????

He makes very valid points, where do you think he is being an idiot? Just because he says it in a rough manner does not mean he's a level/troll, he's trying to get his point across cos so many people like you just aren't listening.

What valid points is he making in that post I quoted, other than 2+2 likes graphs?

Billions going down the hole for ever and ever. True
Bs to the core. True
Disputatious obscurists. True

wat wat and wat

EDIT: Fine.
1. WTF does "going down the hole forever" mean? If it means a couple of guys are getting really rich, then OK, but that's the beauty, or flaw, of capitalism. DO YOU HATE CAPITALISM?! SOCIALISM IS THE WAY OF THE DEVIL!
2. If "Bs" stands for "Business", then yeah pretty much.
3. Disputatious, sure. Obscurists, well, maybe sometimes with poker strategy, but why would anyone on 2+2 want to hide the fact that we pay a **** ton in rake?

Whoever the hell owns the very few successful online poker companies got it right, or mostly right, or at least better than the others.

They figured out how to duplicate a card game on the internet, for real money, and be reliable and trustworthy enough so that people will send them money to play there. Year after year. It cost less to play poker online than it does to play in a casino.

They are getting very rich. They don't even need to touch their own wieners anymore if they don't want to.

They deserve it, imo.

nh

nope

excellent post at the nvg section i feel is pertinent to this thread. I hope poster "whatsev" dont mind me pasting his post here.

Who could complain?, kids who never had to play live poker I guess, be thankful for what you have kiddies!" Are you serious, you dumb online Internet shill, don't make me put a boot up your shilling azz.

I have played poker professionally since the early 90's. I played for years and years live, let me tell you and the kiddies about the horror's of , "having to play live" back in the day as you so eloquently put it.

I played in live limit games so soft that if you had simply read one book,
(Holdem for Advanced Players) and understood it and knew how to apply it you could earn 2BB/hour from 4-8 up to 100-200.

Players were so weak that you could almost be guaranteed a free card every time you raised a non-professional unless he was a maniac or had min 2 pair or better.
The simple act of 3 betting top pair medium kicker made you a tough player to play against.
Players use to say to me when I capped the flop 7 handed with the nut flush draw, "how could you keep raising, all you had was a draw."

Very few people had read a poker book, and very few stores outside of Vegas and a few major cities carried any good ones. Also, get this, there was no Amazon so if you didn't find a good poker book at your local store you had to know enough to mail order it from, the Gamblers Book Store, which most fish had no clue about.There were no online training sites or huge poker forums for players to quickly learn from.

Then online poker came along, "what a miracle', multi table soft easy games from your living room. That lasted for a few years but just like the convenience of Styrofoam it wasn't worth the toxic waste of rampantly improved average players, and easily accessible poker knowledge it created.

So instead of being able to sip on my free Orange Julius at the Bellagio or Commerce while staring at the cute waitress's ass and making interesting small talk with the Movie Producer in between hands of my 100-200 game, all while earning several hundred grand a year with no foreseeable end in site. I have to 6 table 6 max 5-10 LHE with players tougher then the 100-200 live games use to be, with no pretty waitress bringing me free sugary delights and no interesting characters entertaining me as I put in my daily shift only to make 1/3rd as much as i use too.

So please don't come in here and try and tell the young folks how great online poker has been for us all and how hard and awful the old days of live poker was for the pros, where they had to tip the dealer after they won 25 BB more in a pot then they could ever hope to in an online game today. I mean seriously how many 1000$ pots in 10-20 LHE have you seen online recently or even 500$ ones for that matter.

So if people want a cheaper rake cause the games are so crappy that its barely worth it to them to sit there for 8+ hours a day churning out profit for the Online sites and helping prop there games while they make less and less each year then i think that's a fare request.

So I played two short sessions from fulltilt and stars. Top one is stars. Is it a little ridiculous how FTP much more rake for less hands?



I would like to hear some opinions.

same exact rake structure iirc....
so, i guess the games are looser on FTP.
great sample size btw.

How much did you lose?

They both rake 5%, but I think FTP rakes theirs as 1¢ for every 20¢ instead of 5¢ for every $1 like Stars.

It mainly depends how many pots you won, sample size FTW!

lol

oh ya i remember this diff, but...
would it be segnificant in a NL/PL100 game?

Now I'm kinda curious, anyone have a large sample at both sites? How much of a difference does the above make?

Probably not a ton, but I hadn't noticed OP's stakes or sample size, which makes it impossible to come to any conclusions.

FT include the rake in the total pot, PS doesn't.

Example:

Preflop:
Sb raises to 10, Bb calls. Total pot = 20, and both PS and FT take $1 in rake.

Flop:
Sb bets 10, Bb calls. Total pot = 40 at FT -> $2 in rake. Total Pot = 39 at PS -> $1.95 in rake.


Sorry my bad English.

PLO100, I have over 200k sample size, but I was just judging from the last two sessions

C'mon you can't be this dumb. You pay rake when you win pots. Your losing session you paid less rake because you won fewer pots.

Full Tilt rakes more because pokerstars rounds off to the lowest pot size doller and full tilt does not.
The lower the stakes the worst it seems. As you get higher in stakes it does not seem to make too much a difference.

no. they only rake by the penny on the micros...not at the stakes he's playing.

There is no difference in the rake structure. LOL at this thread...didn't we just do this?

microbob, there's a difference 5 handed IIRC

Yes!!

It's a lot we pay!

I am not the biggest payer of rake, but somedays i pay $450 of rake!! Even with 27% rakeback of FTP stills a lot!

At FTP all FR games from 0.01/0.02 even up to 500/1000 have a max rake of $3 per hand. I find this completely ridiculous. $3 for a hand? What are the actual costs for the poker site to deal the hand? 0.0001ct? What does this ridiculous standard of $3 come from?

IMO max rake on every limit every game should be $0.50. That should MORE than enough to cover the expenses.

We need more of these threads.