Is there a way to bet on them being less competent at business than the poker players involved with Full Tilt?

Of course they'd be less competent at business. But the whole point of this thread is that it's the business aspect that's turning poker into slots. Businesses don't care if poker = slots.

I will repeat because this can't be emphasized enough: businesses don't care if poker = slots; that is, it's absolutely fine by the sites if there are no long-term winners at poker. And that is why the future of poker, aside from home games, is incredibly bleak.

The congestion of those graphs makes me weep.

I really liked the concept of a company like Blizzard offering the current service they use for their WoW. I thought about tweaking the concept a little. Something more like Blizzard offers a poker room, but the only way to play in the game is purchasing their Blizzard chips. Blizzard take for example a 5 - 10% cut on chips purchased with a cap at 1 - 5k +.

The player is then able to play at any of the limits available. Now to withdraw, The player proceeds to sell the chips back to Blizzard and they yet again take a 5 - 10% fee at a certain cap.

No rake is taken ingame. Rake Free (We can dream for that day to happen)

Fish/recreational players won't be concerned about the fees as they are basically buying chips to play poker with, Almost like the Zynga type Poker site style.

Grinders will benefit by playing for periods of time while contributing by withdrawing on regular basis.

A monthly fee could be applied to regular users who play x amount of hands to provide additional revenue from grinders towards the economy.

This is just a basic concept I came up with, Yall can tweak away at it.

In theory this is ideal, however you're either asking sites currently in the market to surrender 80% of their profits or are wanting new businesses to enter a high risk market with prices 80% lower prices than all other competition. Also fish are barely awarer of the few dollars in rake they pay while they dump n leave, u think they'll be happy to cough up 10% of their prize?


.

Doesn't this model charge fish more and grinders/winners ALOT less, and leave a huge void in the sites profits?

Again got an anti-Robin Hood model that charges fish more and gives regs the option of huge rakeback

I really feel the key to better/sustainable games is to voice our concerns to the sites about the damaging affects over-raking will have on the future of their business, and brainstorm a system that shifts big rewards from winning regs to bad-mediocre players, encouraging swings/heaters.

Winners will get their rewards in the form of much healthier games in a more popular industry

This is a great concept. It's similar to what do it right suggested.

It eliminates the rake while no real money is transferred. What I suggest for tweaking is:

1) not sure if charging upon deposit is a good idea. I think it will prevent lots of people from depositing. Especially new players and fish.

2) the rate you suggest is about 10-20% of what the sites get today. We have to keep that mind.

3) I would prefere only charging winnings or withdrawals

I suggested something very similar. Folks said it can't work because the charges would be to highly visible.

My suggestion: instead of charges upon the withdrawal, rake like usual but then give the rake back to the players that don't fit the bill.

You guys are ******ed, this whole thread is ******ed, basically rake just needs to come down a few BB/100 at small stakes and down and that would make a lot of people happy, just start a petition with that as your goal and let go of this idealistic nonsense.

''we could do this this way/that way'' never going to happen.

The alternative is they could cap how much rake they take from someone in a month. Instead of having a rakeback program, have a rakecap program. There'd have to be a ton of details to work out to balance vs playing higher stakes and what not, but it would have virtually no impact on fish and be a way to reward regs who put in a ton of volume. It would encourage more games, I would think, since people over the cap would want to take advantage of it each month.

I mean, seriously, I was just a 100nl grinder and I was paying out 5kish in rake a month. How ridiculous is that?

very good idea, whos gonna talk to pokerstars about this and explain them that they will now rake in 1/30th of the original?

its time to remove the waitlist. add must move games

most ideas itt are ******ed and would hurt the games

Probably. I'm not sure what the actual amounts should be, but I wanted to put out a scheme that has multi-tablers paying more per table as the number of tables played increases.

Not very. People quoting absolute dollar amounts of rake played are just like weak-tight fish who see a $100 bet as $100 and not as a percentage of the pot.

Not ridiculous at all, the site take a fair cut for bringing you the fishes.
There are poker prop deals that give you more than 100% rakeback if you mind the rake so much.

who's going to pay the players their winnings when pokerstars goes broke on your ****ty business model, are you kidding?

Rake at the micros brings in a disproportionate amount of income to the site compared to the higher stakes. The average 1knl player generates a lot more rake than the average 50nl player but there are significantly more 50nl games going.

On Pokerstars right now there are 7807 NLHE cash game players (excluding rush). 6022 of these players are at 50nl and below. On ipoker 534 of 776 players are at 50nl and below.

Reducing rake at the micros would destroy sites income stream. It's not going to happen.

i agree with you but thats the majority of disgruntled players ITT, i'm not even getting into it anymore i have no stake in the outcome, rake doesn't bother me.

You are a rake generator. The poker sites don't give a **** about your winrate. Plus it's a monopoly market so competition won't drive the prices down. So dream on basically.

A little bit.

Lol nitty mass multitabling regs drastically overestimate their worth
They suck money of the sites and make the games boring as hell to play
Hell you could get rid off rake and fish still won't want to play these worthless boring games

Time is by far fairer
There is no logical reason that tight players should pay less rake than loose fish who the games are built around

What planet do you live on?
If stars could add a sports book and make even more money why would that cause them to light money on fire by lowering rake?

Stop mass multi tabling its beyond ridiculous already
Stop looking up fish on table ratings and telling them how much they lose
Sites need to stop rewarding the rake back grinders as well for being supernits

Unless those things change the long term health of the game quality is going to be terrible

Lol people are paying tens of thousands of dollars for a product I could only imagine how quick the idiot in stars management will get thrown out the window for suggesting some as stupid as charging people next to nothing to play poker

Let me get this straight
Sites should provide you with idiots 24/7 in exchange for a few hundred bucks so we Can suck money out of the poker economy and makes tens of thousand of dollars each

And this helps the long term game quality how?you people still wanna play a billion tables and take piles of money from donks so the games will still suck.I mean it would be nice if sites were dumb enough to do this but why not just ask them to saved time and just ask them to mail us checks each month without even having to play.

Gambling is pretty resistant to changes in the rest of the economy.

There are two reasons that for years bodog had the best games online.one of them was the sports book the other was the three table limit.