Hmmm, it's not that I didn't think about it. I was quite aware of it and was simply okay with paying it.

Put another way, in the online world, the rake was tolerable to me, so I continued to play. In the B&M world, the rake (for my stakes) is higher than I prefer, so I don't play as much as I would like. Thus, it would seem that rake does influence my playing decisions.

Oh, and I wish the rake was only twice as high in the B&M world. In California, it's a flat $4 per pot regardless of stakes. If you're playing $20-40, I suppose that's not terrible. But if you're playing $1-3, it's obscene.

But overall, I think you're right on one particular point: when it comes to drawing new players, the rake doesn't play much of a factor. However, I must agree with the others that rake does play a part at keeping them around, either because they discover what a difference it makes (like I did when transitioning to B&M) or when it busts them faster than otherwise.

Meh, I think my bigger beef is that you continue to assume that all recreational players are both unknowledgeable and bad/losing players. Perhaps this entire thread would be different if you suggested changes to improve online poker for new players. But we're already 400+ and five pages in, so carry on.

I don't know what your point is supposed to be here. I was just trying to point out what I think he was saying (and I believe he has now confirmed it). And if you are going to analyze the extent of the effect of rake, then it makes sense to consider results at different rake levels, possibly including a rake level of 0 for the purpose of the analysis.


I have.

There is no such thing as "beating the game" in one session in the way that I am using the term "beating the game". "Beating the game" or "to beat the game" or "to be capable of beating the game" or whatever means that you have an edge in the game and are able to show profit over a statistically significant sample size.

Yes, if Ivey started a session with $10,000 and finished it with $11,000, then he showed a profit that session.


You may be, and with respect to some "RECs", likely are, correct that they may not know that the rake is influencing their results. However, whether or not they are aware of the rake influencing their results, the rake is influencing their results (and in a negative way).

Therefore, improving the rake would improve their results. They would likely see the improved results. They may not know why their results improved and may attribute it to whatever they'll attribute it to, but they will see their results improve.* Actually, some of them may not even notice the fact that their was an improvement in their results, but they will begin seeing better results than they had been seeing and better than they would have seen without an improvement in rake.

I really have a hard time seeing why you would argue that the amount of rake charged doesn't matter. But if enough people take your point of view, it sure won't help when it comes to what rake levels casinos set for their online sites.


I've heard stories of some cruise ships with rake levels of 10% or 15% and no cap. Even with some awful players in those games, they may not be beatable. Everyone would just lose at varying levels.






* Perhaps some of them will be aware rake was reduced and figure that it played a part in improving their results.

I like cheese, anyone else like cheese?

Hey guys another thing you guys don't consider is the fact that there is very few complete fish in todays games. Most players have read some poker books and use a HUD to analyse opponents. A lot of these guys are not winning players because the rake is simply to high. In fact if you play with a bunch of standard regs in a NLH game any edge you may have is likely going to be lost long term because of the rake. Even though you might be a better player then them and they are losing more than you. Of course this doesn't mean that there isn't going to be winners, some is going to run good but this is mostly because of luck. This luck is not necessarily going to show up in your holdem manager as you running above ev, since there is so many random situations is poker that comes up when playing good players. feks spots where villain is bluffing x % of times, and times where you are bluffing and he calls with 20 % of range and so on.

The truth is that to make it in todays games you need to have more luck than your opponents, or you need to be very disciplined with table selection Or you need to be a Very skilled player. And even if you have these features you are still going to be earing a lot less then you would otherwise. If you run bad this profit will likely evaporate.

The rake also have a large influence on how the game is played to win. To be winning you need to avoid marginal situations where you are only 51 % favourite, since the rake is going to make it a losing play anyway. This means that lag players have a harder time winning since they get in more marginal spots.

I played for a while at PayNoRake before they stopped pay outs and became a scam site. I was amazed at how much money I could earn and how many spots I could play profitably. When I play at larger sites like party and poker stars I am losing money, but losing a lot less than I pay in rake, meaning I am beating the player pool.

If you don't read long posts skip to this part

My questions to you guys is simple, are any of you ready for the next step? To support a no rake site that is financed by a fixed fee each month, or a rake back that means that when you have paid more than x dollars in a day you get full rake back? I am on my last year of my master in economics with focus on finance, statistics and accounting. It could be so cool if we could get some engaged players together and put up a team that could start such a site. The site could be extended beyond poker to include edge free casino games and sports betting for a fixed fee.

Despite all of the differing viewpoints itt there is one true thing that I think everybody agrees on: The vast majority of Recs do not pay attention to the rake. I wish I could pay a yearly fee at my B&M that is less than what I end up paying but I don't think a single Rec would and, by extension, I don't think they would for an online site either.

Eat a pound of Cheddar and get back to us w/ a TR in a couple of days.

