You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Goodbye rakeback. Good or bad?

13»

Comments

  • MrWh1teMrWh1te Member Posts: 963
    edited March 2016
    The problem is, they all fill up very quickly, so nothing will change.  The only way to force change would be to boycott the stakes until the rake changes.

    But I don't believe that a big enough boycott could be organised to make a difference.
  • TeddyBloatTeddyBloat Member Posts: 1,419
    edited March 2016
    for sure most are happy playing regardless.

    but is it a good thing long term for the site?

    would lower rake at the micro stakes lead to more deposits? deposits would last longer, which short / medium term may not be a good thing for sky: the deposits would last longer and it would create winning players who may actually withdraw themselves.

    but in a longer time frame would games be more attractive? would players move up stakes and increase liquidity there? would more games run across the site? would word of mouth and referals increae?

    i dont know. but i dont think having games that are unbeatable due to rake is a good thing for the players there. whether they care or not.

  • GaryQQQGaryQQQ Member Posts: 6,804
    edited March 2016
    I'm definitely glad to see the end of the rakeback era, clearly now an unsustainable model in an industry that's in a slow decline. I'm sure it worked great during the glorious poker boom, but those years are long gone now.

    AJS makes the best point here. I agree, 'lossback' is the future. Better for recs, which in turn is better for everybody else, including the pros.

    Giving the lions share of rewards directly to those at the top of the pyramid is flawed thinking. It should be going to those at the bottom. Most of it will still end up at the top anyway, but those whose hands it passed through first will be a much happier bunch than if they'd never seen it.
  • 67Bhoys67Bhoys Member Posts: 2,553
    edited March 2016

    As a microstakes player at DYMs, I would say that the 20% level is virtually impossible to beat.

    In all the PLO8 challanges, very few players over a sustained number of games achieved over 60% win rate. This is only break even at the 20% rake level.

    I don't agree with Tikay, if you can sell something for two bob, why sell it for a shilling. If you want to attract new customers, give them a chance to make some profit at all the games that you offer.  Those with small rolls that want to play the bottom levels and work their way up have no chance at the current rake levels.  Will the volume double?  Probably not, but if some players could build a small roll by making profits at the microstakes, then they may move up the stakes and generate more rake.

    I also agree that word of mouth would generate more traffic, which would be beneficial to the site in the longer term. 

    Microstakes players such as myself, do feel aggrieved at having to pay higher rake levels than those playing at higher levels.  It should be 10% across the board IMO. 
  • Itsover4uItsover4u Member Posts: 1,538
    edited March 2016
    is it just me that see's the rakeback as a massive + for sky?

    Nice to get a thank you for your custom / hardwork at the end of a week... also makes a losing week easier to stomach on a Monday
Sign In or Register to comment.