Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem

03-19-2013 , 11:42 AM
Quote:
Also if there is not enough fish
Fish is a term that is relative to the skill level of the player pool, so every player pool and poker table has fish AS LONG AS THEY PLAY.

Luckily, poker has so much variance that a good % of losing players can go on massive heaters and win over samples of 100k+ hands, keeping them guessing their own skill level relative to the other players.

When <1% OF AVERAGE-SKILL PLAYERS can win over a 60K, they're not guessing, they know they can't win. Flawed and doomed system.
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-19-2013 , 12:09 PM
I've seen a lot of stats about the % of winning players. Has anyone ever seen numbers on the % of winning seats? In other words, how many seats are occupied by winning players. This would account for multi-tabling and seems like a more relevant stat to measure the poker ecology.

For instance, if a site has 10% grinders and 90% rec-fish it sounds like a nice ratio. But if the grinders were 24-tabling while the fish only played 1 table each about 75% of the seats are occupied by winning players ... which paints a totally different picture. You'd have to account for time spent playing too, so let's call it seat-hours.
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-19-2013 , 03:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by karmageddon
I've seen a lot of stats about the % of winning players. Has anyone ever seen numbers on the % of winning seats? In other words, how many seats are occupied by winning players. This would account for multi-tabling and seems like a more relevant stat to measure the poker ecology.

For instance, if a site has 10% grinders and 90% rec-fish it sounds like a nice ratio. But if the grinders were 24-tabling while the fish only played 1 table each about 75% of the seats are occupied by winning players ... which paints a totally different picture. You'd have to account for time spent playing too, so let's call it seat-hours.
We can't even get the number for ratio wins vs rake (as we don't have access to all the data) no way we can give have the answer for what u are asking for.

However this is in direct correlation of how beatable the game is. If the game is beatable than every game will have theoretical winners and losers.


Poker is a pretty perfect game and we can pretty much know that every table is going to have winners and losers (if u discount rake).

If you stick 10 winners on one table, there will be 5 winners and 5 losers (or whatever poker decides this ratio is). Rake however changes this in reality. It might be that if you stick 10 winners on one table all of them will be losers due to rake. Because against 9 other pros no one pro can win 6bb anymore.

This is precisely how rake fxxxxxcks up the game or what Do it Right calls distortion of the game.

This is also the reason why in HU games regs don't play each other (and should not). Even if there is a skill difference it might be lower than the rake. People think that HU regs are just greedy, but there really is no point in playing if only the house wins. Poker can only work if the house wins and the some player win ( now that is a humble knircky thought, party and stars might not agree with me on that one. I believe that this is a universal law of poker and because it is broken the sites suffer by losing business)
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-19-2013 , 06:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by karmageddon
I've seen a lot of stats about the % of winning players. Has anyone ever seen numbers on the % of winning seats? In other words, how many seats are occupied by winning players. This would account for multi-tabling and seems like a more relevant stat to measure the poker ecology.

For instance, if a site has 10% grinders and 90% rec-fish it sounds like a nice ratio. But if the grinders were 24-tabling while the fish only played 1 table each about 75% of the seats are occupied by winning players ... which paints a totally different picture. You'd have to account for time spent playing too, so let's call it seat-hours.
exactly something all the people calling the sites greedy fail to mention
the sites are running a business to make money for themselves not for us

i mean im stunned absolutely stunned that when people are allowed to play 24 tables with rake much lower than it was 5 years ago the games suck
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-19-2013 , 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by knircky
We can't even get the number for ratio wins vs rake (as we don't have access to all the data) no way we can give have the answer for what u are asking for.

However this is in direct correlation of how beatable the game is. If the game is beatable than every game will have theoretical winners and losers.


Poker is a pretty perfect game and we can pretty much know that every table is going to have winners and losers (if u discount rake).

If you stick 10 winners on one table, there will be 5 winners and 5 losers (or whatever poker decides this ratio is). Rake however changes this in reality. It might be that if you stick 10 winners on one table all of them will be losers due to rake. Because against 9 other pros no one pro can win 6bb anymore.

This is precisely how rake fxxxxxcks up the game or what Do it Right calls distortion of the game.

