Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutejszy
(fyp i guess)
precisely, except that's a fallacy - the fallacy that is root of all this "winning players don't pay rake" crap. Sure, rake paid by regs is worth less than rake paid by net depositors, but saying it has no worth at all is simply false.
I'm not sure what your argument is. Why is it a fallacy? If a rec deposits $100, the site wants to take as much of that $100 as possible. If the rec is playing vs other recs, then the site will take the vast majority, if not all, of that deposit. If the rec plays on a table with other regs, then the regs will take the majority of the deposit. Sure the regs will pay rake on the hands they play vs the rec, and the regs will pay rake on hands they play vs other regs. At the end of the day though the site will end up with less money than if there were no regs.
Try this example.... A reg comes onto a site, deposits $10k, plays for a year, makes himself $30k in profits and pays $10k in rake, then withdraws his whole $40k. The site hasn't made $10k from this player (ie the rake he paid). The site has
lost $30k worth of deposits that they otherwise could have raked for themselves.
(All assuming there are enough players to make the games run)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeaksSuck
Yeah, hands will be played anyway. Just not so many of them which hurts stars the most unless all ppl invest the money in roulette, sportsbets etc. (they won't cause some ppl just like poker). Sure amaya can bake a smaller cake and eat a larger percentage of it, doubt this was the whole idea behind the aquisition tho.
Number of hands is not the issue. The proportion of deposits going to the site compared to the proportion that gets withdrawn by winning players is the only thing that matters as far as I can see.
This is how I understand it, but I'm open to opposing views because it's all very confusing and I'm not 100% sure I'm correct.