OMG... finally got thru 9 pages of this thread and what can I say that.. no one really gives a sht what I think .. I'm not trying to cause any offence to any one, I've played on stars and other sites and no what the rake is on the games I play and except what I pay as a losing player I really do not give a sht all I no is I only lose what I'm happy to lose not sure after 9 pages what the ? was im so confused but I do respect chicknmelt as a winning player as I do other players that are far better and understand the game far better than me .. if dobie dip sht is such a great player why not just go play on poker stars and leave us sky players rather than pss me off with your I'm right your wrong attitude again I have after 9 pages forgotten what this thread was about but hay ho … im on team chick on this .. I no, lets have a referendum and take 2 yrs to get a agreement to disagree and then back out only to disagree …time for more vodka ...LETS PARTY ..make love not war …
Firstly can your insults , it's unnecessary. Secondly , don't type on an internet forum while you're drunk , it just makes you look more stupid . Thirdly, I've never claimed to be a good player and I don't need to be to have an opinion on rake . Finally it's not about me being right and other being people wrong , it's a debate and debates normally have opposing views .
Asks someone to stop insulting them, then on the very next sentence calls said person ''stupid''.
Think you need to practice what you preach.
I think you need to find something better to do with your time than troll on here . And for purposes of clarification , it is trolling when people like you deliberately seek out certain people to dig . Amazing how you get away with it time after time!
You love pulling people up on stuff, but hate it when you get pulled up yourself.
Don't ask not to be insulted, to then call someone stupid.
"I wonder if sky have a response/ are going to take any action?"
I'd bet my bankroll (such as it is!) that they wont.
I made a similar thread about 6 years ago.
What's most alarming is it's the microstakes that are raked the highest.
I'm not sure about the sit and gos nowardays, but I believe they used to charge 15% rake, even at 30pence games.
As opposed to 10% higher up....
And cash games at 10nl and below are charged at 7.5% rake, whilst higher up is only 5%.
This seems really dumb to me, as these are the entry levels for almost all poker players, who flick a tenner on here and there for some fun...
These are the players that keep the game going, like investing in future players which poker needs to survive...
....and these rake fees are making it nigh on impossible for anyone to win...
Even experienced players would struggle to beat 30p dyms @ 15% rake.
It just doesn't make sense to me, give people a chance to actually win in the games and they're more likely to return and play again?
I hope things are different this time.
There may be different people making the decision.
Some of the factors that helped make the decision have changed somewhat since then - I imagine it was a lot easier to find people that actually won at them back then. Its clear rake is the only real winner right now!
OMG... finally got thru 9 pages of this thread and what can I say that.. no one really gives a sht what I think .. I'm not trying to cause any offence to any one, I've played on stars and other sites and no what the rake is on the games I play and except what I pay as a losing player I really do not give a sht all I no is I only lose what I'm happy to lose not sure after 9 pages what the ? was im so confused but I do respect chicknmelt as a winning player as I do other players that are far better and understand the game far better than me .. if dobie dip sht is such a great player why not just go play on poker stars and leave us sky players rather than pss me off with your I'm right your wrong attitude again I have after 9 pages forgotten what this thread was about but hay ho … im on team chick on this .. I no, lets have a referendum and take 2 yrs to get a agreement to disagree and then back out only to disagree …time for more vodka ...LETS PARTY ..make love not war …
Firstly can your insults , it's unnecessary. Secondly , don't type on an internet forum while you're drunk , it just makes you look more stupid . Thirdly, I've never claimed to be a good player and I don't need to be to have an opinion on rake . Finally it's not about me being right and other being people wrong , it's a debate and debates normally have opposing views .
Asks someone to stop insulting them, then on the very next sentence calls said person ''stupid''.
Think you need to practice what you preach.
Hey HHetc
I think you've missed the point(slightly)....Adrian Durham's mum doesn't say Will (@hanson) is stupid...she already thinks he is..she said MORE stupid!
Still, at least she doesn't insult people by publicly correcting their grammar to show how intellectually superior she is- ooops, sorry , yes she does that as well...
