Again the data suggest otherwise, unless you think the site should win money and not the players. The sites make more money than the players. About 3-5 times more than the best players at the low levels.

If you wire 100 at the bank and had to pay a 20-70% depending on how much you wire would you find that reasonable.

If you consider poker just gambling like roulette maybe so, but I think the game should be treated differently. I think there should be a 20% cap at low stakes and 10% at med stakes and 5% at nosebleeds.

Again this article is based upon the PTR data, which is useless.

Of course Russia is gonna lose less per hand since their players are poorer and will play lower stakes.

I don't get where u are coming up with your conclusion.

Stating that Russians are better players because their winrate is lower is illogical and wrong.

If you want to compare you need to compare on one level!

Nothing complicated about it, there are a few simple ways to do it. None are complicated. Not more complicated than rake. In fact u could even do it with rake, by simply giving corresponding rakeback.

This graph says it all. Like...wtf???

How can people be okay with this!?

And those of you who think fish at micros and low stakes are aware of how disproportionate the rake is...you're flat out wrong. I repeat: they're gamblers. They don't care about their expected value. They'll keep depositing at whatever level they can afford and they'll never move up in stakes from that level. That's what makes them fish! The players who are hurt by this are the "would-be regs" who, instead of building a bankroll and moving up stakes, quit the game altogether.

Why don't you go troll somewhere else?
Everybody understands you can compare dollars to dollars, even you.


The numbers from PTR are indeed shocking if you analyse them closer.
They show at the microstakes these East Europeans are a much bigger problem than the rake being too high, which was already killing the microstakes. This is the final nail in the coffin.

The pokereconomy minus USA, France, Italy and Spain lost 3.6 billion extra in the last 2 years! The less fish remain the faster they will disappear. Soon you will be the next fish.
This can only be stopped if everybody understands the severity of the situation.

80% rakeback deals, 100%+ kickback deals, 70%+ LIFETIME RAKE given to affiliates just for having a website with an advertising banner. This all shows how over-raked the games are compared to site expenses and that these deals are giving it back to the wrong people.

Then open a thread about it. The above are all very good reasons to lower rake for todays games.

lets talk about { THE RAKE } ive been dealing cards for over 20 years and let me tell you the rake isnt going anyware soon!!!MOST average players dont even reconize the rake or how much it is if im dealing a nine handed game there is maybe 2 or 3 at the best dont even know what the drop is or how much it is >> SORRY but it is the truth!!!

bigsid.. a lot of us are fully aware... but we just can't bear the thought of (if we play long enough) every dollar on the table eventually being sucked into that little slot.. so we pretend not to notice.

From what I hear, live poker is still entertaing enough to attract recreational whales and still allows confusing variance and good winrates. Online is inevitably and rapidly developing into a far higher ratio of reg:rec game and more hands are played, this isn't going to change**.

As edges are miniscule compared to live, and far more hands are played by each player, these are very good reasons to have rake far lower online so as to allow confusing variance/heaters over larger samples to occur and encourage regs to continue playing each other for the edges, without which poker regresses into a pit game and loses huge market potential.

Bigsid, if regs are making up most of the hands played and nearlly all regs have HUD's, there is much more awareness of rake, winrate, EV ect. online. They will realise the games dead, and they will leave!

If online poker is going to survive in this form, sites need to know and adapt their prices for their customers, when they change from nearlly all whales to nearlly all multitabling, HUD using, coached, intelligent grinders, you can't take 50% of winnings off the table and expect the industry to grow.

**Online is naturally faster,higher skilled and more analytical than live so bad rec players get crushed, fed up and leave. Curbing multitabling and HUD's is unenforcable.

Speaking of analytical, I have a question. Why would any online player think they can beat even a tiny rake if they play a zillion hands?
How good do you have to be, compared to the competition, to do that?

or how many 3rd party software tools you have to use? looking at stars not enforcing their ToS on any of the major software companies and the huge market that has grown around them i'd say: none of them is capable of beating any table at any stakes if it wasn't for those assistence programs.

Because poker itself has enormous variance that confuses even the most estute and seasoned players when edges are small. Without rake players would have a tough time telling if they are favourites over say 300k hands, with a comparatively small rake its still very difficult over this sample, however with rake as it stands between 6-12bb/100, its INCREDIBLY obvious over 300k hands whether you are beating the game+rake, a lot of players propping up the games are gonna quit over the next few years.

Software sux for a few reasons**, but it's not going anywhere so we have to base our discussions around a future where online poker involves software.

** money spent on software is taken off the tables, makes multitabling poss = high reg ratio, negates to some extent the edge gained from observance, concentratioon and perception etc

it is going away. no site has ever released its full arsenal on cheats. once this has been done and fails we can start thinking further.

how about this little gem:

This thread ia about rake, and anything relating to rake.

If depositing fish don't matter, what do you think feeds the poker economy?

Fk the "slightly losing regs" If they can't make money at the game why should the site prop them up?

The sites need new deposits or they will implode. Winning regs aren't depositing. Breakeven regs aren't depositing. The deposits come from regfish and recreationals.

