Proposed online poker in MA - Page 2 - Poker News

Two Plus Two Forums Poker News & Discussion News, Views, and Gossip

Proposed online poker in MA

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3

09-12-2011 , 02:21 PM

#26

ChriSquared

adept

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 848

Bittersweet.

Quote

09-12-2011 , 02:28 PM

#27

Girafffs

journeyman

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 345

Yes the 10% is awful.. But like I said, after other states see the amount of revenue they will hurry up their own legislation with competing rake %. It will only get better.

Also heres another article on the same issue from the boston herald, its much less in depth, but a more reputable source.
http://www.bostonherald.com/business...osition=recent

Quote

09-12-2011 , 02:30 PM

#28

SGT RJ

Twitching

Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 49,109

One running thread on the proposed online legislation seems good, so I moved this thread to the one started late last week.

Quote

09-12-2011 , 02:32 PM

#29

Girafffs

journeyman

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 345

Ok sorry, this is fine of course. Went back a few pages but didn't see this.

Quote

09-12-2011 , 02:38 PM

#30

Mattraq1

adept

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,150

Quote:

Originally Posted by Girafffs

It's a huge step in the right direction though, because after Mass. passes this and is gaining a crazy amount of revenue from the industry, it will only be a matter of time until other states rush it through with competing rake %'s..

Are u serious? So u think if they impose a 10% rake, they are EVER gunna lower it? Gambling fish will play regardless, even if nobody can win long term, and they will never change it. WTF why would they change it if they are bringing in the monies?

This is terrible and needs to be altered b4 anybody supports it. It scares me that stuff like this gets so much support.

Gov wanna argue against gambling, so we say poker is skill. They go "ok poker is legal but 10% rake." Now we would have to convince them tis gambling with 10% rake and nobody can win. Gov goes "WTF make ur ur facking mind"

u see where this is going?

Quote

09-12-2011 , 02:43 PM

#31

bahbahmickey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 15,605

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerpingu

Lol, no1 would play it. Unbeatable. So i dont see how they could get income from it.

Its the same as increasing the tax a massive amount, after a while you will gain less

You just went way over the heads of most democrats.

As many ITT have pointed out: This isn't that bad for tourneys.

P.S. I would love to see the popularity of tourneys to make a come back.

Quote

09-12-2011 , 03:02 PM

#32

leconnaisseur

adept

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 1,092

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerpingu

Lol, no1 would play it. Unbeatable. So i dont see how they could get income from it.

Its the same as increasing the tax a massive amount, after a while you will gain less

this clearly and cleanly sums up why american shouldn't relay on regulations ( and why they never should for any other topics ).

time to mooooooooooooooove to canada.

we need your income taxes here too you know. and at least you know it will not go into the pocket of a greedy ****ing casino owner looking to buy his third boat.

Quote

09-12-2011 , 03:08 PM

#33

WinEvryRacex

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 12,929

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahbahmickey

As many ITT have pointed out: This isn't that bad for tourneys.

P.S. I would love to see the popularity of tourneys to make a come back.

'isn't that bad'?

Isn't the rake/buyinfee for tourneys 10% already?

Quote

09-12-2011 , 03:23 PM

#34

bahbahmickey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 15,605

Quote:

Originally Posted by WinEvryRacex

'isn't that bad'?

Isn't the rake/buyinfee for tourneys 10% already?

I think it is typically a bit less that 10% now, but yes you get the point.

EX: As many sites have it now it is $1 rake for a tourney with a BI of $11 or as they say "$10+1", this means they are taking 9% of the BI. So making it a 10% rake will mean an increase in rake, for the sites, of 11%.

The difference is minimal and that is why I said it "isn't that bad".

Quote

09-12-2011 , 03:28 PM

#35

Girafffs

journeyman

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 345

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattraq1

Im saying that the STATE of Massachussettes is proposing the 10% rake. It is completely ridiculous yes, but will still attract massive amounts of people, and in turn bring in massive amounts of revenue for the state .

After other states realize how much revenue Mass is gaining, they will offer licenses, with maybe say 8% rake, and the state takes 55% of that for example, in order to attract more people to their sites to gain revenue.. Such is the way of business.. As of now, Mass. may be the only state in the market, they can essentially rake what they want, why not make it extra profitable for them, at least until other states get involved.

Quote

09-12-2011 , 03:39 PM

#36

DarkMagus

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 8,391

Quote:

Originally Posted by David123

He proposes that, out of every pot that is bet, there would be a 10 percent "rake" an administrative fee for running the game. The state's share of that would be 70 percent.

He said that rake is a lot more than is proposed by casinos and slot machines, which are down around the 25 percent range.

this has me thoroughly confused. it seems like they are saying 10% rake is more than 25% rake.

either way 10% rake is ******ed in cash games. it works ok for 1/2 and higher as long as the cap is reasonable, but for micros it would be pointless.

