Borg, you are so obviously projecting your own agenda on me, and it's just complete arse. YOU want easier games, YOU are lieing in this thread (put words in mine and others mouths), YOU want to be handed money, YOU don't care about sustaining a poker for the game, YOU are bitching, and YOU are derailing this thread at every opportunity with arguements and side-issues.

You found a thread with an interesting topic and are hijacking it with your own issues and struggles with the game.

I don't suffer fools gladly so I'm saying this once, I will just ignore any further off topic discussion with you

I have a few players in my games that are more worry about the RAKE then the game and players itself, and i would be honest with them if the RAKE is going to bother you that bad i ghess i just would not PLAY!!!

I agree that if stars had a perfect world everyone would be break even trash but you're underestimating the value of players who feed the system making lots of deposits

Of course you will,I picked every one of your idiotic delusional illogical inconsistent and in some cases completely false statements apart,which wasn't hard at all.

Unlike you I actually want sustainable games,we both want easier games.if stars drastically lowered rake today the games would be a lot easier,they would however not be remotely sustainable.the amazing thing is you're stupid enough to think they would be if this happened.unlike you and lots of people on this site I was severely against things that I knew would kill the games in the long run even though I was able to make a lot more money for a year or two like everyone else.

Additionally you're so full of **** its sickening.
I'm not making off topic statements.i haven't come in here talking about football.the topic of this thread is about sustainable games,and I'm telling you why the current rake structure is the least of the problem.its funny how the one thing that you think is the problem has actually gotten a lot better for the players over time,and yet the games have gotten more and more unsustainable because of the reasons I've mentioned.

why not?

Let's define the problem in terms of BB/100.

Our fish lose 27.3 of them at the microstakes*.

Ten of these BB's go to rake and they'll get ~4 BB's back (I guess).
So effectively the fish lose 23.3 BB/100
That is 6 BB to rake and 17.3 BB to the Eastern Europeans.

Right now they are about three times as big of a problem than rake is.
(to the fish at microstakes)



If you reduce the rake first the 6 BB number would go down, but the 17.3 BB number would go up, making the problem even worse. If we get the 17.3 number down first we can provide our fish a safer and more enjoyable environment. The survival rate of new fish would skyrocket and the lower rake would have much more effect.

Since the problems are at the microstakes how about this idea:

Decrease the maximum amount of tables only at the microstakes.

That way all the profits would no longer end up straight in the pockets of lousy players that can't even beat these stakes, but keep circulating in the poker economy untill it is won by decent players. By us!









* It is actually more because the East Europeans are underrepresented in the sample and the 62% of all the hands they play are mainly at the microstakes, so they represent more than 62% at that level.
Must be over 70% by now, which also shows how alarming this problem is.

Bubble, why do you think eastern eu players win?

Show me some data. It makes no sense to me.


Please.

Pow great posts. I agree the thread should stay on point and focused on solutions.

Let's take Russia as an example:

In the sample they lost $-30,970,250 by now and the loss is $-1.71 per 100$.

Rake at the microstakes is ~10 bb/100.
Estimated rakeback is 50%.
So after rakeback they make $5 - $1.71 = $3.29 per 100$.

The sample represents 10% of the population.

80% of the East European profits in the sample is made in the last 2 years.

That makes the profit per year for Russia alone:
30.9M/1.71 * 3.29 * 10 * 40% = 237.8M

Probably even more because they are likely underrepped in the sample. That sample contains all the data from FTP and PP since April 2009 and represents 10% of the global on line pokermarket.


I agree with you we should focus on solutions.
What do you think of mine?
In combination with lowering the rake and the welcome back bonus.

The idea is to kickstart the pokereconomy. Probably the best timing for it would be when the USA comes back, but the first step could already be taken now.

What sample? Ptr?

If you look at this year the Russians are the 5. Largest losers.


????

Your chart with rake and winnings where is that from?

I really do want to understand what u are trying to say.

That's right, they are losers!
Before rakeback.
After rakeback they are the biggest winners.


Now what do you say about my solution?

What solution? Reduce multi tabling?

Ur numbers make no sense? How do you know the rakeback?

How are u talking bb when talking ptr? It's a mishmash of all levels.

U are aware that Italians win $50 per hand!

Those numbers make no sense!

Do u really think that Germans lost only 13m this year?