OMG... finally got thru 9 pages of this thread and what can I say that.. no one really gives a sht what I think .. I'm not trying to cause any offence to any one, I've played on stars and other sites and no what the rake is on the games I play and except what I pay as a losing player I really do not give a sht all I no is I only lose what I'm happy to lose not sure after 9 pages what the ? was im so confused but I do respect chicknmelt as a winning player as I do other players that are far better and understand the game far better than me .. if dobie dip sht is such a great player why not just go play on poker stars and leave us sky players rather than pss me off with your I'm right your wrong attitude again I have after 9 pages forgotten what this thread was about but hay ho … im on team chick on this .. I no, lets have a referendum and take 2 yrs to get a agreement to disagree and then back out only to disagree …time for more vodka ...LETS PARTY ..make love not war …
Firstly can your insults , it's unnecessary. Secondly , don't type on an internet forum while you're drunk , it just makes you look more stupid . Thirdly, I've never claimed to be a good player and I don't need to be to have an opinion on rake . Finally it's not about me being right and other being people wrong , it's a debate and debates normally have opposing views .
Asks someone to stop insulting them, then on the very next sentence calls said person ''stupid''.
Think you need to practice what you preach.
Hey HHetc
I think you've missed the point(slightly)....Adrian Durham's mum doesn't say Will (@hanson) is stupid...she already thinks he is..she said MORE stupid!
Still, at least she doesn't insult people by publicly correcting their grammar to show how intellectually superior she is- ooops, sorry , yes she does that as well...
To be fair , it wouldn't be harder to be more superior than certain people ...if the top hat fits ! By the way , feel free to carry on sniding about me , it only makes you look even more stupid .
"If the balance in an ecosystem swings too far in the direction of a pro dominated poker game, the ecosystem as a whole suffers. I don’t think raising the rake is the solution to fixing the ecosystem, but I do think reducing or eliminating reward bonuses to high volume winning players is a no-brainer."
A direct quote from negreanu's article.
I think this is they key to your worries Dobie (which are: reducing rake will make the games tougher due to more regs, recs will lose even quicker). Having promotions that reward high volume regulars is the main thing that makes games tougher, not having a rake level that allows people to actually win. Its really noticeable every time there is one on - all the games related to the promotion become infested with regs.
OMG... finally got thru 9 pages of this thread and what can I say that.. no one really gives a sht what I think .. I'm not trying to cause any offence to any one, I've played on stars and other sites and no what the rake is on the games I play and except what I pay as a losing player I really do not give a sht all I no is I only lose what I'm happy to lose not sure after 9 pages what the ? was im so confused but I do respect chicknmelt as a winning player as I do other players that are far better and understand the game far better than me .. if dobie dip sht is such a great player why not just go play on poker stars and leave us sky players rather than pss me off with your I'm right your wrong attitude again I have after 9 pages forgotten what this thread was about but hay ho … im on team chick on this .. I no, lets have a referendum and take 2 yrs to get a agreement to disagree and then back out only to disagree …time for more vodka ...LETS PARTY ..make love not war …
Firstly can your insults , it's unnecessary. Secondly , don't type on an internet forum while you're drunk , it just makes you look more stupid . Thirdly, I've never claimed to be a good player and I don't need to be to have an opinion on rake . Finally it's not about me being right and other being people wrong , it's a debate and debates normally have opposing views .
Asks someone to stop insulting them, then on the very next sentence calls said person ''stupid''.
Think you need to practice what you preach.
Hey HHetc
I think you've missed the point(slightly)....Adrian Durham's mum doesn't say Will (@hanson) is stupid...she already thinks he is..she said MORE stupid!
Still, at least she doesn't insult people by publicly correcting their grammar to show how intellectually superior she is- ooops, sorry , yes she does that as well...
To be fair , it wouldn't be harder to be more superior than certain people ...if the top hat fits ! By the way , feel free to carry on sniding about me , it only makes you look even more stupid .
When trying to show that you are somehow "better" than other people, probably best to think carefully first.