This is also the reason why in HU games regs don't play each other (and should not). Even if there is a skill difference it might be lower than the rake. People think that HU regs are just greedy, but there really is no point in playing if only the house wins. Poker can only work if the house wins and the some player win ( now that is a humble knircky thought, party and stars might not agree with me on that one. I believe that this is a universal law of poker and because it is broken the sites suffer by losing business)
hu regs won't play anyone who can count to 6 and this has always been the case
99% are nothing more than bum hunters who offer 0 value whatsoever to the site

and no if you take 10 winners at a table rake free you don't automatically get 5 winners and 5 losers

i am actually a dog to any decent hu player
when i could play on stars ft bodog (when there were sns) people would look me up on tableratings when i sat at their tables, saw i was a net winner and sit out
even now on bovada if i buy in for 100 blinds they usually sit out right away, if not they sit out within 3 hands which is pretty funny
i guess theyre hoping someone sits down and shoves every hand
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-19-2013 , 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by borg23
hu regs won't play anyone who can count to 6 and this has always been the case
99% are nothing more than bum hunters who offer 0 value whatsoever to the site

and no if you take 10 winners at a table rake free you don't automatically get 5 winners and 5 losers

i am actually a dog to any decent hu player
when i could play on stars ft bodog (when there were sns) people would look me up on tableratings when i sat at their tables, saw i was a net winner and sit out
even now on bovada if i buy in for 100 blinds they usually sit out right away, if not they sit out within 3 hands which is pretty funny
i guess theyre hoping someone sits down and shoves every hand
Hu regs wont play each other as long as there are bigger fish to fry, so kinda like the idea of rush-hu tables.

Also I'm surprised sites haven't jumped on the 'hu-challenge' wagon, offering side-bets and greatly reduced rake for a guarunteed large number of hands to be played.
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-19-2013 , 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by karmageddon
I've seen a lot of stats about the % of winning players. Has anyone ever seen numbers on the % of winning seats? In other words, how many seats are occupied by winning players. This would account for multi-tabling and seems like a more relevant stat to measure the poker ecology.

For instance, if a site has 10% grinders and 90% rec-fish it sounds like a nice ratio. But if the grinders were 24-tabling while the fish only played 1 table each about 75% of the seats are occupied by winning players ... which paints a totally different picture. You'd have to account for time spent playing too, so let's call it seat-hours.
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to get at but here is data on that exact figure for all the major sites: http://www.pokertableratings.com/blo...s-the-softest/

It's from late 2010 so there are going to be substantially fewer winners today but it should be at least in the same ballpark. It's going to be somewhere around 10% winning players, 20% winning seats. Fair sampling automatically compensates for time spent playing.

In any case I don't really think it's pertinent to the ecology. In online poker, rake free or in a non-distorting profit model, approximately 50% of players would be winners. Since there are going to be more outliers spewing huge money - thus pushing everybody 'up', than there will be huge outliers earning tons of money - thus pushing everybody 'down', it's entirely possible it would be more like 60% of players. Introduce the high rake currently charged by the sites and instead we have a system where 10% of players are winners and games that, lo and behold, are dying.
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-19-2013 , 11:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do it Right
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to get at but here is data on that exact figure for all the major sites: http://www.pokertableratings.com/blo...s-the-softest/

It's from late 2010 so there are going to be substantially fewer winners today but it should be at least in the same ballpark. It's going to be somewhere around 10% winning players, 20% winning seats. Fair sampling automatically compensates for time spent playing.

In any case I don't really think it's pertinent to the ecology. In online poker, rake free or in a non-distorting profit model, approximately 50% of players would be winners. Since there are going to be more outliers spewing huge money - thus pushing everybody 'up', than there will be huge outliers earning tons of money - thus pushing everybody 'down', it's entirely possible it would be more like 60% of players. Introduce the high rake currently charged by the sites and instead we have a system where 10% of players are winners and games that, lo and behold, are dying.
Wow Do It right you just can't stop with quality post and references, can u?! I am impressed!

I don't think it matters much for the ecology how many are winners on a table as this is an indirect result of the rake.