It is clear that eastern eu countries lose small per hand from ptr, bu again that could mean they only play small stakes

Everybody can still multitable as much as they like, there would only be a limit for the microstakes.

All your other questions have been addressed several times now, just read my posts.

Let's move forward. The problems are clear, now we need solutions.
May be somebody can make cliffs of all the ideas suggested so far and we can brainstorm from there.
The results can then be presented to the pokersites, so they know what our concerns are.
This approach might actually yield some results.

I like this. I'm on the road right now but maybe next week. Maybe you can start with your approach.

Not sure what itt is actually presentable to sites, far from educating and gaining mass awareness and concern over rake shortening the life of poker, it has digressed into whinging about unchangeable and ineveitable advancements in the game that under no circumstances can be curbed by the sites.

Most of these posts are as ridiculous as calling for banning 3-betting or min raising because it beats the f*** out of bad players, its part of the advancement of the game and unenforcable cos everyone can just use other sites.


What if a theoretical case could be put forward to the sites that as the game is advancing rapidly in skill, spew players dry up, and the game attracts more analytical minds distancing it's reputation from degenerate gambling, there is more money to be made allowing the market to grow by allowing a larger % of player's to win over decent sample sizes. If a model could be put forward to the sites that a 1bb/100 rake would increase the no. of hands played by x15 in a few years time instead of decreasing as is the case now, then sites can be convinced it is in their own interest to maintain the popularity and reputation of the games in this way.

^This is still to be proven, but it will take intelligent, analytical, business experienced minds to discuss and estimate the effects changing rake will have on the poker market so that proof can be presented to the sites.

then let them go to other sites. bots will take care of them there.

Some good posts in here. Sites will keep killing the cows, who has the energy to milk them these days? They only care about their next quarterly report. I don't know a single site that has any kind of long term thinking in their business model.

They treat poker as a gold rush. Just fill your pockets as much as fast as you can. When it's over just go into some other predatory venture.

50% of deposits ending up as rake. Is so far from sustainable it's not even funny. Worst I've seen is fulltilts 43% rake in a walked OPL pot. How are you supposed to overcome that? Is it fair that someone can just sit on his as5 and get fat while you grind and grind to get some scraps?

50% rakeback IS THE LOWEST ACCEPTABLE NUMBER. This should be given to the once in a while casuals. You should get at least HALF!

Ask yourself this.

In reality would you ever do a joint venture with someone who took none of the risk, did almost none of the work and then proceeded to take half of the profit???

WOULD YOU????

Totally agree but want to bring you up on these 2 points in bold:

1. That's capitalism, they risk money and charge what people are willing to pay, so I think technically it's fair

2. Why that certain number 50%? I think it's important we dont pick numbers out of thin air but instead find a figure that proves to confuse winrates by allwoing the swings of variance to produce a good % of winners from average-skilled-joes and thus stimulate growth in the poker market.

I also think over-priced rake is responsible for a lot online's terrible reputation as the rake is a very hidden charge, so when large groups of average-skilled-joes consistantly all lose tons, they blame rigged cards, bots, HUDs etc. because they can't see the gaping hole draining the poker economy.

It's about time we started giving a sh** and putting pressure on the sites to consider these factors

While a lot of what you're saying about the sites is true everything you're saying is also true of the players.

As for your last comment the sites took huge risks at expenses to get up and running.to make money they actually have to understand how to run a business and how to provide a service people want,not just be halfway decent at a game lots of people are good at.the players in the grand scheme of things take next to no risk,especially the ones crying the most.

The bottom line is anyone who thinks that a skill game which is payed for money and in many cases lots of money is in anyway sustainable when you drastically skew the shark to fish ratio and make the game more and more boring In the process is a fool.you can't talk about game sustainability and your only solution to help it is a short term fix at best.

Instead of spending all your time trying to work out how lowering the rake would benifit you and the beautiful game. Why don't you try using that time to study poker and maybe you would beat the rake

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GrV3OZdjP8

This is like saying if the government taxed everyone 95%, you shouldn't complain.. you should just work harder and get a better job. Bill gates and lebron james could still live comfortably after a 95% tax.. your just not good enough to win at life.

POKERSTARS: Time to treat PLO and NLHE as different games!

Posting to post ITT. Stars fix your rake!

bump, over-raking is still killing the games