RE: rake being built into BI. I.e. instead of £100 + £10, it's £100 BI total but they take 10% of the prizepool as rake which effectively means it's actually £90 + £10 so instead of 10% rake it's 11.1%
Personally I think it probably makes a lot of recs happy. I don't think they're gonna care there's a tiny rake increase and don't think it's even gonna cross their mind that it's gonna have a small affect on their ROI... if they even have a (positive) ROI. A lot of recs are just paying for entertainment (with the added chance of winning some money obv) so from their point of view, the entertainment has just went from costing £110 to costing £100. Now every time they play 10 of these events (with the lower total BI) they effectively freeroll the 11th comp.
Neither Aussie nor myself are being critical of Sky's model. Personally I consider it to be fairly industry standard. Other well-known tournaments on rival sites, the Sunday Million for example, also make a ton of extra of rake on the side from satellites. All we're doing is providing a bit of transparency, pointing out a few numbers that the majority of rec players will be unaware of.
Of course the micro sat qualifier "in their king size bed within a 5* hotel/casino complex" won't be thinking about the rake. But for him to be there means there will be another 2499 others still at home, probably unaware they all paid 57p each from their £1.85 buy-in towards the £1425 rake Sky made off that package.
Shakinaces asks "why people are grinding satellites for cash as obviously TommyD/MattBates etc cannot profit from them". They are grinding them because a lot of unskilled players will get through to the later rounds from the micro sats, their edge is huge. Not only do micro-satellite players have to bink a 1/2500 chance raked at 44.5%, they're also gonna have to beat a field riddled with pros at the sharp end. Those that make it fully deserve every minute of their Vegas holiday.
Very interesting read. i personally think it's definitely wrong for card rooms to reserve portions of the prize pool for enforced entry to another tournament - if seats are added on top of any prize pool great, extra value, but it's not right to take money from the prizepool to cover this and then advertise it as though you're possibly getting some kind of free extra.
On a related, but slightly different note, I have often wondered why 10% rake is generally accepted as just the 'right' amount of rake for the majority of events. If I play a £3.00 + £0.30 tournament that lasts 6 hours, and then another tournament that is £100 + £10 that also lasts 6 hours, why have I had to pay so much more in real money terms for the same length of entertainment. Even if on average the structure will be better and therefore the tournament will last longer in the higher buy in, will it really last 33.3 x as long as the lower buy in one? If not why is it acceptable that I have to pay 33.3x the fees (in real terms) - did it cost the poker site any more money in costs to run the higher buy in? Similarly in live events. I've seen 2 day events where the buy-in is lets say £100 + 10, and other 2 day events where it's £700+70. What do you get extra for the 7x as much you've paid for fees in the second one?
I'm not saying the 10% is right or wrong (and I'm aware that going up to massive buy-in events the % generally comes down), and I've accepted it as fine myself - just wondered if anyone else thinks it's 'fair'? And if so/not, then why?
You do realise that £100 + £10 is basically the same as £700 + £70? Posted by hhyftrftdr
Yeah but he's saying, say those are 2 live events (£110 and £770) that both last exactly 12 hours... why does 1 tournament cost £10 per person to run/pay staff/make a profit, while the other tournament costs £70 per person to pay for all the exact same running costs and make a profit. Like obv the running costs to Sky for a £1 + 10p deepstack is the same as the running costs for the £100 + £10 Roller but one has 100x the rake.
Guess it's just standard, I see what ya mean, just the way it is I guess, there has to be some way of working out a relative rake. If they decide to work out an average rake on MTTs across the site so every comp rakes the same but they don't lose money, then Rollers might only be £100 + £5 but micro deepstacks would be pretty unbeatable at £1 + £5 lol. Needs to be relative to the game.
In Response to Re: The Price of Poker : Yeah but he's saying, say those are 2 live events (£110 and £770) that both last exactly 12 hours... why does 1 tournament cost £10 per person to run/pay staff/make a profit, while the other tournament costs £70 per person to pay for all the exact same running costs and make a profit. Like obv the running costs to Sky for a £1 + 10p deepstack is the same as the running costs for the £100 + £10 Roller but one has 100x the rake. Guess it's just standard, I see what ya mean, just the way it is I guess, there has to be some way of working out a relative rake. If they decide to work out an average rake on MTTs across the site so every comp rakes the same but they don't lose money, then Rollers might only be £100 + £5 but micro deepstacks would be pretty unbeatable at £1 + £5 lol. Needs to be relative to the game. Posted by Lambert180
Not all games are profitable for a poker room. They know overall what they need to get in and this obviously works out to the 10% rake taken.
Also, casinos will get other money from players. Table games/drinks etc mean they may lose from the poker game but profit overall from that player in the time they are in the casino.
We don't play satellites, instead we decide to play £10+1 tournaments and pay for a £200+20 seat out of accumulated winnings when we've made enough. We have a 20% long term ROI on the £11 games.
1. How much rake do we pay for the £200 buy-in?
2. Does it really matter?
3. Is this off topic enough and have I missed the point?
Comments
RE: rake being built into BI. I.e. instead of £100 + £10, it's £100 BI total but they take 10% of the prizepool as rake which effectively means it's actually £90 + £10 so instead of 10% rake it's 11.1%
Personally I think it probably makes a lot of recs happy. I don't think they're gonna care there's a tiny rake increase and don't think it's even gonna cross their mind that it's gonna have a small affect on their ROI... if they even have a (positive) ROI. A lot of recs are just paying for entertainment (with the added chance of winning some money obv) so from their point of view, the entertainment has just went from costing £110 to costing £100. Now every time they play 10 of these events (with the lower total BI) they effectively freeroll the 11th comp.
Of course the micro sat qualifier "in their king size bed within a 5* hotel/casino complex" won't be thinking about the rake. But for him to be there means there will be another 2499 others still at home, probably unaware they all paid 57p each from their £1.85 buy-in towards the £1425 rake Sky made off that package.
Shakinaces asks "why people are grinding satellites for cash as obviously TommyD/MattBates etc cannot profit from them". They are grinding them because a lot of unskilled players will get through to the later rounds from the micro sats, their edge is huge. Not only do micro-satellite players have to bink a 1/2500 chance raked at 44.5%, they're also gonna have to beat a field riddled with pros at the sharp end. Those that make it fully deserve every minute of their Vegas holiday.
Guess it's just standard, I see what ya mean, just the way it is I guess, there has to be some way of working out a relative rake. If they decide to work out an average rake on MTTs across the site so every comp rakes the same but they don't lose money, then Rollers might only be £100 + £5 but micro deepstacks would be pretty unbeatable at £1 + £5 lol. Needs to be relative to the game.
Should learn to write less Paul
Also, casinos will get other money from players. Table games/drinks etc mean they may lose from the poker game but profit overall from that player in the time they are in the casino.
So you'd have paid 100 x £1 (£100) in rake