The only thing that matters for the ecology (and sustainability) is how much is taken out by the site vs. by players.

It is possible that it could be bad for the game if few players win too much. But since today nobody can win much anyhow its a mute point and can't be a problem.
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-19-2013 , 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by POW
Hu regs wont play each other as long as there are bigger fish to fry, so kinda like the idea of rush-hu tables.
I love rush HU. I am a HU fish but the only places i play is on fish sites like bodog or on party HU fast poker.

I think HU players are generally pretty good players, and they would not survive against each other with the current rake. I think the fact that they don't play each other might very well be that it is lose, lose due to rake and they prolly just figured that out and now its a standard. But this is just a thought.
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-19-2013 , 11:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEB262
thanks, that's a big help and no I didn't notice because I don't have the luxury of playing online anymore

and I think we've agreed that fish don't notice the rake, they notice their wallets getting short and the time they get to play brief
Fish notice the rake. They just don't care about it.

They need to cut the time banks and make the games run smoother. Many people I know complain about the sites full of bots and cheaters. It just is not going to get better either. Mainly cause you have too many skilled players at the lower levels that makes even playing for pennies very difficult. Cutting the rake alone will not help online poker to attract fish. They need to lower the number of tables that grinders can play. Especially to those that take a long time.
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-20-2013 , 12:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmurjeff
Many people I know complain about the sites full of bots and cheaters. It just is not going to get better either. Mainly cause you have too many skilled players at the lower levels that makes even playing for pennies very difficult. Cutting the rake alone will not help online poker to attract fish. They need to lower the number of tables that grinders can play. Especially to those that take a long time.
Quote:
Mainly cause you have too many skilled players at the lower levels that makes even playing for pennies very difficult.
This is wrong. It is not hard to play for pennies because there are too many skilled players.

It is hard to play for pennies because the rake is so high that unless you are playing very good (as good as a pro) you cannot win. People think the sites are rigged because they lose online but win everywhere else, or at least lose online faster than everywhere else. Most educated players think they don't win because there are not enough fish.

Both are wrong. Everybody (but the pro quality player) loses because the rake is higher than what an average winner wins.

I think this is about what reality looks like today (obv. rough estimate):

- pro wins 9bb/100 before rake

- avg winner wins 4bb/100 before rake

- rake is 6bb/100

Thus pro wins 3bb and everyone but a few good regs lose.

This is for 100NL (below it is worse, at 200NL similar and above prolly getting ok. At 1kNL its not an issue anymore)

This is why 10% of players win (the pros) instead of 50+%. IF 90% of the population loses fish think its rigged and players who think they know what's going on believe there are not enough fish. Both are wrong. Its the rake stupid!

Last edited by knircky; 03-20-2013 at 12:22 AM.
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-20-2013 , 12:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmurjeff
Fish notice the rake. They just don't care about it.

They need to cut the time banks and make the games run smoother. Many people I know complain about the sites full of bots and cheaters. It just is not going to get better either. Mainly cause you have too many skilled players at the lower levels that makes even playing for pennies very difficult. Cutting the rake alone will not help online poker to attract fish. They need to lower the number of tables that grinders can play. Especially to those that take a long time.
The connotation of 'notice' is not to just realize it's a part of the game but to understand its magnitude. Many successful grinders don't even understand that - look a few posts up!

What you're not thinking about is why casual players tend to think the sites are full of bots and cheaters. It's a rationalization - a rationalization to explain why they lose. So why do they really lose? There's two big reasons:

1. Skill differences between online and live play. As you state even at penny stakes there are quite a lot of reasonably skilled players playing. Let's get back to that in a minute.

2. The rake. Many casual players experiences of poker come from home games, games that are typically unraked or 'raked' in a fashion that doesn't distort the game - eg the pizza/beer door fee. The rake, especially at low stakes is huge. If the players are even in the same comparable skill ballpark, they'll all end up losers due to rake. That segues back to #1.

