It is not a free for all, it is controlled by demand.

Either way, I think there are probably more pressing dangers if you are worried about the "death" of online poker. (So melodramatic by the way) Perhaps this energy should be spent writing your local congressman/woman and getting this whole UIGEA thing sorted out.

Of course, if you aren't American this doesn't apply.

Yeah... I am not American but I guess poker dying in America would kill the game down ...

I won 30 dollars today(I am new to poker etc) and the rake was 15 dollars....

Thats insane...totally insane. What about everyone in this thread emails them with "Please lower the rake" or some **** for a start. We should do millions of lame **** like that maybe it would make a difference. lol

Keep mentioning it I guess.

Everyone knows already players would like lower rake...I'd like the price of gasoline to go down as well. This is basic economics, I'd be willing to guess that even the OP of this thread is still currently playing poker online.

Well, I want you to participate. But, you have to concede that management's interests and players' interests are different. Will you at least concede that?

Also, do you have any idea how many pokerstars reps post on 2p2?

Objectivity is possible. Just so you know.

Also, businesses and their customers obviously have different goals, but this is true about every single business (that doesn't go bankrupt).

The core issue of whether rake is too high can be argued objectively no matter what side of the fence you are on. The bottom line is that if the rakes were "too high" then they would be lowered.

I find it really lolable that 24 tabling cash and 35 tabling SnGs is the norm nowadays. I still get all flustered with 8 6 max tables open.

Exactly. It is the single most important issue that the players and the game face. High rakes chase away live ones whether those who only joined the poker bandwagon during the boom know it or not. Live ones get shredded online and never get to cash out. Bye bye boom.

It is really the biggest issue the owners face, but they don't realize it. Their shortsightedness has hurt the industry tremedously.

(I suspect that the poker owners want to keep it illegal in the US or at least in limbo. What good comes of competition? The day people can open their own online card rooms in the good old US of A is the day stars and ftp become a lot less valuable. It is critical in the future that player's have representation when this comes before congress. Watch very closely to see if and how the big sites try to prevent competition, ie RAKE COMPETITION. Watch this one. What will be critically important is advertising rules.)

Multitable=Multirake. Is another explanation necessary?

Yeah, but it IS reasonable to lower the rake. Petrol on the other hand is scarce etc etc.

Eugh...this sucks the more I think about it. I would make more than 2x what I currently grind like a fool.

You don't actually think the price of fuel is solely determined by how much of it there is?

my point is that this doesnt matter since you are seeing so many more hand.

actually, either you have no reading comprehension or no memory, bc i completely agreed with this point from the beginning.

weird, i won a $50 pot playing 1/2 online and paid 2.50 in rake, a couple weeks ago i was playing live 1/2 and won a $50 pot and paid double that in rake. I'm pretty sure that casinos have been alive and well for decades by charging a higher rake than that which you will find online. Online poker has a lot bigger issues than getting the rake down from 5% to 3%. Your pissing in the wind.

Nobody disputes what you said about the cost of a hand. You haven't followed any of the discussion and then you try to chime in. How much do you know about rake? Really, tell us.

I wasn't addressing you felt.

Be that as it may, all you are saying now is that the rakes can't be too high, because if they were they would be lowered and hence not too high. But this is a ridiculous argument. You as usual are just trolling the rake thread to try and disrupt it. We've seen your act before.

Victor,
I accept your point,and it is true.My point is that you have to look at the bigger picture.The fact is a person is paying more rake,we agree not by hand,but by session,and yes you will get more hands in that session,and we agree so will everyone else.I sound Like I'm repeating myself.A 10-20 player live would be equivalent to 12 tabling .50-1.You will pay more rake in the .50-1 example.
This thread is about rake,not sure why you would pass it off to other major problems.I understand there are other issues,but again,this thread is about rake,and there are other threads dealing with other topics.

It's funny, while everyone would like less rake, mindless droning and pure idiocy in your arguments for it hurt any cause for such, and rally support against yourselves.

If you went about your issue with some integrity and intelligence, you would be more well received, it wouldn't be a 2-star thread that everyone dismisses etc. There have been sites with 70-100% rakeback and look how well those worked.

Basically, this means that people like noFX just shouldn't post until he takes a basic common sense tutorial, then an economics class.

Thank for your contribution.Your post will help I'm sure.
Btw,
I've already stated I'm not very smart.I'm a poker player,always have been.I dropped out of high school.I am hoping that someone more main stream will pick up this fight.I am not into trying to outwit,or prove anyone wrong.

