Quote:
Originally Posted by FDSaussure
Rakeback is one of the reasons winrates are so low now.
I assume you mean top-heavy VIP systems or selectively allocated rakeback. Rakeback itself doesn't discriminate which would make your statement equivalent to the absurd:
"Lower rake is one of the reasons winrates are so low now." That's one of the biggest pities about what Stars is doing to FTP. FTP with their reasonable rewards and relatively easy to hit iron man, not to mention flat 27% rakeback (although that was unfortunately 'discriminatory'), was one of the only sites where a casual player could actually last a while with lower effective rake.
Don't forget the slightly worse than average pre-rake players are the ones most crippled by high rake. A player that loses at -1bb/100 pre-rake (which is going to be quite a bad player) can lose in excess of -20bb/100 at some games and stakes on a site like Stars/FTP due solely to the rake. That's a player who in a rakefree game like a homegame would be able to play 1000 hands on, average, with a certain deposit. With that same deposit in the highly raked online games he lasts, on average, 50 hands. People like to say casual players don't understand the rake, but it doesn't take a genius to see when you're lasting for 50 hands vs hundreds of hands. Of course he probably thinks its due to rigging, cheating or whatever else - of course not those few cents to couple of bucks taken per hand. But it doesn't change the fact he's probably not going to put up with 'it' for too long. Giving that player some rakeback wouldn't really fix the problem but would at least be a small bandage on it.