So why are there so many skilled players playing penny poker? The answer is pretty easy there. To beat very low stakes online you don't need to be just better than your opponent you need to be world's ahead of them to beat them and come out ahead after the rake. Low stakes PLO, as the radical example, is raked in the ballpark of 20bb/100!! That's per player. That means the site is raking in the ballpark of 120bb/100 at a 6-handed table! So if you're beating the other players for 19bb/100 - which is to say you are absolutely crushing everybody on the table and your hands are generally holding up - you're still a loser due to the rake!

A player vastly better than average for the player pool at low stakes is likely to just barely squeeze out a modest profit after rake. They're not likely to go racing up the stakes. Even in BB terms they're simply not going to be earning enough to start moving up in any rapid fashion, to say nothing of them actually deciding to every once in a while withdraw! They basically end up stuck in a low stakes rake trap, not only to their detriment but to all the other players who are actually near the average skill level for that stake. The proverbial example here is the Eastern European micro-pro.

Lowering the number of tables wouldn't solve the current problem but simply delay dealing with it. You would artificially improve the fish:shark ratio but as time goes by the sharks stick around - fish don't. Even if you dropped the table cap to 4 we'd be back in this exact situation in a year or two. Poker is a game of skill - bastardizing the game by manipulating the score, in this case money, as it's being played just isn't a reasonable long term profit model. Ultimately the goal of swapping to a more sustainable profit model, or at the minimum lowering the rake, is not to attract players by saying: "Hey look - we have lower rake!" but to rather maintain players longer as they actually start to actually enjoy their time spent playing. That's something even companies like Party are trying to do with their recent player segregation, but true to form they're going about in one of the most ass backwards and destined to fail ways possible.
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-20-2013 , 01:09 AM
I guess my logic in thinking was flawed. I was thinking that some of the players would be forced to move up to play higher if they played less tables. But did not realize how few winners there really is. It looks like the trend for the current model is to decline. How much will the rake increase before almost no one plays online poker anymore?
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-20-2013 , 02:20 AM
Bit of a derail as the thread is mostly discussing low stakes ring games..

However has anybody performed similar analysis of SNGs.

Is the rake as much of a factor in:

MTTs?
Single table SNGs?
HUSNGS?

My rake paid is significantly effecting my overall results, curious to know if there are better alternatives..
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-20-2013 , 03:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kieranf
Bit of a derail as the thread is mostly discussing low stakes ring games..

However has anybody performed similar analysis of SNGs.

Is the rake as much of a factor in:

MTTs?
Single table SNGs?
HUSNGS?

My rake paid is significantly effecting my overall results, curious to know if there are better alternatives..
this is a great question i don't have a good data sample, nor do i know of one.

However:

1. We know from sharkscope that 26%-30% of players win (or used to win).

2. My own results are way way better and there are plenty of examples of good players that have sick ROIs and low rake.

For me personally (check out FT: volldermanfred ) I have ROIs of 50% and pay less than 30% of rake in MTTs. I.e. on FT I won like 13k and payed only 2.5k in rake. Now give me some rakeback and some overlays and the number is perfectly reasonable (below 20%).

So I have beaten tourneys for decent profits but never cash games. I don't think that's a reflection of my skill as much as the sustainability of the game and thus the rake.

You can only pay 10% of the money moved per tourney in rake, which seems to me way less than 5% per hands and thus the rake is reasonable.

Thus I think the games are more sustainable and this is the reason why tourneys have so much more volume than cash games.

However when you play higher stakes the trend is reversed.

But I don't really know how much is raked vs. won. I really wish I knew. I can only guestimate from high level experiences.
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-20-2013 , 04:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do it Right
That means the site is raking in the ballpark of 120bb/100 at a 6-handed table!
its only true if everyone is a winner on that table, which cant be the case?


Quote:
Lowering the number of tables wouldn't solve the current problem but simply delay dealing with it. You would artificially improve the fish:shark ratio but as time goes by the sharks stick around - fish don't. Even if you dropped the table cap to 4 we'd be back in this exact situation in a year or two.
Lowering fish:reg ratio would make the environment more fish friendly, which will result in more fishes in the future be it those fishes friends, or themselves returning.
But as with reducing the rake, it would affect site's profit.
Banning overinformative huds, notecaddy, tablescanners and other bull****, would do even more to attract fishes into online poker(tho it's reputation is already destroyed), but again multitable regs gonna play less tables and less money to the company(at least short term).
The best model to the site would be to take rake from regs, but give up to 100% rakeback to massive fishes, be it bonuses, statuses or w/e else.

