Rake is honestly one of the smallest problems online poker is facing. Multi tabling, HUDs, public perception etc is. listen I have no problem with multi tabeling and HUDs but because of them I don't play online. I am a live pro who makes a good living, I've thought about learning how to use poker tracker, start at something like 100nl and work my way up multi tabeling and grinding but for me that's not really what I love doing and the game I want to play. Could it be more profitable, idk maybe but so could me becoming a lawyer but I chose poker becuase I enjoy it. I play live poker almost every day and almost always online poker comes up, especially now that it is coming to NJ. 99% of the people know there is software and HUDs and that they don't want to play against that. They don't really understand what it is but they know they don't want any part of it. Time and time again this comes up and is one of the main reason people won't flock to online. No doubt online poker will have a HUGE BOOM when it is released, but soon it will return right back to where it is and peopel will be informed about mass multi tbles and huds and leave. For me it's a tough situation, someone shouldn't be punished for being good at something and using legal software everyone has access to, at the same time they are killing the games. Would having a 6 table max and ban software improve the games, IMO 10000000000x. Also I honestly think the better players would actually make more. Basically It would put more people in the middle of the road where skill is involved, and only have an elite few at the top making it a better environment for the masses, much the way live poker is today. Obviously people who rely on HUDs and mass multi for an income wil hate this. No matter what you do you will be alienating a part of your customer base. Looking at the big picture having a table max and banning HUDs would be the best possible thing, especially for a market like nj where you can start from day 1 having these policies, first impressions are everything

Do all sites have the exact rake structure? Seems odd in an open market someone want lowered it and promoted more bonuses

Double post

Of course they would, but sites are obviously not interested in lowering maximum no. of tables. In fact, PokerStars even allows now more than 24 tables to players who act quick enough.


Sites use different rake structures.

I'm sorry I don't quite understand your last sentence. It seems odd to you that we want lower rake and more bonuses? Is that what you are saying?

People are making it seem like every site has the same high rake. It seems odd to me that a site hasn't marketed lower rake and more bonuses to get players to their site

All sites have high rake

"Low rake" doesn't attract recreational players only sharks. That's why no one is marketing it. And every sites markets "more bonus" obv

poker sites have a lot of costs, something people don't realize. the barrier to entry is also extremely difficult for new comers because of the # of people needed.

also, ecosystem, ecology, biology, chemistry, science, poker.

2.5-3% rake, but also reduce FPPs/RB to the point that being a breakeven player wont sustain you, reduce the # of tables to 10 max, and the games will get MUCH better for EVERYONE.

You're doing it wrong.

Decrease rake for Challenges?

Sites missing out on reg-on-reg long tail profits by not offering cheaper deals on HU4ROLLZ-style challenges.

Say I wanted to battle a reg at $30 SNG's, say 200 games with a $500 side-bet, this would cost us around $550. Obviously between 2 rake/skill aware players this is ******ed and rarely happens...

But say pokerstars escrowed the side-bet and charged $25 each for the challenge, this is far more attractive and stimulate alot of reg on reg action, especially if pokerstars goes more social media.

$50 + action > $0 + bumhunters

Interesting thread.

Players may not be aware of rake effects but they do know how it 'feels' to play the game. The more FUN they are having by winning, even if not overall winners, the more they will like the game and recommend to their friends.

I think the high rake and issues are a direct result of a lack of competition. If the environment was easy for startups someone with an amazon or wallmart-like mindset would come along and sink billions into trying to take the market share with a business model that barely breaks even at high volume. Eventually, if regulation ever opens up (*if*), I think this will happen. It may already be happening with some of these sites like seals and whatnot where the rake is supposedly less. It may be hard to grow a customer base but people remember their experiences well and if they are only marginally winning players they will stay with sites where they feel they win more.

Eventually someone will get wise and do this and then advertise their % of winning players number...

One thing that surprises me about this is how much it actually costs to run a poker game, technically, vs how much they are raking. Honestly GOOGLE and FACEBOOK are FREE and paid for by adverts, as are a jillion other sites that have social programs running on them - Im very surprised someone hasn't created an advert only no-rake site yet. Apparently the barriers to entry are still too high.

We shall see.

I can imagine that.
For example...

Rocket Poker - where 20%* of players win!
* Instead of 10% as on Stars.

Pocket Rockets

For anyone that read my post or seen my thread about my new site, it's been slow on news as I have been just testing a lot and ironing out some minor issues. I want to open up a test version for the public asap.

I know this wasn't your actual site's name

Yeah I'm just joking
Did want to just let people know it's not dead and I am working hard on making this as best it can be.

