Poker stars should open up a sports betting section and use the profits from that to reduce the rake. As well as attracting fish that have just had a big score. Win Win for everyone.

a lot of ppl itt don't have any idea of reading a chart or understanding statistics ... just saying

@ topic

I know it would be fun, if the rake is reduced, but it's short-sighted to say that this will save the poker economy (Alone). winners are cashing out, that's 'bad', because someone has to deposit, to bring the money back. but not enough ppl deposit any more, the golden age of online poker is over. accept that!

anyway: reducing rake, so you can actually beat a limit is an argument.

i also think, that all the poker knowledge out there, is one of the main problems. smaller edge means smaller winrates. but if there is a solution for that (e.g. forbid tracking programs) is another thing.

so basically we have this:

- reduce the rake, so limits are beatable
- less vip programs*
- make the clients more fish friendly

* i know most think power grinders should treated as kings, but to built a 'online poker money pyramid' you need a solid basement, which means more benefits for the fish

100% of rake is "cashed out"/less than 100% of winnings are cashed out, because we use some of the winnings to move up. In a way some of the winnings at nl10 will act as deposits at nl25.

So winners are less of a drain on the overall body of money in the system than rake.

Smaller edges mean that a smaller rake is enough to maintain a rake/winnings ratio that existed at an earlier point in time when edges where bigger.

Even unchanged rake will lead to a larger proportion of money being raked out in that sense.

Although 10% withdrawal fee is theoretically ideal, in reality fish prefer hidden costs and rewards, and sites dont like cutting prices by 80%. A lower raked version using current format + rewarding bad players for playing more hands would work better.

Fish are gonna deposit, play few hands, lose hard, and quit, as skill levels improve no system is going to change this. This makes the current system of poker a pyramid scheme as the industry unsustainably attracts n skins fish.

So to turn the industry from a pyramid scheme into a sustainable business, average-skilled players and slightly-bad players need to be convinced to hang around and re-invest.

With current rake prices, it's obvious to 99.99% of these players after 60k hands that they not only suck, but that even luck won't save them. Av-slightly-bad players are realising TOO quickly what they are, and change this by bumhunting or quiting, either way your losing the backbone of a healthy system and reverting to pyramid selling.

You would be shocked that an Eastern Euro or Chinese player could earn a moderate income at these stakes if they mass table. That's the problem there. Anything below 25NL shouldn't allow more than about 4 tabling. Also like in fishing massive winners should have table restrictions. The fish are there (especially on weekends) but it's near impossible to get to a donk when the waiting list is 10+ for any table that has an average from 2006.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik

DEII DK KRRR JRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRBZ!!!

something like this would be pretty awesome, but structured e.g.

$0/month for new players/low volume players (based on hands played/mtts played)
$10/ month med/low volume
$30/month med volume
$60/month med/high
$100/month high volume
$300/month high volume at stakes higher than x

My experience with rooms changing from rake to time charge is that the lower you go in limits, the more resistant players are in moving to a time charge.

Really? I'd find it hard to believe that even as low as 1/2 a time charge wouldn't be cheaper than rake.

You're making the faulty assumption that such a consideration would automatically dominate a player's thought process on which is preferable.

That would be a terrible idea.

The fish love to gamble and they will play a game regardless of skill.
If they arnt doing well in poker then they will dump there roll onto the roulette and the money goes straight to pokerstars.

Therefore winning payers profits will drop a lot because less fish actually play poker.

If a fish donks a huge score we want him to go to the tables not to cash out or play casino games.

Rake is high in peanuts stakes. Move up :-)

Its kinda unfair that highstakes players go allin for 100k - 200k pot, pay 5 $ of rake, poor micro stakes players go allin for 20$ pay 2$.. thats kinda of stupid.

that would be a dream situation but it doesn't work. Instead people like to pay 3k+ a month in rake because they don't see the rake effects.

I agree, the system of taking the money is actually really good as the charges are well hidden

Optimal price setting and distributing rewards to the right players so as to ensure sufficient swings among the masses will create much healthier competition in the games ultimately resulting in retaining customers and long term growth of the industry.

Numbers need to be crunched to convince sites there's profit to be made/retained by doing this, but the answer is to lower rake AND robin-hood some rewards from big winners to help fuel heaters and for bad-mediocre players.

Anybody that pays 3K in rake a month might not know the full extent of rake being paid, but they have to know they are paying quite a bit of rake. That is a whole lot of hands at low to mid stakes for a casual player. Even if they were borderline ******ed they could have a clue. Fish aren't that feeble minded.

I'm not sure why this doesn't get more love. I think a subscription model would be nothing short of awesome, and a certain gauranteed level of profits would be enticing to any company entertaining the idea, wouldn't it?

Edit: And when I was grinding 100 rush pre-bf, I averaged somewhere around $50/hr paid rake I think 4 tabling, give or take. Easily hitting 5k paid rake each month, at least. And I paid very close attention to it. It was one of the things I hated most, because it didn't feel like the company needed to rake that high. Of course, I was unaware of the lobster fetish going on at FTP headquarters then. Also, seeing just how much rake was eating in to my potential profits drove me up the proverbial wall.

There have been subscription models, except they've all sucked.

How do you feel about a subscription model that charges you more for the ability to play more tables?

Think about this: when I play 50nl I rake around 1k a month.

Do you think I would play if they charge me 1k per month?

no, and that's why no poker site will even consider subscription fee instead of rake

plus, good luck explaining to fish and recreational players that paying a monthly subscription fee is better than paying "tiny" rake on each won pot. only regs understand that it's better, and therefore only regs will consider taking their action to such a site, but guess what - they won't, because there will be no fish there

so there is little chance a subscription-based model is ever accepted as industry standard

Agree rake is too damn high!

You dont need to explain it it. Subscription can be offered as an option. Default: rake on pots won. In your cashier a button says buy rakeback.
1day 100% x$, 1 week 100% y$, 1 month 100% z$
1day 75% less than x$ , 1 week 75% less than Y$ etc
Let them work out what's best for them.
Once a week we will send you your rakeback.

If you want a subscription model, it should be something like:
$20/month to play up to two tables at a time.
$35 to play up to 3 tables simultaneously
$50 to play up to 4 tables
$65 to play up to 5 tables
$85 to play up to 6 tables
$105 to play up to 7 tables
$125 to play up to 8 tables
$150 to play up to 9 tables
$175 to play up to 10 tables
$200 to play up to 11 tables
$230 to play up to 12 tables
$260 to play up to 13 tables
$290 to play up to 14 tables
$325 to play up to 15 tables
and so on

A 2% discount if you pay a year in advance.

i think all you ppl arguing for better rb system needs to come together n start a site


how much high stakes grinders out there, could team up n start their own since they would know the industry it seems like a good business venture


p.s even if this happens i guarantee you these poker players dont charge little rake for too long

oh & also i think that huds are losing a **** tonne not having their program be paid on a monthly basis too, u guys dont think?