But again,ty for pointing out the obv,and thank you you for being part of the solution,not part of the problem,cause I'm sure that's what you are meaning to be.

So here's me giving the ball to you aoFrantic.

It is very funny how those that defend the present extreme rake rip off poker destroying status quo always claim to know how to persuade people.

As for the 2 stars, there are many site reps on here who have votes. Some no doubt have mutliple votes. They game the forums. They create many accounts. You can see a large number of pro rake posters have only recently joined. How is it that in a year someone can have such developed views on rake? More likely they are just posters with multiple accounts.

All FX and I are saying is that if you consider online and B&M to be two gambling black boxes, it costs a lot more to gamble online. At least double or triple and maybe a lot more depending on how you calculate it. I don't mind them getting filthy rich. What I object to is how their selfishness has chased away more fish than you can imagine. If you have only been playing a year or if you are just a site rep who doesn't have a real poker background, then you likely haven't a clue what I'm talking about. But if you know about poker, then you know that the live ones have to be allowed to cash out once in a while. Enough so that they can lie to themselves about their results and keep coming back. But the sites grab so damn much, that they have CHASED AWAY THE LIVE ONES. All of the anecdotal evidence supports this too. I know lots of live ones who returned to B&M b/c they got shredded. Others just LEFT POKER COMPLETELY. In rakeless poker, half of the players win on a given night. Now, online, the number of players who win on a given night is maybe 10%.

The rake is more than three times live rake PER HOUR.

HOw do u guys feel about games where they are raking 5-10k a night in a 10/25 nl game?

This is a great question and demands a precise answer.

When I played live the best games BELIEVE IT OR NOT were those with the highest rakes. I didn't mind paying more.

SO, WHAT IS OUR PRINCIPLE?

If the game is extremely good, a high rake is fine.
If the game is extremely bad, a low rake is appropriate.

Tell me how much the game is worth to you per hour and tell me your rake share per hour and I'll tell you what I think.

its not. quit spreading misinformation.

30/60 in vegas has a 14$/hr time charge. 9 person tables so 126$/hr.

30/60 online averages .57bb/100 hands of rake. that is 34.20$/100. assume 100 hands in an hour per table. of course those numbers are 6max. if you play fullring the rake/hr is even less. proly by about 30%.

last i checked 34.20 is less than 126. at this rate i could play 4 tables of 6max and be about on the level of live.

you want lower hourly rake? play less tables. and further, play full ring.

i generally dont play more than 1 table so dont tell me its unrealistic.

STOPRAKEGREED, why do you refuse to address the fact that you can also EARN a lot more money playing online than live. The rake is actually half the cost online than it is live, however, more hands are played so you may contribute more rake per hour. However, with more hands played you also have the ability to earn a lot more money.

Your argument is seriously flawed and you're failure to address this key issue only goes to show the frailty of your position.

PS. This is a 2 star thread because that's what it deserves, not because of some mass conspiracy against your thread brought upon by poker rooms.

Guys,
Really though comparing online to live is somewhat apples and oranges.Live is heavily over raked,it's true.My goal is to discuss and hopefully lower online rake.I would like live to be lowered,but that is usually something done on a in person,local level.

Victor,
If 30-60 is is within someones bank roll to play,then they would play this live I can accept that.If that same 30-60 player were to play online,I doubt he would play a single 30-60 game.He would probably play something like 4 8-16's,6 5-10's,etc.In reality,he may well be paying more rake that way.

Here is what I am thinking.Get rid of rakeback.Charge a flat rate for play online(something like $1.25 dollars an hour?)And that would cover the cost of one game.Then they could add like .10c an hour for each additional table you play.That would cover live.For sng's and tourneys there would be a 2% rake instead of the 10% currently,with a max of 5 dollars.(There is no reason a higher buy in event needs a higher tourney fee).Some of the tourney fees get into the hundreds of dollars witch is absurd because it takes no more to run those then it would a freeroll.

All this sounds way to good,I know.The point I am trying to make is it would be better to pay time,then the way they have it set up now.They have created an atmosphere where you are encouraged to step down in limits,and multitable.This creates more rake.The reason why is fpp's,and rake back,both of witch need to go bye,bye

sweet. we agree. now stop using live rake to justify lowering online rake.

The fact that a live game is so much better than an online one is an interesting point. Its worth paying more than twice the rake live, because even a break even ssnl player online would crush most live games even if you take out a couple more ptBB100 because of the droolers that will pay them off with anything. But the site can't really think about it that way.

rake paid per hour would be amazing and will never happen