less new players coming in?

The other options is to remove the freerolls and overlays and replace it with rakeback. My opinion is that the freerolls and overlays would bring in more of a new player pool than rakeback would.

But that's just my opinion. Everyone in this thread has theirs.

I think people tend to forget how rakeback started. It was never something that sites paid directly to players. For bringing players to them, they paid affiliates a share of the rake the player generated, and some affiliates chose to give some (often most) of that back to players to attract them. It makes sense for the sites because that way they don't spend as much money on marketing. One of the downsides, though, is players who didn't sign up through an affiliate, or signed up through an affiliate that didn't offered rakeback, would then be upset because they didn't, and couldn't, get rakeback.

And then there have been sites who have given their players rewards in different forms directly, which allowed them to do more targeting. This makes sense for the sites if they can use it as a tool to attract players from elsewhere, get players to play more, etc. Most sites tend to tier these rewards on volume, and the argument has been made that this makes the games tougher.

What seems a little more odd to me is when sites offer straight up flat rakeback direct to all players. But I guess this is just an evolution, where sites decided that rather than have players sign up through affiliates, they'd just as soon have them sign up directly, so they gave them rakeback either way. Or new sites would start up and figure they had to pay rakeback to compete with the competition. Players notice rakeback much more than they do when a site charges 1-2% more or less rake.

So to the question a few posts ago, of course everyone would like 25% off their rake. But it has to make sense for the site, as well. To be worth their while, they need to regain that 25% in increased play, more players, or better customer loyalty/retention - or a combination of all of those. Is that what would happen? I don't think any of us know the answer to that.

People often forget about these things when they complain about a site not offering rakeback. A site is going to spend X% of their rake on marketing & promotions. There is direct advertising, freerolls, rewards programs, rake races, revenue share to affiliates, and other ways they can spend this money - every site does it differently. And of course "X%" will look different at each site.

Is "X%" high enough at Global? Are they spending that money the best way they can? I don't know the answer to that, but I do know the answer is more complex than some people seem to think.

+!

I'd rather experiment with rakeback than just assume it's the end of the world. I mean... you have to remember... you can't use a hud here, so your typical grinder is already cowering in fear of actually having to play poker. That, alone, is going to keep a lot away.

And... just how recreational can you really be if you're qualifying for all of these tournaments that require "grinder volume" or at least playing more than 1 table? Advertise the ability to use paypal or something. Could still keep daily purchase tournaments and etc.

If it doesn't immediately pan out, revert back. Not like site really appears to be growing all that much, anymore, to me. And, who ever suggested 4 table max... didn't realize this was a recreational forum for grannies. Come on.

The terrible arguments in this thread have convinced me that people asking for rakeback should be charged even more rake.

Adopted from Weird Al's song "White and Nerdy" which itself is adapted from "Ridding Dirty"

"I see you trolling... on your segway..."

Lol, all the same

Seconded. And I propose that the extra rake be returned to the rest of us in the form of rakeback.

That sounds like a fabulous idea - I'm sure everyone would be really pleased if they introduced rakeback, only to pull it days/weeks/months later.

I'm sure there are a few ways they could do more damage to their credibility and brand, but not many.

I feel like a lot of you guys are the type that root for the house when you walk past someone playing blackjack.

I guess I can see why from my posts but I assure you absolutely not. A lot of the pit players and slot row people I find depressing but I love to see them win.

If that's all you get out of the posts disagreeing with you, that's on you.

There's been some interesting points raised; this post makes it sound like your thought process goes no further than "poster disagrees that Global should have rakeback, poster must support big bad poker site".