Tony GS poker site has recently introduced a new rakeback scheme where if you lose you gain more rakeback than if you win. Think it's a decent idea to keep losing players rewarded and the money flowing around the site, they probably is some downsides to it what I haven't really thought of!
Mainly play MTT's and couldnt care less about rakeback. Promos are more fun to me and might help loosen up the sng/cash games if people need to improve winrates to get into profit.
The problem I have with it is these sites arent doing it "for the good of the game, and recreational player" theyre doing it because they believe in the long run it will be the most profitable. I refuse to now play on stars because they screwed their players and went back on promises after players grinded supernova elite for a year.
Another thing is that as rakeback is cut it means players who were playing higher stakes are now dropping down levels - because they have too, which just makes all the player pools alot tougher for the recs.
The problem I have with it is these sites arent doing it "for the good of the game, and recreational player" theyre doing it because they believe in the long run it will be the most profitable. I refuse to now play on stars because they screwed their players and went back on promises after players grinded supernova elite for a year. Another thing is that as rakeback is cut it means players who were playing higher stakes are now dropping down levels - because they have too, which just makes all the player pools alot tougher for the recs. Posted by devil_tear
Spot on, it's all about the companies profit's over the interests of the players whether they are regs or recs. Yes you can give more to recs but thats a bit of spin imo and as Neil Channing pointed out, that doesn't necessarily get more recs playing. The state of the economy is one reason why you can have all of the promos in the world aimed at recs if they haven't got the disposable income they wont come. I am sure there are other external factors.
A good move for sky to keep the lower players happy would be to get rid of the higher rake at the micros, 20% on the 30p and 60p DYMs, 15% on the £1.15s , The stupid odd rake on the £5.75 bounty hunters...
A good move for sky to keep the lower players happy would be to get rid of the higher rake at the micros, 20% on the 30p and 60p DYMs, 15% on the £1.15s , The stupid odd rake on the £5.75 bounty hunters...
A good move for sky to keep the lower players happy would be to get rid of the higher rake at the micros, 20% on the 30p and 60p DYMs, 15% on the £1.15s , The stupid odd rake on the £5.75 bounty hunters... Posted by chiggypig
not sure this thread is about current rake levels...
but why chiggypig? these games are beatable and people play them. I've always been curious as to why a 1.15 SNG can run for 6x 15p rake, the 5.50's obviously 6 x 50p and a £110 for 6 x £10=£60 a game! If anything the rake at higher levels should be cut so players play the games and don't toss fortunes backwards and forwards for 1-2% ROI.
echoing raggy's PL08 cash comments, the whole industry makes low stales PL08 cash tables unplayable, low stakes PLO isn't far off. have a word TK.
Not sure rake cuts make any long term difference to the poker economy, just tip the scales until a new equilibrium is found, & almost certainly will never happen.
Does appear that no rakeback and more promo's could entice more rec play, and maybe some would be pro's go and get a job...
In Response to Re: Goodbye rakeback. Good or bad? : not sure this thread is about current rake levels... but why chiggypig? these games are beatable and people play them.
Not sure rake cuts make any long term difference to the poker economy, just tip the scales until a new equilibrium is found, & almost certainly will never happen. Does appear that no rakeback and more promo's could entice more rec play, and maybe some would be pro's go and get a job... Posted by suzy666
The rake on the lowest games is 20% which is absolutely insane, I know if I was a micro sng player I would not be playing on sky, i'm just saying that 10% is generally the maximum, with the higher stakes games being less than that
In Response to Re: Goodbye rakeback. Good or bad? : not sure this thread is about current rake levels... but why chiggypig? these games are beatable and people play them. I've always been curious as to why a 1.15 SNG can run for 6x 15p rake, the 5.50's obviously 6 x 50p and a £110 for 6 x £10=£60 a game! If anything the rake at higher levels should be cut so players play the games and don't toss fortunes backwards and forwards for 1-2% ROI. echoing raggy's PL08 cash comments, the whole industry makes low stales PL08 cash tables unplayable, low stakes PLO isn't far off. have a word TK. Not sure rake cuts make any long term difference to the poker economy, just tip the scales until a new equilibrium is found, & almost certainly will never happen. Does appear that no rakeback and more promo's could entice more rec play, and maybe some would be pro's go and get a job... Posted by suzy666
Good post, Mr Suzy.
It'd be nice to see Sky Poker break ranks as to rake on PLO8, but the fact is, it is, & will always be, such an infinitesimally small part of the overall traffic that it makes little odds either way. PLO8, & for that matter PLO, is never going to be a significant product for any poker site.
It's a shame ( to a few of us) but that's how it is. I'll certainly "have a word", & I certainly expect then to turn a deaf 'un.
In Response to Re: Goodbye rakeback. Good or bad? : The rake on the lowest games is 20% which is absolutely insane, I know if I was a micro sng player I would not be playing on sky, i'm just saying that 10% is generally the maximum, with the higher stakes games being less than that Posted by chiggypig
Supply & demand Chiggy, it's as simple as that.
Whether we as players like it or not, as a Business, it makes no sense to sell a product for a shilling if the market shows it can be sold for 2 bob. If they halved the rake, would the traffic double? Nope.
Would prefer lower rake on some of the games eg DYM turbo games the rake is too high, should be around 5.40 for a 5 quid game. I was one of the ones not happy with the new rewards BUTTTTT They have been much better and if i was starting out again the rewards FRs would be great to have a big MTT like that 5 times a week. So - Less rakeback Less Rake paid More FRs and promos (even though they are fantastic at the min) Posted by stuarty117
Ha. So let me get this right, Stu.