Yes you could argue the sites are like cartels. There is no way there is much honest competition. When there was ie for players bonuses and generous points systems and rake rebates were plentiful. Now they are drying up on all sites.

There should be, via State and/or Federal law (when legalized), an absolute maximum rake that is paid by players. As to whether it should be 10, 15 or 20% of buy-in i'm not sure... though 10% would be optimal.

I'm a new player and the concept of people playing 24 tables baffles me. Wouldn't you be alot better off playing just one $240 S&G and intently focusing on just that one table rather than frantically playing 24 $10 S&G's? Usually the rake rate is alot lower at higher limit games and rake-back including percentages/credit towards reaching a nova elite or whathaveyou status is probably alot greater as well. Some would argue that the field is alot softer in lower limit games but if you're playing against a total of 216 players, and only the top 3 at each table make the money, it's my guess that your odds of actually making the money are alot better playing just one $240 S&G. At the one $240 your odds of winning are 1 in 3 whereas the odds of actually coming out ahead playing 24 $10 S&G's, taking the rake in account as well, has got to be at least 1 in 5. My math could be off but in my opinion the better the odds of winning is always the better route. Just a thought.

Tom, you are new, right?

There are several reasons why that is not a good idea.

Firstly, regs/pros playing the $10 SNGs are not wanting to play exactly $240 worth of tournaments in a day no matter what the tournament is, they are just wanting to play as many $10 SNGs (presumably a game/level they know they can beat) as they can play in a month/year etc.

You seem to be thinking about it like these players have $240 to play with and have chosen to play 24 tournaments with it. But really they are $10 SNG players who want to play as many of their chosen tournaments as possible.

The standard of play at $240 SNGs will be considerably higher than at the $10 level so a player who can beat $10 SNGs might not even be a winner at the $240 level.

Even if they do have a positive ROI in $240 SNGs the variance involved in playing 24 times the level they are bankrolled for will be huge, meaning they will almost certainly go bust no matter how good they are.
And obviously following on from this, the bankroll needed to constantly play $240 SNGs is considerably higher than that needed to play $10 SNGs. Most people playing $10 SNG's with say a 100 buy in bankroll ($1,000) will not have the equivalent 100 buy ins ($24,000) required to play the $240 SNGs.

VPPs earned towards VIP status are directly related to rake paid so your point about higher stakes games getting more rakeback doesn't apply if you are playing 24 times higher but 24 times less games. In fact as you point out the rake percentage is lower at higher stakes so you will actually make less from rakeback.

Your assumptions about the odds of winning with each option are not correct. Your 'odds of making the money' (or your ROI) are related to your relative skill level compared to your opponents, not how many players you are playing in total. The fact you are playing against 216 opponents in total means nothing really, you are playing against 9 (or however many) on each table and that's all that matters (along with comparative skill level of course).

You also can't assume a regular $10 player has a 1 in 3 chance of reaching the money in a $240 game. Or put another way you can't draw any accurate conclusions about a players ROI in $240 games based on his performance in $10 games.


I hope that didn't come across as me just calling you wrong for half a page as it was really only meant to help.

You might want to find a good article about poker bankroll management as it will probably address these points better than I have here, and it's a subject new players are rarely aware of but it's very important.

Thoughts from a casual player on improvements that would make me more likely to donate more money.

1) Entertainment... the primary reason why I play. If i am at a table full of nitty regs, whether it is at a casino or online, I am going to get bored and leave. Online play is nitty, so it would be nice if there was a reasonable way to offer incentives for "action" players. Maybe something like higher rakeback for different VPIP levels. The requirements would vary depending on the game.

2) HUD - I am a casual player and poker is just one of many hobbies. I'm never going to invest in tracking software or a HUD, and don't like the idea that players who are already significantly better have an additional advantage which to me seems to be against the spirit of competition. Allow players the choice between HUD zones and HUD-free zones.

3) Up-front bonuses. Fish don't last long enough to earn the typical rakeback bonuses sites offer, but larger up-front bonuses would make me more likely to play at your site.

Good thought bad execution.

The rake needs to be relative to winnings. Anything else in nonsense.

The games are unbeatable today only because of the rake and only because the rake relative to winnings is too high.

So that would need to be regulated.

However, poker players are seen as gamblers and gamblers are seen as money grab. Thus all the regulation in the US is just goanna make it worse. Take a look at how expensive licenses are in NV and how little sites can make there. No way will they even think of a sustainable system. Take a look at FR, IT, SP.

Still doesn't make sense...but ultimately if you're turning a profit playing the way you play keep up the good work!

Sort of wondering this myself.