"Superior" is, like "unique", a non-gradable adjective. You either are superior, or you are not. Claiming to be "more superior" does not help your cause. Neither does both insulting people while simultaneously objecting to people insulting others.
I'm sure prof knows he looks silly in a hat. However, as @tomgoodun so kindly pointed out in RTM, it does have the benefit of preventing "bald guy dazzle"
I haven't read this whole thread, and therefore apologise if I am repeating stuff that has previously been said.
When comparing the rakes with other sites, you surely have to take the rakeback into account.
I just logged onto Pokerstars to have a look, and they have 30,000 players playing, while Sky have 572.
They also have the advantage of a wider coverage, and good player numbers throughout a 24 hour period.
There is much greater leeway on rakes with larger player numbers.
Sky have a responsibility to make a profit, stay in business, not go bankrupt, and protect our bankrolls.
The very top volume players get 40% of their rake returned to them, while priority players get 30% returned.
It would surely be pointless to reduce the rake, and adjust the rakeback to take account of this.
It would also surely be pointless to reduce the rake on some games and increase it on others to compensate.
To ask Sky just to reduce rakes on some games without doing either of the two points above, is asking them to voluntarily reduce their profit. This is not something that most companies are prepared to do.
To reduce the rake on the more popular games would have a bigger effect on profit margins.
The rake also has to cover the cost of all the freerolls and promotions.
Players that play on Sky, do so for different reasons, to those that play on Pokerstars.
When we used to have a betting tax everyone paid 10%, whether you bet £1 or £10k, and whether it was on a dog race that took 30 seconds, a football match that took 90 minutes, or a golf tournament that took 4 days. Nobody got any of the tax back.
The bigger volume players are rewarded with a bigger rakeback on every game they play, whether it is a dym that lasts 20 minutes, or a tourney that lasts four or five hours.
My argument is that the sit n go's would run a lot more often if the rake was more competitive. Maybe there would be a short term hit on profits, but in the long run I would argue the opposite.
There is an optimum price point for everything and its my feeling that its off on SNGs currently.
In the (admittedly flawed) poll over half of people who responded said they would play more if rake was less, and quite a few people mentioned before the poll existed that they don't play because the rake is too high.
There is an Indian restaurant quite near me that had a half price food promo. It was so successful they decided to keep the food at half price and continue to be full every night.
There are not that many players that get to priority with sit n go's currently either.
An interesting discussion and like Haysie I have not read every single comment. I think that we have to be a little fair to Sky here. With a limited geographical player base, it can never hope to achieve the volume that many other sites achieve. Yet it has a certain level of fixed costs to cover just to make the games available. This perhaps means that across the board the rake charged on average is higher than other sites and that in certain games such as TDYM the differential is higher. I think that as a player on Sky this is something that I have to accept. I don't always purchase the cheapest product - sometimes I purchase another product which is more expensive because I prefer it.
If I felt that Sky was exploiting me by making excessive profits on the higher rake, I might take a different view, but I don't believe this to be the case from the financial results I have seen. If we ask Sky to give in certain areas we have to expect them to take in others.
With Sky becoming part of The Stars Group there is the possibility that the existing Stars software could be used and through synergies the fixed costs reduce and cheaper rate be an option. However, this in turn might result in something that some Sky Players might not appreciate - an entire migration of Sky poker players to the Stars Group. As Mick McCarthy might say, careful what you wish for.
Finally, I appreciate that every poker player makes different choices, but from my perspective there are only so many hours I want to play poker per week. There are other things in life I want to dedicate time to. Reducing the rake to 0% (which I know is totally unrealistic) would not encourage me to play any more.
My argument is that the sit n go's would run a lot more often if the rake was more competitive. Maybe there would be a short term hit on profits, but in the long run I would argue the opposite.
There is an optimum price point for everything and its my feeling that its off on SNGs currently.
In the (admittedly flawed) poll over half of people who responded said they would play more if rake was less, and quite a few people mentioned before the poll existed that they don't play because the rake is too high.