You want cheaper prices but more Freerolls & Promos?
Don't play 888 anymore, heard part of the change is essentially trying to increase cross-sell across casino / sports, so you have to punt a certain amount alongside your poker in order to hit the bigger rewards moving forward? Not sure there is much win there for poker-only players of any level if so, although on the face of it seems a potentially clever business idea to get gamblers to put more of their multi-product punting through a single site... Is that, plus things like Stars bringing in casino games, a more worrying sign that poker as a standalone isn't sufficiently profitable to work anymore? Posted by shakinaces
In a way, yes. Businesses have an absolute duty to maximise their earnings, & data shows they can do this in Online Gaming by persuading Clients to play more products, more often. (i.e., spend more).
We should also remember that although, to us, poker is the be all & end all here, as a standalone, relative to the rest of the Business, it is extremely small - VERY small indeed. Small but important, & don't forget, cross sell works both ways - we get invited or enticed to move across, but Sports Bettors & Vegas (slots) players get the same enticements to come here. And we WANT those players here, as they are less experienced than we are,.
I don't think there are any "standalone" Online poker sites left, are there? It just makes no commercial sense, as there are so many ways to encourage players to play a wider variety of products.
The problem I have with it is these sites arent doing it "for the good of the game, and recreational player" theyre doing it because they believe in the long run it will be the most profitable. I refuse to now play on stars because they screwed their players and went back on promises after players grinded supernova elite for a year. Another thing is that as rakeback is cut it means players who were playing higher stakes are now dropping down levels - because they have too, which just makes all the player pools alot tougher for the recs. Posted by devil_tear
Well yes, no denying that, but it's not mutually exclusive, the two things go hand in hand, keeping recreational players Happy means the same thing. If they don't keep them happy, the Business makes less revenue.
In Response to Re: Goodbye rakeback. Good or bad? : Ha. So let me get this right, Stu. You want cheaper prices but more Freerolls & Promos? Not sure that pig will ever fly. Posted by Tikay10
Ok maybe not the Freerolls and promos as sky have already done this with the rewards freerolls which are great for some people.
But definitly the lower the rakeback and lower the rake on micro sit and goes and turbos. Not many people can beat 60p DYMs.
Some of the best dym players on the site are ony breakeven players at turbo format of dyms so if they cant beat them we have no chance. 5.50 changed to 5.40 or something ike that.
raising the awareness of the effect of rake on winrate is something that is very important.
those games are virtually unbeatble. even an incredible heater would only yield a meagre return.
people must get very fustrated when they attempt to learn the game, correctly rate themselves as being better than the player pool, yet cannot string a winning month together. there was an infamous diary on here where a micro stakes dym player put a lot of effort into his game, became one of the better players at his stake yet constantly quit due to fustration at not being able to build a bankroll.
i can see why sky do it. in a high raked enviroment all funds end up converted to rake.
is it good for the long term health of the site and fluidity across stakes?
is it a healthy poker enviroment for newer players?
i'm not so sure. as players we do well to speak out on it though.
Comments
Rewarding losing players in turn obviously rewards pros.
Rakeback should be turned into lossback.
but why chiggypig? these games are beatable and people play them.
I've always been curious as to why a 1.15 SNG can run for 6x 15p rake, the 5.50's obviously 6 x 50p and a £110 for 6 x £10=£60 a game! If anything the rake at higher levels should be cut so players play the games and don't toss fortunes backwards and forwards for 1-2% ROI.
echoing raggy's PL08 cash comments, the whole industry makes low stales PL08 cash tables unplayable, low stakes PLO isn't far off. have a word TK.
Not sure rake cuts make any long term difference to the poker economy, just tip the scales until a new equilibrium is found, & almost certainly will never happen.
Does appear that no rakeback and more promo's could entice more rec play, and maybe some would be pro's go and get a job...
It'd be nice to see Sky Poker break ranks as to rake on PLO8, but the fact is, it is, & will always be, such an infinitesimally small part of the overall traffic that it makes little odds either way. PLO8, & for that matter PLO, is never going to be a significant product for any poker site.
It's a shame ( to a few of us) but that's how it is. I'll certainly "have a word", & I certainly expect then to turn a deaf 'un.
Whether we as players like it or not, as a Business, it makes no sense to sell a product for a shilling if the market shows it can be sold for 2 bob. If they halved the rake, would the traffic double? Nope.
You want cheaper prices but more Freerolls & Promos?
Not sure that pig will ever fly.
We should also remember that although, to us, poker is the be all & end all here, as a standalone, relative to the rest of the Business, it is extremely small - VERY small indeed. Small but important, & don't forget, cross sell works both ways - we get invited or enticed to move across, but Sports Bettors & Vegas (slots) players get the same enticements to come here. And we WANT those players here, as they are less experienced than we are,.
I don't think there are any "standalone" Online poker sites left, are there? It just makes no commercial sense, as there are so many ways to encourage players to play a wider variety of products.
Incidentally, another site closed it's doors this week - Genting Online. Market efficiencies are doing their thing.
Small players are the seedcorn.
Cracking thread, this.
those games are virtually unbeatble. even an incredible heater would only yield a meagre return.
people must get very fustrated when they attempt to learn the game, correctly rate themselves as being better than the player pool, yet cannot string a winning month together. there was an infamous diary on here where a micro stakes dym player put a lot of effort into his game, became one of the better players at his stake yet constantly quit due to fustration at not being able to build a bankroll.
i can see why sky do it. in a high raked enviroment all funds end up converted to rake.
is it good for the long term health of the site and fluidity across stakes?
is it a healthy poker enviroment for newer players?
i'm not so sure. as players we do well to speak out on it though.