Quote:
Originally Posted by KptBomba
The rake allocation system is some unknown system of the rake allocation. So as a winner you will end up getting a lot less than you should.
Your 50% rakeback or whatever is in reality 25% (in many ways simmilar to ipoker where your 80% rakeback is more like 35-40% if you are winning). While at the same time paying insane amounts of rake (even preflop pots are raked BTW).
So you play in a game with almost uncapped rake with 25% rakeback.
It is a well known system, that even CoinPoker or what that new poker site is called uses, making it more rec friendly; what's the point of rewarding winners more than losers? And don't the winners benefit of that also? I prefer a lower rake for people raking more, but that's just me, as it seems more fair to me, but the relatively new movement of rec friendly sites have an another opinion.
That same site (CP) also compares its rake to Asian rakes, that's weird (their wallet might be in Estonia or something like that but I am not at all sure about that), but they seem to have the Asian population also in mind.
Asian rakes are generally mega-high, likely as they have such high standards of living. It just is how things are, nothing abnormal in that. Or you can skip places like Goa (poker) and play in Bangalore, if you get in, as they have a lower rake, or fish out some other Asian place for more reasonable rakes.
There is also the rest of the world rakes; Macau is superhigh rake, western europe is higher than USA rakes generally, and eastern europe might have some more reasonable rakes at some limits and about uncapped but more moderately raked games in other limits, and there is maybe some model of that at GG (for PLO perhaps, or at least should be).
Getting any rakeback is a donations from their part if they don't need to or whatever.
As a side note, if someone is worried of it not being fair gaming, you can always observe the games a couple of times at least, and although I don't think the games anywhere are all fair, I have yet to see a site where one can't win at all, although I didn't stay long at Hive in spite of first running fine, so my trust in some less trusted sites is lower, but overall the industry generally doesn't prevents anyone from winning if you can beat your competition and the rake. It would not be and imo isn't considered to be smart busniess, if they would prevent it completely.
The rake might be the issue on this, it not being the first time when some medium limit player can't beat a higher rake and weaker players.