Quote

09-12-2011 , 03:52 PM

#37

IamPro

one time Plz???

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 17,652

lol politicianaments

Just b/c 10% is less then 25% doesn't make it low/competitive

Quote

09-12-2011 , 04:39 PM

#38

random user

grinder

Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 395

I think the rake will have more effect on casual players than people here might be anticipating. I think the drip drip effect of never winning even when you seem to be doing well will inevitably/eventually put people off. Compared to poker with a 10% rake for a casual player roulette is a much better bet.

Quote

09-12-2011 , 04:40 PM

#39

random user

grinder

Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 395

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkMagus

I think it is saying casinos would take the equivalent of 25% of 10% rake, rather than the government taking 70% of the 10% as per this proposal, byut I may very well be wrong....

Quote

09-12-2011 , 04:48 PM

#40

ugh

journeyman

Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 249

Quote:

Originally Posted by wild will

just curious as to why you think this. Im from mass and sure politics are ****ed up just like anywhere else but we are on the more "progressive" side, ie gay marraige, health care etc..

progressive... lol finally buy beer on a sunday[blue laws]after 12..the last 4 senate leaders all went to prison ..corrupt..unexplainable really i guess you have to be in the inner circle to explain..patrick wants a big enough payoff before he passes the casino bill

Quote

09-12-2011 , 04:50 PM

#41

ZephyrSpy

old hand

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,286

Quote:

Originally Posted by Girafffs

If people are willing to pay 10% other states will offer that as well.

And even if we have $10+1 now, with rakeback its more like $10+.6. The Govt taking 70% isn't going to leave any room for rakeback. Unless the 70% is taken after the site plays player incentives.

Quote

09-12-2011 , 05:34 PM

#42

fishm0nger

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 655

Can Massachusetts even legislate the rake structure? Presumably these sites will not be run by the state (why would they offer five licenses if it was going to be state run?), so wouldn't it be up to whoever is actually running the site to decide how much rake to charge?

Also, as far as the "unbeatability" of the games goes, Massachusetts amateurs already have the giant hurdle of having to pay income tax on gross winnings with no allowance for deducting losses. A 10% uncapped rake would just push it over the edge.

Quote

09-12-2011 , 05:37 PM

#43

random user

grinder

Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 395

Well the price of the license would be 70% of 10% of each pot......

Pretty straightforward to see how this would be imlemented. Hope for US players it doesnt happen..

Quote

09-12-2011 , 06:31 PM

#44

nddst

The Situation

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 1,164

Quote:

Originally Posted by wild will

just curious as to why you think this. Im from mass and sure politics are ****ed up just like anywhere else but we are on the more "progressive" side, ie gay marraige, health care etc..

So progressive, you couldnt buy alcohol on Sunday until like 2 years ago. Progressives have a habit of trying to save you from yourself, if you have not noticed.

Quote

09-12-2011 , 10:07 PM

#45

AlienCorpse

grinder

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 432

ivey thunderdome ak vs qq all in pf. $20,000 rake seems fair.

Quote

09-13-2011 , 12:21 AM

#46

DCD

journeyman

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 278

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlienCorpse

ivey thunderdome ak vs qq all in pf. $20,000 rake seems fair.

lol yea

highest cash game will prob. be .25-.50 and still unbeatable even if inhabited with 75% fish.

Quote

09-13-2011 , 12:27 AM

#47

ZephyrSpy

old hand

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,286

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlienCorpse

ivey thunderdome ak vs qq all in pf. $20,000 rake seems fair.

Even casual fish who normally wouldn't care about rake would quit after they think they're gonna win a $400 pot and only get pushed $360. Cash game traffic would be gone pretty quickly. I guess SnGs and MTTs would be beatable though.

Quote

09-13-2011 , 12:50 AM

#48

Jonny El

adept

Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 810

If they exponentially increased the rake of cash games, why do people think tourneys will be left alone?

Quote

09-16-2011 , 07:01 PM

#49

CheckRaise_

veteran

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 2,746

yay! some support...

http://www.thesunchronicle.com/artic...s/10186717.txt

"State Rep. Dan Winslow says that allowing Internet poker companies into Massachusetts would bring high-tech jobs to the state."

Quote

09-17-2011 , 12:21 AM

#50

skeetm0n

adept

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,051

im really curious to see if anyone would actually play with 10% uncapped rake. on the one hand, the rake is unbeatable, but on the other hand if people are actually dumb enough to play w/ 10% rake they must be the biggest fish in the world, so maybe it is beatable.

Quote

Page 2 of 3

First

1 2 3

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 3

First

1 2 3

Last