But stars for example still living in a world where americans were present on their site and provided endless flow of fishmoney, when they could afford to have bazilion of 12123 tabling rakemachines and even give them 70% of the rake back while charging fish to the full because with their volume they can get like platinum at best. This cant last forever, unless americans go international again.
Party went in a right direction, but they made in a too shady way, if got the tools to recognize the fish, give them the more rakeback the more tough the field is, maybe even up to bonuses which would give them positive rake to even them out, because if they for example lose at 60bb/100, no rake reduction is gonna make them win at the game, but at least bonuses can make them happy and deposit once again.
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-20-2013 , 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by knircky
It is possible that it could be bad for the game if few players win too much. But since today nobody can win much anyhow its a mute point and can't be a problem.
What can you do? It's a doggy dog world. Then again, maybe there's a light at the end of the funnel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do it Right
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to get at but here is data on that exact figure for all the major sites: http://www.pokertableratings.com/blo...s-the-softest/

It's from late 2010 so there are going to be substantially fewer winners today but it should be at least in the same ballpark. It's going to be somewhere around 10% winning players, 20% winning seats. Fair sampling automatically compensates for time spent playing.

In any case I don't really think it's pertinent to the ecology. In online poker, rake free or in a non-distorting profit model, approximately 50% of players would be winners. Since there are going to be more outliers spewing huge money - thus pushing everybody 'up', than there will be huge outliers earning tons of money - thus pushing everybody 'down', it's entirely possible it would be more like 60% of players. Introduce the high rake currently charged by the sites and instead we have a system where 10% of players are winners and games that, lo and behold, are dying.
Thanks for the link. I think that stat is very pertinent to the health of the poker ecosystem on any given site. Think of it this way, we can all agree that the health of the ecology is laregly dictated by the flow of money into and out of the site: Fish deposit (+), site rakes (-), winners withdraw (-). Fish are your vital source for new deposits and they play for fun. The more fun they have the more likely they are to keep depositing. The faster they lose those deposits the less fun they have and the sooner they stop depositing. Departed fish need to be replaced by new fish and that costs the site money (bonuses, advertisement, etc.). So as fish lose faster, the sites' costs either increase and are passed on to the players (higher rake or lower bonuses) or the fish/shark ratio goes to hell. I'm not discounting the effect of rake, I'm just saying rake is related to the sites' cost of doing business which is related to the fish/shark ratio. I asked about winning seats because that is a truer measure of that ratio than # of players and it is something the sites can easily manipulate by adjusting the max # of tables.

It's a minor point but I disagree with your premise that in a rake free model the losing outliers will outweigh the winning outliers. There may be more spew monkeys than there are highly skilled players but the spew monkeys generally don't play as long (neither avg seat-hours/month nor overall longevity) as the highly skilled players who won't bust out and will also log more seat-hours to increase profit.

Last edited by karmageddon; 03-20-2013 at 12:06 PM.
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-20-2013 , 03:31 PM
Some observations

1. Live poker is alive and well. Lot's of fish still. A small % of the total population plays it, but the people who play it love it. It's has a very enthusiastic following, almost like a cult. It's like baseball. Most people don't understand the thrill of the game, but somehow they "get it" when they watch. Even people who claim not to like poker find themselves mesmerized watching a hand play out.

2. In live poker, the raise sizing pre is a lot higher because people have made an informal agreement to raise at least 4x, mostly 5x. Maybe it's because they only get to play one hand at a time and want to get action, but it's effect is to cover the cost of the rake, which is constant. Online, where we mostly don't have reads, we have to raise it a more GTO sizing, like 3x, and it's generally not enough generated in the pot at the midstakes level.

3. In live poker, people don't generally know why you should get AKo in vs most players 100BB deep. So they are not making a lot of GTO plays that online guys know are standard, and therefore, they lose their money a lot quicker online and think it's rigged.