Really a rake free site could do well.. Think of all the players they would attract... They would just need to make there money threw advertising and what not. I'd rather see a pop up for mountain dew than pay crazy rake. Even only raking cash or only raking sng/mtt could be awesome.. And think of the masses this would attract....

I can only eat cheese when its melted on toast. I cannot eat cheese raw. HTH

I am not sure a lot of the players that you consider recreational players also consider them selves recreational players. A lot of these guys uses HUDs and analyse opponents, they may even have been winning players a few years ago but now they are losing. To some extent I think you underestimate the education level of most RECs. Further more players who are losing smaller amounts stick around longer and makes the game good longer. Even ******s care about results...

...and by the way I am not talking about a site financed purely with advertisement, even with a insane amount of users this would have a hard time not losing money. And if there is one place I wouldn't put money it would be in a internet poker room that is losing money... The site should be financed in such a way that the marginal rake is zero, either with a fixed monthly fee or a 100% rake back after a certain rake number... these fees could be modified in a number of ways maybe with varying max rake levels/ monthly fees for different stakes. advertising could be extra profit but must be made so it doesn't disrupt game play.

ideally the company should go public so players could own it and share the profit, the site be subjected to accounting transparency, and to prevent the company from being bought by some shady guy from Venezuela...

All thoughtful and creative ideas are welcome as far as I'm concerned but I don't think that the major online U.S. sites, once they get going, i.e. Caesar's or MGM or Wynn, is going to think outside the box very much. Hopefully the competition alone will be enough to keep them from raking too much.

This is exactly the point and the empirical reality behind the pricing tactic of raking small amounts repeatedly, just like small ATM fees, interest rates, E-Trade account fees, expense ratios, etc. The casuals never realize how large the effects are because they are hidden, and their levels of consumption would almost certainly be reduced if the true costs/effects were more salient. Unfortunately, it's also the reason why the rake model is here to stay.

With all this talk about the rake. What specific suggestions do people have for it? What model and price points should be followed. Or did I miss it somewhere?

The problem with this is that all the examples you mention are on transactions that are not zero sum games, but for services. And the frequency of transactions are much lower for those services then in a poker game where each hand is a transaction.

Hopefully none of OP's advice is taken into account.
This isn't yahoo chess.
You want to play online poker for $ you play with everyone.

there are different possibilities

1. fixed monthly fee, this fee would likely have to be large (sound large, but compared to what people actually pay in rake it would be small) onless there is a lot of players on the site. Therefor the site would need to discriminate based on stakes, access to sit n goes and tournaments

2. Daily or monthly rake limits. After a certain point the rake back is 100%, this would mean that recs wouldn't have to put up a fee that sounds large but actually is small

3. another way is to tax pay outs, this would not be so great for the site though as the cash flow from the site would be very unpredictable, also it makes the site sound a bit like a Ponzi scheme

the different options could be mixed in a variety of ways to make the site profitable but still allow for zero marginal rake

Rake is nothing more than seat rent. So maybe Southwest Airlines could adopt your idea and hand out free tickets with the understanding that passengers would be bombarded with ads for the duration of their flight -- and what not.

You can screen lots of ads in four hours -- you might even move a load of what not.

Who says it has to be that way -- The Lord High Poker Caliph?

I can eat it raw if it's crunchy.

Agreed.

I don't assume that all RECs are "unknowledgeable and bad/losing players." About 90% are.

Apparently you haven't read all 400+ posts or you would have run into my #55 and my #226 which outline my suggestions. Carry on.

I don't understand the concept of segregating the player pool by ability level.

How do you define ability at poker? We know luck/variance plays a huge role in your results over the short term, so codifying players by their results isn't necessarily equivalent to their ability.

So how does an online site decide who gets to sit in the low-skill game?

If you just do it by results, then what happens when a big-time fish gets run over by the cards and wins really big for a while? It happens, we all know it does...is this player now forced to play at a bigger/tougher game, only to see his luck turn around and then go bust? Yay, you're a winner...so we're moving you up so you can lose now. I don't think he'd continue on the site much longer.

So what criteria do the segregation advocates have in mind to determine who gets to play in which pool????

Thanks. Its always good to have chess champion Gary Kasparov weigh in with such a solid thought provoking comment.

Simple solution is to rake up to X for casual players and past that charge a monthly fee for others. What is destroying the games is the quality of play at 10NL through 50NL full ring or short table. The games at these levels play as tough as 100NL used to play pre 2008. With much higher rake percentage wise. I have said this before but when I was getting raised with air and 4 bet bluffed at 25NL short by Eastern Euro players I knew it wasn't worth my time playing online anymore....

Pregnant mothers shouldn't drink and snort coke. The most primitive stages are the most vulnerable and decide the outcome of the whole.

Raking HULHE at the entry level stakes to the point where no one but Matt Hawrilenko can book a winning session is going to stifle completely any upward flow of funds. Those funds are consumed by the poker site in situ, like a chemically induced abortion.