I have the perfect solution for this. Add a few more tables and you won't have to wait.. DUCY?

Do you play poker online, lol? This is a long thread but earlier I cited the egregious example of $.5/1 HULHE.

Try depositing 600 bucks on stars, play 2K hands of that game with 600BB and come back with a trip report. That's the direction things seem to be heading and the thing of which the chorus sings.

BV:

There seem to be two opposing camps in this debate/discussion. One camp says "No HUDs - ban HUDs!" and banning HUDs is the answer to the problem with online poker. The other camp argues "Leave HUDs alone - don't ban HUDs!" These two positions are mutually exclusive. Your proposal is a great compromise between the two opposing views. Hopefully your proposal will be seriously considered by the powers that be. (I suppose if players, both regs and recs, demanded this change, it would [eventually] happen. It might be better if the regulator studied the issue and issued an order to site operators dictating that they must adopt a HUD policy that essentially equates to your proposal.)

Whatever the case, this is an idea worth exploring and giving serious consideration. This idea is so interesting that we might see one of the newly licensed sites, possibly one of Caesar's competitors if Caesar's rejects your proposal, instituting the policy of their own initiative. If that site receives the bulk of these "millions" of new recreational players, then the "free market" works its magic and all of the sites quickly get in line and adopt this policy.

Good thinking Bictor!

How would it work with the same deposit in a full ring game of $1/2 NLHE?

Again it comes down to effective rake. Poker is a game where money is changed from one player to another. That is the money won (or lost). Rake is relative to that. Both values can be expressed in winrates i.e. bb/100. Online rake varies for the lower stakes games from 9bb-6bb while winrates of the pros are 2-3bb. That's why the new player or recreational player has a bad experience. If he is a break even player he becomes a huge loser (losing 3-4 times as much as a winning player) and most winning players become losers as they win less than the rake.

It depends how much rake is taken relative to the money won that determines the player experience. Today player experience is bad, because no one wins. So a bunch of players thinks its because there are not enought fish, or HUDs, or mulitabling or other rules. None of these however matter relative to the rake. This discussion is like trying to figure out a good slot machine strategy. No matter what you do you cant beat the slots, and no matter what u think is broken, if you don't fix the rake you cannot solve what is wrong with online poker today.

People who compare rake online vs live in direct terms, just don't know how rake works and that it distorts the game.

Why can't there just be HUD and no-HUD rooms at the same site?

A couple of questions: does "bb/100" mean bb per 100 hands? And does "9bb-6bb" mean rake per 100 hands?

yes.

Of course if 2k hands are raked $1 per, the $600 isn't going to last long. But that isn't the way things are heading. How many HU .50/$1 tables do you see going versus how many full ring games. The HU games aren't a pimple on an elephant's butt.

At Bovada right now there is 1 HU table with one player sitting and 12 full ring tables near capacity at .50/$1 NLHE.

Try your exaggerations on somebody who'll fall for them.

Thanks. I'll wait for knircky on this one.

This is starting to sound more like a level. It was an example used to illustrate a principle, that being that rake is detrimental to the experience of recreational players. The point is beyond obvious, it's implications clear to anyone with discerning eyes. Not being able, willing or desiring to produce a peer reviewed study on it I will now stop replying.

Don't blame you.

[QUOTE=vinivici9586;38775034]reasonable list of what recreational players want (although i think segregating player pool is inherently unfair), but it's just not smart business for pokerstars to make these changes, particularly the multitabling, HUD, and HH part is not going to happen anytime soon.

hopefully one day there's more competition in the online poker world, with sites that cater more towards recreational players, and others that try and do what pokerstars does, so that rake is lowered (my personal issue with the site, at the moment).[/QUOTE]

vin:

This has been the great promise (and the major selling point) of advocates promoting "legal" (regulated) internet poker in the United States - namely that vigorous competition will result in a better game for players. But the history of the operator likely to benefit the most from a legal regulated online market is not encouraging. If anything, Caesar's Entertainment (and the WSOP in particular) have a reputation for overcharging and overraking customers. Based on that demonstrated history, is there any reason to think Caesar's won't treat online poker any differently?

With Caesar's in particular, part of the problem is their precarious financial position - they're saddled with a huge persistent debt problem and hedge fund owners, (i.e. Texas Pacific Group, et al.), who want (are demanding) that Gary Loveman produce results. The pressure is really on Caesar's to maximize revenue from this (hoped for) flood of new recreational players. It's doubtful that Caesar's motivation is to offer a game (and a rake structure) that "fixes" the rake problem. (Is anybody assurred by what they're seeing Caesar's do to the cash game tables at the WSOP? I rest my case.)

Unless there really is "vigorous competition" in legal (regulated) internet poker, I don't see the situation improving. Call me a cynic.

You've convinced me that you are right that the rake is the number one problem. Question is: What can be done about it? Do you think the sites will finally make the proper adjustments to stay in business or is their business still profitable enough to continue on in this way?

