Until the demand for lower rake reaches a threshold at which it becomes more profitable to open a rake-free poker room than a raked poker room, casinos have absolutely no incentive to do things differently. I don't expect that to change any time soon, either. The vast majority of poker players don't mind being net losers and are happy with the current situation.

????

Poker action has been declining pretty steadily, new players certainly don't enjoy losing and they stop playing. I think the rake is as it is now because every site but stars just markets to degenerates. They keep software and support costs extremely low and just rely attempt to lure degenrate gamblers in, and then pro's join who are more concerned about game quality then other factors. Star's success in attracting more regular people should have been emulated, but with the large barriers to entry in poker there hasn't been much fresh blood in the last few years, and the other current operators are mostly incompetent. If there were people trying to compete with sSars in terms of software and support it's possible there would be been some evolution in pricing or the rake method, but at the moment Stars is so intimidating to the other operators they don't try and compete in the section of the market that is rake sensitive.

how could a room that charges no money to play at ever be profitable

"Charging no rake" is not the same as "charging no money to play at." As far as how it could ever be profitable, well, as I said, it's about supply and demand. The demand for rake-free poker isn't there right now, and I don't see it being there any time soon. The vast majority of poker players are okay with losing money overall. They enjoy gambling, not strategy games (2+2 is not representative of most poker players). If the demand for rake-free poker were to increase in the future, companies would be incentivized to provide it.

None of that changes the fact that if the demand were high enough for rake-free poker, Stars and every other company would have an incentive to provide it. The demand is still there for raked poker, though. Since most poker players are net losers, the logical conclusion is that most poker players don't mind being net losers. If they did, they'd stop playing and raked poker would no longer be profitable for companies to offer. But they're still offering it, so it must be profitable.

"being okay with being a loser" and not actually knowing/believing you are a lifetime net loser are not the same thing.

And taking away the rake taking money out in other ways (seat rental, raising food/drink prices) is not actually doing anything. If a room is making a profit, money is coming off the table and into their pockets. You're suggesting that the way operators take money out of the ecosystem is the problem when really the problem is how much money they are taking out. It doesn't matter if it's a table drop/entry fee/seat rental, etc.

The rec players dont notice how the room is making money; they just notice how much they win/lose, or how long they get to play for

I agree with the previously posted idea that the real problem is that rec players lose too quickly to really believe that they could potentially be a "good" poker player, or a "winner". It is very easy to delude yourself into believing that youre a winner if youre losing in 11/20 sessions; Much harder if you lose 17/20 sessions.

Obviously this is caused partly by the increase in skilled players in the ecosystem, but the amount that is being raked (or whatever, the amount that is coming out of the ecosystem to the room) being so high really kills the length that a rec player remains in the ecosystem and thus lowers how much money said player deposits into the ecosystem. These guys are pretty much the only net depositors, so not only does it obviously suck for them because they are having less fun and losing more money - it sucks for regs and operators as well because there is less money to take.


So how does changing the way operators make money help anything

This is very incorrect.

When exactly did I suggest that anything was "a problem?" I simply said that businesses will do what is most profitable. Raking people who don't mind being raked is the most profitable way to operate right now.


Clearly it doesn't "suck for operators", though, as they keep doing it and keep making reasonably good profits. If it sucked for them, they'd stop.

You can't claim that people are playing poker, losing money, aren't happy losing money, yet keep on playing poker. That doesn't make sense (unless you want to claim that all of these people are compulsive gambling addicts, which is quite a stretch).

If they weren't okay with being net losers, they'd stop playing. But they keep on playing.

They do stop playing, quite quickly usually. Online is fed by people trying it out, losing, and moving on in general. There are a ton of people who play a lot of live who won't touch online. The part you said about "if there was demand someone would answer it" isn't really correct either, because the market isn't very open. To start a new pokersite would require an enormous investment in marketing, which no one is willing to do because the market is so uncertain. That makes it more like an oligopoly and stifles innovation. Stars isn't willing to make enormous changes to what is working for them, and the other players in the market have decided to go for the lowest effort route of making a product that only appeals to degenerates and the people who prey on them.

Good points.

I agree..

