Quote:
Originally Posted by borg23
i never said online was easy these days but again you pay 5 cents rake per hand and get to play from your home
if you cant overcome that then too bad
the idea that nano stakes are infested with nit bots is pretty funny as well
get a job, save up some money and dont waste your time grinding for nickels
why do you think the games suck so much? people want to have their cake and eat it to
do you seriously expect sites to charge you 500 bucks a month, so they spend money finding you new fish while you siphon off thousands of dollars each month?
we were so spoiled with online poker for a few years yet people just couldn't leave well enough alone
the sites are without a doubt greedy and short sided but their greed caused them to give the regulars what they wanted- the ability to nit it up on lots of tables using all kinds of software and fleece the casual players faster
i could understand someone wanting to be the only one to be able to play lots of tables, use software etc bc one person couldnt deteriorate
the games and you would make thousands of dollars an hour
But the games were obviously going to go to crap once these became the norm
in the short run the sites and regs made more money
but in the long run how did that work out?
if regulars were smarter and could think long term that never would happened
games still would have gotten worse bc of the us govt and bc of improved poker knowledge but by and large regulars have themselves to blame for the putrid state of online games
where did you think all of this money was coming from anyway?
rake doesnt keep fish from going on heaters
heaters are short term things on which the effect of rake is negligible.
horrid boring games with no action keep the fish from going on heaters.
Why you make tons of posts? That looks delusional and even the same stuff you are writing repeatedly, in a lot of hurry and blaa blaa blaa. I am sure you suffer from delusion, not understanding at all what's common sense about the rake amount.
You somehow are fixed in some ideas that take over your common sense. You are tilting. Some of those things are about multitabling and it being bad when there is less fish per table then, and that's valid, but valid only as it is and even then it isn't clear of it being wrong in the light of a fair and "sustainable" rake.
Being built around the fish; I don't think on those terms but I am tens of years ahead. And again, it's not a high rake issue at all.
About it being unfair for some good players to take lots of money out of the site and pay only hundreds per month to the site (I pay less than hundred per year to a chess site and win a lot of games per month), I see you have a strong delusion there, presenting it as it being something morally wrong? The money you win should go to the site that is marketing to get fish in? You just get in such delusions and believe that is some all covering fact, that people should pay extremely high rake for marketing reasons - in the best of cases (in an intelligent world?) all it needs is a site's name at poker.com or so and a good software while banning rake greedy sites if necessary and let the word go around here etc. and prepare people for getting ready to play some tougher games if necessary and get the site going, and I have done that myself, just that the rest of you are all too scared to play a game with up to no fish for a couple of hours per week and get such a site going.
The marketing things are a separate issue from enormous rake stealing happening. It's just about the gaming and what's a fair rake (if I play one table online and pay $10 per hour ... but you don't understand because of your delusions), not about if some strong player is winning (you have an issue with that?).
It's a game played with money, there being no connection to how much someone plays and how much someone wins to marketing costs other than he is paying more of them than the players who play less and at the same time giving the site more action. It's about fair rake, it having nothing to do with how much someone plays and how much he wins.
A lot of things can be talked about from the losers' and sites' points of views but they are separate issues. I could offer next to perfect money management to all players, and the sites then too can.
Why is it that the sites can't run some tougher games with low to no rake? I am willing to play. It's just about doing things right, there being many options even on one site and all these issues are separate issues and have nothing to do with the too high rake being taken.
Heads up games bad for the industry; what about what's right? Well, you don't understand that kinds of things. Again, it's a separate issue of what's the best to be done with it, and at least the way it's now isn't right but it has nothing to do with the rake.
A heads up bot that's there playing all the time sitting at many tables, I have known some and I don't like it that they are taking money out of the weaker players exactly where I am myself even currently playing shorthanded (2 to 6 handed), though the bot isn't winning (break even) but that's bad enough even then. Then there are other human players that take sort of my money also. But again, the issue is separate from the rake case.