I'll give an example as to what I'm trying to say:

A hypothetical 'Joe's Bar' in Small Town, U.S.A. has 2 tables in the back room that spread 3-6 LHE w/ 10% $4 max rake. Long term nobody can win, at least anything significant, but at least they don't bleed out rapidly and since it's a small stakes game that only gets ~35 hands/hr it's sustainable. There are many such games at Casino Arizona and they've been there for the entire 12 or so years I've been playing there. Short term some players win and and keep coming back and, like most rec regs, they don't keep records and figure that they are up or down a bit. This suits Joe just fine.

So what will happen online if the rake isn't lowered? Do the sites go out of business bec they've grabbed it all or will people still play?

[QUOTE=Howard Beale;38778878]You've convinced me that you are right that the rake is the number one problem. Question is: What can be done about it? Do you think the sites will finally make the proper adjustments to stay in business or is their business still profitable enough to continue on in this way?

<snip>

So what will happen online if the rake isn't lowered? Do the sites go out of business bec they've grabbed it all or will people still play?[/QUOTE]

Howard:

Read this:

http://investorplace.com/2012/03/don...n-this-casino/

and contemplate what you think is more likely - Caesar's lowering the online rake to a long term sustainable rate - or jacking it up sky high? I think the latter is the more likely prospect, unless Caesar's is faced with fierce price competition from competitors. I don't see the big operators getting in a war with each other to lower the rake on internet poker. (Of course, it would be nice if such a "war" did break out as that is the more likely path by which "millions" of new recreational players will be attracted to legal internet poker.)

Grunching...

I hate ideas 1-6

Yes rake is detrimental to recreational players but it is not the key thing for them. Rake is PART of the anticipated hourly loss.

For the reg or the pro rake is far far more important, a small tweak to the rake can have a huge impact on their hourly profit and even take them from profit to loss. These threads always get back to rake as rake is vital for the regs/pros so it is always banged on about, in fact whilst it is A factor for recs it is one of many.

[QUOTE=Alan C. Lawhon;38779374] Caesar's isn't the only game in town, they'll have competition and they can't do just what they want. The online rooms will be doing plenty of advertising. And I don't think that online poker is going to do the trick when it comes to being $20BB in debt, lol. I know you place great stock in the person running Caesar's but it's only one company and, besides, it's going to take a while before a national market develops. Online poker better not be Caesar's only play.

Rake may be important to REGs and Pros but I doubt it influences RECs' playing decisions much. What will attract them is an honest game that's enjoyable to play.

I don't think they're going to take down a $15 pot and then bitch about getting charged 75¢ for the privilege. They're going to be too busy doing the Happy Monkey dance and not thinking about much of anything else.

On target!

But you gotta love idea #7.

I checked it out and wasn't impressed.

It looks more like some programmer's fantasy project than a viable online poker site.

It appears they just opened the doors in February which might explain the low (no) traffic.

Certainly rake is an issue, but it is unlikely to be fixed. If states license online poker with only 2-3 sites granted licenses in each state there will be little price competition. It would be similiar to 2-3 oil companies having an oligarchy in each market. As has been mentioned, the REC player pays far less attention to it than the REG. This would seem to further push sites to appeal to the market on other issues (player security, ease of use, etc) rather than price points (rake). The question for the sites is how do they maximize their profits? Do you appeal to an older, larger, untapped, market with disposable income that plays lower volume(REC)? Or do you appeal to a younger, smaller, market with less disposable income that plays higher volume(REG)?

I think you have just asked the million $ question. I think there is a market for too much rake. There will always be a market with rake the way it is. In fact the market will determine this on its own. If the rake stays the way it is, the market will contract (winning players will leave) until the ratio of winners to losers is even so that the winrate for the players is balanced to rake (less people that know what they are doing are playing). At this point new players will come to the game and the wave will go back and forth.

However I also think that the market can be much bigger than it is today if the price is right. If you really think about it, there should be a way for sites to charge lets say 20% of the money that is won. That would still be a lot of money for the service rendered.

Will the market adjust? I am pretty sure eventually it will (but this is just IMHO of course). Its a very new market and the regulators, law makers, providers and players don't understand it yet.

But eventually a smart dude will come and seize the moment. Now that's my belief.

I do believe that the US market is most likely to actually get it. Look at Vegas it has the best rake live already. I just played in Singapore and the rake cap was $50. In EU its like that as well. There its much more about lets take as much as we can get vs. create a win/win situation. The games have stupid rules that slow the game down. They could rake 3 times as much if they would run it like Vegas.

But what can we do:
1. I think the first thing is to educate fellow players (I am trying to do that). Clearly very few understand this problem. The folks in this thread are right that no one cares about rake (its hidden). We need to change that.

2. We need to use tools such is this forum and the PPA to demand in our regulations that the rake cannot distort the game. Like credit cards have a cap on APR we need to cap the rake.

Of course 2. does not work without 1. At this time the PPA does not even know about this, and 95% of players do not understand why online poker is not fun anymore.

I may be one of the 95%. Why isn't online poker fun anymore?