Here is a quote from the example article Mason linked to at the end of his post. These are not Mason’s words.


*****Quoting Steve Ruddock on parttimepoker.com ******

“It goes against conventional wisdom, but yes, you are protecting new and casual players by implementing a near unbeatable rake. And just because a game is unbeatable, doesn’t mean people won’t beat it and use it as a stepping stone to other games. The long run only applies if you play the game for the long run. In the short run, terrible players can beat a game, even one with an ungodly rake, quite handily.”

**************************************

How does the above writer think that unbeatable rake would be a positive experience for new online players? Poker players can alter ranges to account for rake, so “unbeatable rake” would be something absurdly high.

This would be an even more bizarre experience for new players, and once again would diminish new players funds much too quickly.

I think this supports the reasoning that Hold’em is just very difficult for sites to deal with.

Maybe zero rakeback or bonuses at NL.02 to NL.10 ?

And as you move up stakes you “earn” a reward of some bonuses and rakeback.

Thus, players who generate more rake dollars per hand get rewarded, and players who are learning or playing at learners stakes get no extra rakeback.

Add in multi-table limits at the learner stakes, and that would be about as rec friendly as NLHE gets.

steve ruddock is a top1 stars shill. he has written a lot of articles like that.

**** HUDs.

Jeeeez... a perfectly good discussion, and yet it also includes more polititarding than the average Facebook feed.

Make it bigger!!

The problem with banning HUDs is that it's too easy to get around, which would only create a larger separation between those that can and those that can't/won't.

The bolded is a great idea though. A higher rakeback at lower stakes for beginners will keep them in the game longer, while removing it for high volume players will force them to play higher.

End rakeback bonuses. Because it has been used continually, players have come to view it as an entitlement rather than a promotion. Sites should stop relying on it or consider using it as a limited-time promotion rather than an on-going one.

I'm a fan of replacing rakeback with some sort of lossback.

Maybe the rake should be low enough so that players have the ability to move up in stakes, but high enough so that they don't move up too quickly.

How about a hybrid system where you pay rake on hands played, but you have to pay a subscription to unlock additional features, such as the ability to play more than four tables?

What about recreational tables, where if you sit at the rec table, you can't sit at another table? So, a recreational player can choose to play with other players who are sitting at exactly one table and not multi-tabling.

There seem to be enough people who want to see it done, so maybe some site should try. Maybe putting it into practice will lead to learning how to make it less easy to get around.

The polititards always find a way

It's because the new/inexperienced/fun players don't give 2 ****s about rake. They are going to play against each other and somebody is going to win perhaps a little while the site eventually siphons away everything.

Good/experienced/regular players understand when the rake is too high to make the game profitable in the long run so they don't bother to play. They move up to where the rake is beatable long term and/or the stakes are meaningful short term.

The net result is more recreational players per table for a more fun game because it's a waste of time and money for serious players.

As for the questions (not quoted) "Why rake?" Not sure if serious.
Do you think the games run out of the benevolence of someone's heart?

Get around HUDs = allow players to change their names every week or so?

Stars can see your screen as a condition of playing on their site and can ban/keep your money if they find a HUD?

Yeah yeah, collusion, cheating etc... but banning the effectiveness of HUDs is not a game breaker.

Well this is not quoted because I never said it. Therefore, I don’t have to not answer your rhetoric.

This does the opposite of what is needed.

This subscription service is a huge benefit to those who play a lot and a large cost to recs who want to play once in a while, (rake per hand/per hour is much more to the rec than the reg) so it drives recs away, makes the games harder, drives regs away, ends the game.

Yeah, that was a different post I forgot to quote. Go ahead and skip the answer to your question though. It's over your head.

bc they're in business to make money not to make you money.

One simply solution I'm surprised I've never heard brought up:

Don't limit tables, and continue to offer rakeback/promotions/bonuses based on play.

However, restrict it so you can only earn rakeback or bonuses on one table at a time.

So people can still multi-table, but they will be paying a higher effective rake for doing so, while recreational single-tablers will still be rewarded for moving up and playing more.

So people are looking for solutions, but for what kind of problem exactly?
I suppose the question is: "How do we get more people to deposit more money into the poker eco?"
And the assumption is: When a player busts his bankroll and realises he lost his money because too many other players are better, he is less likely to redeposit than when he realises he lost the money because the game is unbeatable because of rake.
Am I missing something here, because that assumption does not make sense at all.

Also lol at this Steve Ruddock guy, of course there will be short-term winning recs in an unbeatable game, but there will be also short-term winning recs in an environment full of pros or bots, what is his point?

Fwiw, FullTilt rake at .02 was ten percent per hand. I don’t recall anyone who thought that was unbeatable, although when I noticed it I thought it was punitive against random players with a few bucks left in their account.

What portion of revenue on a site is generated below .10/.20 blinds? Any guesses or former employees have any insights?

From the perspective of PokerStars the question of whether more or less rake is "better" is a matter of profitability. Their goal is to achieve the highest sustainable profitability from the player base that plays on their website. Because they say they viewed the previous conditions as unsustainable, they made a series of decisions to try to improve them. Many of the highest volume players were unhappy with those changes as it made their personal goals more difficult to achieve in the way they achieved them before.

Since we don't have numbers to prove whether the changes have resulted in the most sustainable business condition for PokerStars, we have to try to use logic to try to figure out if a better system is possible given the same set of conditions. What we are trying to prove is whether PokerStars made a good business decision.

Is there a clever way that PokerStars could make everyone as happy (or happier) than they were before while keeping the games sustainable and increasing profitability without having to increase the rake? (or even lowering it)

Here are two major changes I would make (there are others that would help)

1. Lower rake 60 percent across the board
2. Base rake-back levels on player balances

0-100 Dollar/Euro Balance 20 percent rakeback
100-1000 Balance 30 percent rakeback
1000-5000 40 percent
5000-25000 50 percent
25000-100000 65 percent
100k-300k 75 percent
300k - 1 million 85 percent
1 million and up 100 percent

They would make the rakeback amount based on average daily balance so no gaming of system.

By changing the incentive structure to one that encouraged players to keep larger balances on the site it would increase the probability of more games at higher stakes running on the site. By lowering the basic rake rate on the site players on all levels would have a higher chance of winning. Deposits would increase substantially.

Stars would then invest the float of the higher player balances and make a higher percentage of their profits from that float. I believe that system would be much more profitable than the current system that they are using.

+1

I think no matter how sites change their rake or game structure it is inevitable that as more time passes the relative skill gap between your regs/ pros/ experienced recs and new players increases, obviously due to ever increasing access to high quality strategy material & coaching online, so the whole problem of the games not being friendly to new players may be a function of the actual game itself and it's progress in theory over the years.

I'm wondering how high rake should be to keep online sharks away from Negreanu. It surely isn't high enough as we haven't seen him around online scene forever.

On the other they should raise rake at those highroller donkaments, so businessmans can enjoy playing against each other without facing Negreanu.

More rake...

Everyone with a clue just went to stars if they were playing micro. At the time STars had bonuses for micro players that equated to Supernover or supernover elite bonuses points wise. Playing on FTP would have been a very uneducated move and I remember people bitching about FTP micro rake back then. I was playing those stakes back then and is actually why I moved most of my roll over to Stars, I got lucky and only left $50 on FTP.


LOL, you could say FTP's horrible rake is the reason I didn't ****ed over when Black Friday happened. So ya, thanks for the high rake FTP!! YOu guys were awesome!

Would you say that the unreasonable rake discouraged players who know what rake is, namely regs?