so if 10 players deposit 100 dollars each and play each other the site takes 950 and one player ends up wtihdrawing 50 dollars?

doesnt make sense to me

Seems about right.

Your example is difficult to comprehend because that isn't really what is happening online. It's not as obvious as that example. It's more similar to a 10 players depositing $100 each online and some going on to win and some going on the lose and bust. Some new players will fill the void of the older players that lost but the money keeps getting re-raked in the process even that of the consistent winners. The winners are just paying rake in the form of that of their winnings(other player's deposits).

13.37

you wrote wrote and wrote and did not prove ANYTHING

theres no way sites rakes 95% os deposits, doesnt make any sense at all lol

where is the proof?

It absolutely is 90%+ and it is absurd. The vast majority of players lose, rake is the real reason there are so many rigtard conspiracies.

Actually when one thinks about it carefully, one will realise that the site will eventually rake 100% of all deposits.

If an individual hand has 5% rake, after 20 hands one will have paid 100% of ones starting amount. If one has won some money during those 20 hands, then the loss to rake is covered up a little, but it doesn't hide the fact that the original deposit has been swallowed up by rake.

This is why the sites need new players to add money to pools that are reduced by rake, otherwise the players on the sites run out of money after having been bled to death by rake.

So a fixed fee would be a great way round this problem.

Why are you so shocked? Did you really think winning players capture 80% of the money that's deposited? You are extremely out of touch with the way online poker works if you believe that to be the case.

Re-read cneuy3's post. He explains it perfectly. The rake that winning players "pay" is just losing players' deposits getting constantly raked and re-raked.

I don't have any proof on hand, but if you message the OP of this thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...r-pro-1497285/ he should give you some proof. If you want some anecdotal evidence, just look at rake paid vs winnings for micro/small stakes cash regs. Rake paid dwarfs winnings in almost every case.

Where is your proof that a much lower percentage is being raked? If a winning player pays over 50% of his winnings to rake and there are like 20% winning players, how much rake do you think is being taken?

Also if only 20% of the money is being raked, nobody is going to pay a fixed price per month because they would be taking home stacks of high society and not care about rake.

subscriptions for rake free poker would be a disaster, the site is the only one that's going to lose in that scenario.

FTP had it right years ago, a flat % paid into players accounts on a weekly basis, rather than try offer fancy reward systems, just lower the overall rake and pay people out a % to keep people interested in coming back.

if a rec knows his rb is coming into his account every monday morning, he's going to be logging in and playing. Once you've got someone at the computer gambling the likelihood of them continuing to play once the rb has been busted is probably quite high.

No because the only people who would be attracted to such a site are regs who are conscious of the rake they pay

Meanwhile it'd be a total turnoff to recs - pay to play, or play for "free", choice is obvious

Even if you paid less rake overall it wouldn't be worthwhile

I have actual experience watching a poker network very carefully for a number of years.

Historically, and roughly speaking, back when limit holdem was the norm, sites raked about 40 to 45% of deposits, this held day after day on a daily basis for years. It was surprisingly consistent. The other 55% - 60 % went out as cash outs.

With NLH taking over, the gross rake as a % of new deposits dropped to around 35%.

Some players, heavy depositors, generated rake of only 10% of their deposits rake from their play; other players, who were consistent winners and almost never deposited, generated rake > 100% of their very infrequent deposits.

These estimates held for stakes around $1-2.

When money is in action it is raked, as a fee for providing the game; otherwise it is not raked.

Players cash out on a regular basis. Some of those cashing out are winning players, who take their winnings and buy cheeseburgers. Money spent on cheeseburgers is not raked. Did you consider that ?

This has to be a level, otherwise it is really, really missing the point of "cashouts", which take more money off a site's deposits generally than does rake.

Sites, in theory, would need new deposits even if no one cashed out, but a site would die long before the rake ate up all deposits because players do stop playing and cash out if there are no games to be had.

yes

poker sites rakes 95% of deposits

no one wins

no one cashouts

lol you guys are funny

i personally make cashouts EVERY SINGLE DAY and im small winner

theres a lot of cashouts

I think from all deposits at least 50% is cashed out

Gzesh is the only one right here

Yes, 100% is eventually raked of course

We have 4 Sunday Million winners per month

What a SM winner who wins 200k do? He plays high stakes until all the money is raked?

No!

He cashs out the 200k and buys an apartment

How can you think that everything is raked in the long run? lol

Also, when you say that "recs dont care about rake, they dont know what this is" you are showing a terrible prejudice and being extremely offensive to the ones who lose money

Typical from stupid poker players who thinks that because they are good on a card game they are smarter than everyone in the world and forget that the ones who lose on poker makes money on something else in life and are usually very intelligent people

Or you have the other side of the coin where you have Stars who FTs every week in the million.

Assume 5,000 runners week over week, at $15/runner that's $75k

That's $75,000 that's instantly removed from the games.

OP why don't you go cry a river. Jees go back to your safe space you snowflake.

And of course 75k is 95% of players deposits so theres nothing left for players to cash out

This.

I think the 2017 rec is no where near as uneducated about this stuff as a 2007 rec player. If anyone is a rec in 2017 its because they like/love poker but they just suck at it.

What are you going on about ? I never said anything about 95% of players deposits = rake. I was just outlining the absurd amount of money they are already making in rake.

Not so, rake is lost to the game forever, cashouts come back into the game when players who have cashed out re-deposit later on, or lose to players in live games who then deposit that money onto sites.

Players stop playing because of excessive rake, it is the site owners killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

Why you have chosen to take such a condescending line is perplexing. You're the one who started all of this with your absurd 20% figure, for which you provided no evidence. Now you've said that Gzesh is right, and his figures ranged from 35-45%, which is far more than 20%, yet you continue to post like anyone who disputes what you have to say is a moron. But congratulations on completely derailing your thread, as I assume at this point that must be what you're after.

How recently was this, and do you think that figure holds true today?

Because that's what an unfortunately high percentage of thread starters do after not getting the kind of response they had hoped for when starting the thread.

Other than the interesting question of what percentage of deposits a poker site rakes, this thread has run its course. OP asked a question and basically everybody who responded told him why that's not going to happen.

I'd place the switch-over to predominantly NLHE about 2003 - 2004. Since then a ton of variants in tournament formatting have also arisen and sites like Stars are dabbling in sports, DFS, etc.

I cannot say if that 35% estimate for gross revenue/rake/fees per $ deposited holds true today. The revenue streams derived from deposits made to a site operator offering poker are likely quite varied on sites in business today, across a variety of markets and gaming formats. There are publicly reporting companies that can provide better, current figures for poker rake v deposits.

I offered it only as a framework: Revenue as a % of deposits v. cashouts as a % of deposits was a useful tool for valuing one aspect a player's contribution to the poker ecosystem . Winning players generate a lot of rake, but take cash out a lot. Losing players do not generally generate as much rake over time and certainly not as a % of deposits, not even considering the costs of bringing in deposits.

Deposits and losing players are essential to the sustainability of a site; but so are winning players, who generate rake derived from the otherwise too-costly transaction costs of really bad players' aggregate deposits. Even "really bad players" online are sort of a loss-leader, so long as the winning players stick around enough to generate rake from funds derived from those really bad players' deposits.

Thanks, Gzesh.

Given the changes to rewards, rake, etc. in the last 10+ years, I'd think that 35% number would be substantially higher now.