I agree. I have never heard one explanation that I find suitable why Dealt RB (Rakeshare) even still exists. Both common sense and fairness suggest that only (Weighted) Contributed RB makes sense.

Interesting points.

If you remove rakeback accross all sites you would have to reduce rake otherwise the house keeps all the money which would cause games to dry up.

lol...it is just hypothetical so no worries for you now. and if they ever did get rid of rakeback you could still make money off referring people like before rakeback...

Is OP seriously suggesting that it would be better for the sites to increase rake?

lol, I bet the poker sites wish all their players were like the OP.

In the Cake Poker thread, I thought Lee Jones said it well when he said that he didn't like contributed RB because it fundamentally changes the way people play. With dealt RB, everyone is free to play as tight or loose as they want, but with contributed, players feel forced to play looser.

Of course, dealt RB encourages people to play tight which tends to nit up the games, but there isn't that pressure to play that way like there is in contributed RB.

Neither method is perfect.

I have to strongly disagree with Lee then. I think the exact opposite. When you get deals on Dealt RB sites, there are always tons of people nitting it up, even on prop sites. So tons of times people play super tight and pickup rakeback from rake other contributed. I think that is nonsense. People should be given rakeback on rake they themselves contributed. That is why only Contributed makes sense, and why I strongly feel Dealt causes people to tighten up. Cake, Full Tilt and WPEX are all perfect examples to prove my point.

Yeah, I can't agree with Lee's point. If he point loosen up when dealt rakeback is changed to weighted contributed, it's not because weighted contributed rakeback encourages looseness. It's because dealt rakeback rewards tightness.

The fish are going to play however they want. They don't care.

The nits are not playing super tight because they like to play super tight. They play super tight because dealt rakeback makes it profitable.

I agree completely. From both regular sites and prop sites I have noticed the same thing consistently over the years.

I can't figure out why there aren't large poker sites that charge less than the outrageous rates of the established ones. The fees are so ridiculously high (a few fully stacked coinflips and the rake percentage goes through the roof) that there should be a whole range of products with cheaper pricing below that.

That this isn't happening (outside of different RB percentages) makes the industry even more suspicious to me than it already is.

So what would happen is for once that they would lose me as a player, like Party did after my first few months of playing and observing rake amounts in the tracker. And if all sites did the same, I would consider quitting online poker, unless my play improves enough for medium stakes where rake % is more reasonable.

The people who grind just for rakeback would only have to get better to account for the loss of rakeback and then they would be making what they were previously.

Don't really see what this is going to achieve.

Because the players won't play at them - WSEX and Betraiser immediately come to mind.

Which one do you play at?

Agreed. I do play at both, but they have limited traffic. When you get right down to it, no rake or low rake is only a marketing point to serious players. Then most grinders want to play 10+ tables at a time, and those sites are not good for that. Fish and casual players do not understand or care to understand rake.

First of all i totally agree with OP! Bring back 5x any raked hand bonuses instead

Guy at the cas said to me "i just cant believe they have dealers here for poker HOW DO THEY MAKE THEIR MONEY!" Cas charges 10% upto $10

So LAGs only play that way so they get more rakeback at contributed sites?
As was said earlier any player survivng purely on rakeback is actually making at least 3 times that but the site is taking 2/3 or more.

I'd start playing games other than rebuys at Full Tilt if rakeback were abolished. I was one of the screwed high volume MTT players there that quit for a long time. I cam back and just play rebuys since they don't get as much rake for those.

To be honest, I haven't heard of them. So the answer might be "because they can't spend enormous sums on marketing like the expensive rooms".

bingo

Right, but what's your excuse? I mean no offense, but if you've been here for 9 months and you haven't even heard of WSEX or betraiser, you haven't been trying that hard to find low/no rake rooms.

So while a lack of funds to advertise are certainly part of the problem, player apathy plays into it as well IMO.

.

I am not really interested in "no rake" rooms since I think you get what you pay for, and that can't be a lot when the service is free. 25% of the normal rake is also a bit suspicious.

Yes I haven't been looking much for alternatives, but the point is, if there was normal competition like in any other business, this probably wouldn't be necessary as you could easily find different price structures. Why are there no rooms with 2 or 3% rake. I wonder if there are price arrangements.

There are plenty. 5% rake - 60% rakeback = 2% rake.

As ^ said there are plenty of rooms with reduced rake in a round about way. I do think there has been somewhat informal collusion between the rooms after the US shut-out. Want an example the only time FT or PS really do anything is when the other 1 does, also there have been offers that non-us players have recieved that US were'nt. In terms of getting what u pay for WSEX support was real good 2yrs ago and their profit structure was to make money on sportsbook/casino.

I think the reward systems are badly designed. They are designed so you benefit from being very tight and letting others amass the rake.

I think the reward systems should encourage action. I think reward systems should encourage casual players. I think reward systems should discourage extreme multitabling. I think reward systems should discourage short stacking as it currently is.

All the sites have done is to create a poker climate that isn't very entertaining. And the ones fuelling this business play for entertainment.

FTP is taking positive steps when they go after short stackers. IPoker is switching to contributed rake and going after parasitic skins. That shows that at least some parts of this market is thinking about what attracts the majority of their customers. The ones who doesn't whine on 2+2.