Suggestions

1. Market to live players. Give them some freebies to get the ball rolling. When it becomes legal, we should get a boost from Zynga players and getting the live player in front of a computer might make it another poker boom.

2. Make the stacks much deeper. 100BB allows for too many dominated strategies for the online pro. If stacks are deep, like 300-500BBs, there are less dominated strategies, people will have to pay more attention, the fish will make a bigger pot when they get lucky, and the raise sizing can be high enough to cover the rake.

3. Give people some basic strategy guides. Have them listed on the site. It's not that big a deal to give people a standard open raising range. Just a few pointers will equalize some fish from pros.
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-20-2013 , 09:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by karmageddon
What can you do? It's a doggy dog world. Then again, maybe there's a light at the end of the funnel.
That was cute. But Knircky and DoItRight win the thread by KO unless the opposition can provide substantive and convincing evidence to refute their points AINEC.
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-21-2013 , 12:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JudgeHoldem1848
That was cute. But Knircky and DoItRight win the thread by KO unless the opposition can provide substantive and convincing evidence to refute their points AINEC.
All players would LOVE to see lower rake. Nobody is disputing that. What people are disputing is that the sites are not likely to do this in the foreseeable future. What good is a proposal if it has ~0% of success?
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-21-2013 , 12:46 AM
The rake is too god damn high..


as you can see from my sample above it's around 9bb/100.. which is daylight robbery
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-21-2013 , 01:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LT22
All players would LOVE to see lower rake. Nobody is disputing that. What people are disputing is that the sites are not likely to do this in the foreseeable future. What good is a proposal if it has ~0% of success?
But it doesn't have 0% chance of success. It might be at this moment between 0-10% but it's not 0%. And it takes as much effort to be optimistic and do nothing as it does to be pessimistic and do nothing. I myself have done absolutely nothing to promote the cause of lowering the rake but I'm optimistic.

Maybe some smart people could put forth a case and present it to people who work for the major sites. Maybe some bright spark(s) could present a well reasoned and researched argument that lowering the rake at low and micro stakes is actually 'good for the game' or 'good for the sites.' There have been some very informative and well thought out posts in this thread that suggest that the high rake is bad for the games.

I know Stars are having a meeting and there will be delegates representing the players. I mean is it even on the table yet as a topic for debate? We haven't even lobbied any well known players and presented a case to see if they could get behind any such proposal.

The price of poker went up. Less people are playing cash game poker. Take Full Tilt. Maybe their decision to ditch Iron Man and fiddle with the rakeback was a bad decision. Maybe...I don't know. Maybe the bigger sites want us all to play MTTS with the 10% rake, I don't know. But i don't think it's a lost cause. Even if it's a 5% chance, that's a two outer on the river...that's not bad.

Companies have lowered prices before, from CDs to Levi Jeans to Package Holidays...it does happen. There's no shame in wanting to pay less for anything. And sure, one has to accept that businesses operate to make profits and lowering prices tends to be low on the list of priorities but there's no harm in trying to achieve something and failing. There's usually very little to lose but time and maybe a little hope. It could be a lot worse. Not even trying seems worse.
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-21-2013 , 04:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1aday
The rake is too god damn high..


as you can see from my sample above it's around 9bb/100.. which is daylight robbery
jfc, why do you bother?
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-21-2013 , 04:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Totale

The price of poker went up. Less people are playing cash game poker. Take Full Tilt. Maybe their decision to ditch Iron Man and fiddle with the rakeback was a bad decision. Maybe...I don't know. Maybe the bigger sites want us all to play MTTS with the 10% rake, I don't know. But i don't think it's a lost cause. Even if it's a 5% chance, that's a two outer on the river...that's not bad.
It was a bad decision. No maybe about it.
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote
03-21-2013 , 05:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1aday
The rake is too god damn high..


as you can see from my sample above it's around 9bb/100.. which is daylight robbery
simple dont play at cheeseburger stakes or think the sites owe you a way to make a living

might as well sell things for 5 cents on ebay with free shipping and complain about the price of stamps
Rake pricing for a sustainable poker ecosystem Quote

      
m