Actually, this thread has been pretty civil. You came out guns a-blazing, but each of your posts since then has made more sense to me. I'd agree with much of what you posted WRT to bankroll in this post, just keep in mind it's not the same for everyone. But I'm sure there are some people that "over-withdraw" like you were talking about.

This is key. Before anyone complains about rake, I hope they've looked into and taken advantage of what's available to them. It's amazing what you can find out there once you know what you're doing. Anyone who thinks they're missing out should peruse the Internet Bonuses and Affiliates/Rakeback forums once in a while. There's really no excuse for 2+2 regs not to be getting the best bang for the buck.

BTW, NoFx, are you taking advantage of http://www.trulyfreepokertraining.com/? More added value available if you aren't already!

Yes, this thread has been better than most. It probably helps that the thread wasn't started by someone like SRG who just ended up becoming a magnet for flaming. He mostly brought it upon himself, but no matter how it happened, it made a rational discussion near-impossible.

I don't think it kills the argument. I would agree that it shows what can happen when people get together on an issue, but I have to think it also happened because there truly was an obvious problem. Not just "rake is too high", but there was a serious inequity. That doesn't mean most fish care about rake, I still don't think they do. But no, that also doesn't mean we should always be satisfied with the status quo.

To clarify my comment since you seem to see what you want to read:
People should educate themselves and be aware of what sites charge what rake and also what affect it has on their winrate. In other words make an educated consumer choice - incorporating both price (rake) and value (service). It's very clear that a lot of people don't actually do this.

For example I was reviewing a students NL50 stats from AP, the rake was affecting his win rate to the tune of 16bb/100 over a 60,000 hand sample. Of course this was due to the BB jackpot ripoff there. So I advise him to check out Stars/Tilt where he can pay less rake or consider a Euro site where he can pay less again and also get twice the RB%.



As for the rest of your points I think you have me confused with someone else. Either that or you just wanted to ramble on about nothing, again.

i have always wondered why you canadian's are not playing on party? perhaps i am suffereing from the grass is always greener syndrome, perhaps the games there suck? i never hear any forum regulars that are non-US players talking about party. well, rarely.

No probs Bobo, to be honest I didn't know the exact hourly rate but I was told it was around the $3/hr mark.

I really don't see what there is to argue about:

OFFERING MONTHLY small RELOAD BONUSES would effectively lower the rake % cut from winnings for small stakes players. It would draw new money into the poker economy and offer near breakeven players more time to get hooked

Also, if you could lowered the clearance requirement(or did like a deposit $100 get $15 free instantly to play with) and gave the option of an added playthrough requirement, that would help the average ss player as well.

Maybe logistically this would be hard, but it would DEFINITELY increase both the player base, and the softness of the games.

sounded - Actually I directly addressed your comment. I'm sorry you aren't able to figure out the obvious. You went out of your way to insult me so I'm not going to attempt to help you any further.

Yes, the rake is ridiculous

I was planning on staying at stars even if it meant losing some value when I moved up to nl25. Then I decided to switch to plo8 and realized I was paying 8ptbb/100, which was just ridiculous. It basically forced me to move to full tilt for rakeback.

I honestly think the best way to do this is to *increase* the rake while increasing the bonuses for regs. I'm sure the sites could do this in a way that it generates more profit for the sites *and* the regs at the expense of people who just donate to the games and don't care anyway.

This is pretty awesome given that PokerStars charges different rake at 25NL.

[ ] summery
[x] summary

/grammerpoponittery

Good rest of post, but the problem is still the fact that the fish don't know and/or don't care.

I can't speak for everyone else of course, but I haven't found Party to be really any softer than networks like iPoker and OnGame, where I can find much better deals.

BS. Pots are much much much bigger live and everybody knows it.

Oh, how sad for the shillies. The kiddies have finally woken up and realized how they have been abused.

According to Dutch Boyd:
" I remember eavesdropping during a conversation that Chris Ferguson and Todd Brunson had about the online poker industry a few years back. Todd said something like "won't it be nice when online poker is legal", and Ferguson replied that he would prefer it stay illegal for as long as possible. It made me kind of mad at the time and I eventually figured out why. The current state of things is that the operators see the writing on the wall and are operating their business like they are on borrowed time and that they only have a few years to squeeze as much juice out of the poker industry as they can."

http://dutchboyd.com/2009/01/changeg...ting-high.html

SRG in the HOUSE!!! (and quoting the Dutchinator no less!!!!)

Are you really quoting the authority of Dutch ****ing Boyd to support your argument about the online poker business? Is this for real, a level, or do you just not know who Dutch Boyd is, and his involvement in the industry?

I don't follow "the industry" like you do sir. And I don't know much about Mr. Boyd. He's just reporting a conversation he overheard. Is hearsay evidence not allowed on 2+2?

Thanks Micro for that warm greeting! Even if we are on different sides Josem--you industry, me grinder--you could learn to have a sense of humor like Micro!

Define "side"?

Dutch Boyd is scum.

stoprake - Dutch Boyd is pretty well known for being a bit wacky. He also had an online poker site called pokerspot that folded up shop in 2003 or something and he allegedly ran off with quite a bit of the money so that's why some people think he's scum. His opinions on online poker should absolutely be taken with a grain of salt.

Do you really think that he would make up that conversation? This thread isn't about what D. Boyd did with pokerspot. I know nothing about that and will defer to others. But, as I said above, it is just a conversation that he overheard. He has no particular reason to make it up. Moreover, the logic of what Ferguson said is all to clear. After all, FTP is #2 with the status quo. Change would likely endanger that. Think about it.

He might also have a vested interest in rakefree poker as he was also supposedly (around 2004/2005) going to start a rakefree site called "rakefree.com" - search google and you'll find more info about it.

Juk

He appears to be affiliated with PokerZero and/or the National League of Poker.

Justification of the rake based on their expenses is ridiculous.

As a moderate to low volume player, I pay $4,000+ per month in rake.

Blizzard somehow manages to print money off of WoW charging less than $15 per month.

Obviously WoW will not have some of the costs incurred by a poker site, particularly deposit/withdrawal fees. But at the same time, WoW has many many costs that a poker site would not incur.

The only real figures we have in poker are from public figures. Anurag Dik**** was made a billionaire off his shares in Party Poker alone. Party Poker itself went from nothing to a $8 billion company in under 5 years.

Times have definitely changed, but it's almost a certain that Full Tilt/Stars/etc are all also pulling in billions at the expense of their oblivious players.

As players we are handicapped in that we have absolutely no voice at all. Boycotts simply don't work in poker. If you get a sizable number of regulars to agree to not play for a week, you can be certain that another even larger chunk of regulars will be putting in overtime that week. The only thing that's going to take care of their greed is competition. And because of that: I can't wait for regulation.

I understand your points, but isn't regulation likely to lead to even higher charges due to taxation, etc.?

Example: ATF in U.S. taxes the hell out of alcohol and cigs.

no

You're already supposed to be paying your taxes. As for the sites, their fee is looking to be a 10% charge on deposits which will probably turn out to be comparable to what they're already having to pay dealing with shady third party processors and the like.

Maybe I am being too cynical. I always expect the cost of regulated activities to be higher than unregulated ones.