Depositing players should be a sites number 1 priority and treated like the VIPs that they are.

so the posts fit in perfectly. let me post a thesis: one of the most important factors when it comes to rake is 3rd party software. quite a difference if you pay full rake or only a fraction of it, isn't it?

What has 'enforcing rules on illegal software' got to do with 'rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem'?

Please POW.

Let's think out of the box and focus on the sustainability.
Rake is just one of the important factors.

Please FlyingDutchman, let's think in the box which is entitled 'RAKE PRICING for a sustainable poker ecosytem' and we might actually get a thread about the affects of rake pricing on poker that isn't derailed by every post with self-serving ideas to make the game more profitable for themselves.

I suggest you start a thread entitled 'Ideas on how to sustain a poker ecosystem' and post there

Losing Regs / Breakeven Regs, I'm pretty sure I already said that.

Losing Regs deposit, slowly lose their money.. mostly to rake, watch some videos/work on their game then deposit again, and slowly lose their money again.

Breakeven Regs lose their money even slower and it all goes to rake.

On top of this Losing and Breakeven regs might tilt or take shots at different games, lose.. then think 'ah f-k' and redeposit again. So essentially they are also fish sometimes too. If they play like fish 17% of the time and play 6 hours per day, that's the same as a fish playing for 1 hour every day.

True fish lose their money very fast, often in less than 1 hour, mostly to winning regs (e.g. bumhunters who hunt the fish, or the best players who crush them faster than breakeven or losing regs can). Winning regs cash out the money, the money leaves the poker economy, the money is not raked. True fish also are much less likely to redeposit than breakeven or losing regs.

Raked money stays in the poker economy longer than money won by winning regs.. as sites will redistribute the raked money through bonuses or bring in additional money from new players via advertising.

Ps. I assume you were meaning "what do you think feeds the winning players?", in which case you are right.. fish feed winning players - but i'm not sure how you think feeding winning players helps the poker economy? winning players will not use or lose that money. That money is gone... unless wait, I know what your thinking... what If they move up to higher stakes and lose the money? Oh, you mean If they moved up and became losing/breakeven regs?

Pow you're really being ridiculous at this point.we all know what the title of this thread is,but bitching about game sustainability and only focusing on a small part of the problem,and a part of the problem you haven't given the sites any incentive to change is pointless.you've lied several times when trying to defend your viewpoints, and it is clear you have trouble even forming a logical consistent argument,honestly believe the sites goal shouod be to allow people to make a living,and you couldn't convince a fly to smell ****,let alone convince a business to just hand you money.

Self serving ideas to help themselves are what got the players in this mess to begin with,not that you'll ever realize that.

And bluffingx wow are you clueless.I agree that horrendous fish aren't that valuable if they rarely play and quickly stack off (and heads up tables are so incredibly dumb from the sites perspective-again something sites gave the regs that they shouldn't have) but break even trash and marginal losers get their money from somewhere.games also get built around bad players so sites should encourage them to play for often,instead of catering to winning regs who have to play anyway since they need to eat.

Haha, you say I'm clueless.. but you agree with me

Yes, fish play rarely and quickly stack off.. that is the definition of a fish.

I agree with you, sites should not cater to winning regs.. I'm saying they should cater to losing/breakeven regs, i.e. fish that play for a long time (if you want to still call them fish).

Thoughts on something like this?

These are simple rules, which can be modified to produce optimal results.

Weekly Cash Bonus (Free Money!)

20% base rate
+3% per 5000 hands
+/-20% of % money lost/won

maximum : 80%
minimum : 0%


Results would look like this.


Player A: Fish
(rakeback = 43%)
Deposits $1000
Plays 5000 hands and loses (paid $400 in rake)
rakeback = 20% + 3% + 20% (money lost = 100%, 20% of 100% = 20%)
Monday, he receives $172 bonus cash
End Bankroll = $172


Player B: Losing Reg
(rakeback = 50%)
Deposits $1000
Plays 30000 hands and loses $600 (paid $2400 in rake)
rakeback = 20% + 18% + 12% (money lost = 60%, 20% of 60% = 12%)
Monday, he receives $1200 bonus cash
End Bankroll = $1600


Player C: Breakeven Reg
(rakeback = 38%)
Deposits $1000
Plays 30000 hands and loses $0 (paid $2400 in rake)
rakeback = 20% + 18% + 0% (money lost = 0%, 20% of 0% = 0%)
Monday, he receives $912 bonus cash
End Bankroll = $1912


Player D: Winning Reg
(rakeback = 18%)
Deposits $1000
Plays 30000 hands and wins $1000 (paid $2400 in rake)
rakeback = 20% + 18% - 20% (money won = 100%, 20% of 100% = 20%)
Monday, he receives $432 bonus cash
End Bankroll = $2432


Player E: Bum Hunter
(rakeback = 3%)
Deposits $1000
Plays 5000 hands and wins $1000 (paid $400 in rake)
rakeback = 20% + 3% - 20% (money won = 100%, 20% of 100% = 20%)
Monday, he receives $12 bonus cash
End Bankroll = $2012


So as you can see, the Bumhunter gets 3% rakeback (almost nothing) while fish and losing regs get the biggest bonuses. Obviously %s will need to be modified, but the basic idea is here to be improved upon.