We need to support and group together and see lower cost raking sites..

the new revolution with poker sites is already starting. In many countries (Us for example, same for Asia) where gambling is illegal there is more and more mafia owned agent type poker rooms.
the only reason why poker might ever get big trancion in Asia is thanks to mafia.
gambling is almost equally profitable for mafia as drugs just the consequences are way less heavy (e.g. in Asia you might be sentenced to death penalty for drugs, and you aren't even risking serious jail time with poker).

Very few people know that gambling become one of the biggest income streams for mafia:
http://calvinayre.com/2013/06/30/bus...gambling-ring/

It all started with Italian mafia were they used their dillership methods to sell online gambling products and because they become so succesfull with it poker rooms like that started to appear all over the world.

One things they have in common tho is an extremly high rake (e.g. uncapped 3%/4% rake). So future belongs to high rake no rakeback/valueback type of sites.

So claiming that there aren't any huge changes starting is just untrue. You just won't heard about it on 2+2 or other big sites like that.
I mean given the nature of the business they don't want to be well known.

Very few affiliates know about existance of such rooms and even fewer are able to sustainably offer deals there for regular players.

As of know probably none of the rooms/networks like that are huge (except for dollaro poker network which traffic is heavily underestimated on pokerscout) but as a part of the whole market the agent based poker rooms/networks are already huge.
Just very few people here on 2+2 are aware about it.

I assume you're talking about online. In which case, I agree. People don't understand rake. They don't understand the simple fact that all the money on a micro/small stakes cash game table is taken by the poker room in the space of a few hours. Thus the only way to win is if you play 100% perfect poker at all times (almost impossible to achieve by a human being) or if you have at least 1 or more whales or droolers at your table (which happens very rarely in today's nitfest games).

But people will continue to play in games where the rake can't be beaten long term. Look at small stakes PLO on Pokerstars. Next to no one is beating the rake long term in those games. Too many regs passing money among each other getting eaten up by rake. How can you win money in those games? I thought poker players were supposed to be intelligent, yet month after month we see regs wasting their time playing games that are a blatant rake trap.

Very few people have the bankroll for 2/4 starting out.

Anyone else find it odd that no poker room (afaik) has lowered their cap rake to $2 instead of $3 or lowered the percentage taken?




I don't know how much it takes to run a site and IM sure it's not cheap but it seems like if a site did this instead of doing all this silly VIP/RB stuff it would attract a ton of players. It seems much easier to advertise that a site takes less rake that it would be to advertise that Stars allows you to buy TVs or cash bonuses. Just seems odd no site took that route....

No,

the players who are generating revenue dont care and dont understand the rake so advertising rake would attract actually the wrong players.

Think there have been other threads but, still don't understand it. World of Warcraft etc. doesn't rake. How come nobody set up a combo ClubWPT with some kind of per hundred hand charge/hourly charge. I am sure there is a reason. Just want someone smarter than me to explain it to me.

I doubt you'll find anyone

i'm sure someone will be happy to take great risk time and effort to set up a website that hosts a game that is played for money- in some cases lots of money- for peanuts while letting people sit on their ass printing tons of money each month fleecing fish while adding nothing of value to the site.

There's probably a profitable model that sells ads instead of raking but it's a big risk. The cost to set up a platform and build and operate a secure server and money processing, etc, is enormous.

There was an online site with no rake. It died.

Congrats, you fail at reading comprehension. Pretty sure the OP was inquiring why the hands are raked as opposed to having a monthly charge such as the $14.99 you pay for WoW.

A monthly charge probably wouldn't work. Rake brings in more money in a less obvious way.

I always wondered if there was a win/win situation based upon a lower rake but then add ad revenue. For example, the tables have ads. Why not run commercials during tournament breaks lol. If the rake is lower, more players will play, and that will bring more sponsors willing to pay more.

Badugi could be sponsored by Skittles. Taste the rainbow!

If you replaced rake with an equivalent membership fee, imagine how shocked recreational players would be at the price.

sucks being a breakeven reg who could play online poker for a living if there was no rake huh op?

At a very high level OP it goes a little something like this:

1. Start Business
2. ?????
3. Profit

Your welcome