There is an Indian restaurant quite near me that had a half price food promo. It was so successful they decided to keep the food at half price and continue to be full every night.
There are not that many players that get to priority with sit n go's currently either.
I appreciate what you are saying.
I don't really know enough about this to be arguing the toss.
I packed up playing dyms.
This was because I wasn't very good at them, rather than anything to do with the rake.
I was surprised at the very low percentage roi, achieved by the very good players, on these games . I can see that with this in mind what a difference a reduction in the rake would make.
However, I couldn't see Sky considering this, unless it led to the attraction of more players, and had little effect on the bottom line.
The players that would be most affected by a rake reduction are obviously the higher volume players.
The players it would least affect are the casual players that don't play many games.
So you would probably have to base your more players argument, on attracting volume players from other sites.
You could argue that doing away with the freerolls could help fund a reduction, but this would probably discourage new players from joining the site.
I don't know why the rake on heads up games is so low. If you take into account the rakeback for the very high volume players, it leaves a very small margin for Sky.
Whilst I appreciate conducting a poll could be valuable, I think that asking poker players if they would like to pay less rake, is a bit like asking people in proper jobs if they would like to pay less income tax.
The rewards system does encourage players to play more to get a bigger rake back, which effectively means paying less rake, by playing more.
I think that the only chance of getting this through would be if it could be proved that it would encourage more players to play on the site.
OMG... finally got thru 9 pages of this thread and what can I say that.. no one really gives a sht what I think .. I'm not trying to cause any offence to any one, I've played on stars and other sites and no what the rake is on the games I play and except what I pay as a losing player I really do not give a sht all I no is I only lose what I'm happy to lose not sure after 9 pages what the ? was im so confused but I do respect chicknmelt as a winning player as I do other players that are far better and understand the game far better than me .. if dobie dip sht is such a great player why not just go play on poker stars and leave us sky players rather Guess what , after 3 yrs i still play and drink and can find a reason to start up a old thread just for the fun of it .
Comments
Don't ask not to be insulted, to then call someone stupid.
And Daniel Negreanu is still wrong.
There may be different people making the decision.
Some of the factors that helped make the decision have changed somewhat since then - I imagine it was a lot easier to find people that actually won at them back then. Its clear rake is the only real winner right now!
I think you've missed the point(slightly)....Adrian Durham's mum doesn't say Will (@hanson) is stupid...she already thinks he is..she said MORE stupid!
Still, at least she doesn't insult people by publicly correcting their grammar to show how intellectually superior she is- ooops, sorry , yes she does that as well...
By the way , feel free to carry on sniding about me , it only makes you look even more stupid .
A direct quote from negreanu's article.
I think this is they key to your worries Dobie (which are: reducing rake will make the games tougher due to more regs, recs will lose even quicker). Having promotions that reward high volume regulars is the main thing that makes games tougher, not having a rake level that allows people to actually win. Its really noticeable every time there is one on - all the games related to the promotion become infested with regs.
"Superior" is, like "unique", a non-gradable adjective. You either are superior, or you are not. Claiming to be "more superior" does not help your cause. Neither does both insulting people while simultaneously objecting to people insulting others.
I'm sure prof knows he looks silly in a hat. However, as @tomgoodun so kindly pointed out in RTM, it does have the benefit of preventing "bald guy dazzle"
When comparing the rakes with other sites, you surely have to take the rakeback into account.
I just logged onto Pokerstars to have a look, and they have 30,000 players playing, while Sky have 572.
They also have the advantage of a wider coverage, and good player numbers throughout a 24 hour period.
There is much greater leeway on rakes with larger player numbers.
Sky have a responsibility to make a profit, stay in business, not go bankrupt, and protect our bankrolls.
The very top volume players get 40% of their rake returned to them, while priority players get 30% returned.
It would surely be pointless to reduce the rake, and adjust the rakeback to take account of this.
It would also surely be pointless to reduce the rake on some games and increase it on others to compensate.
To ask Sky just to reduce rakes on some games without doing either of the two points above, is asking them to voluntarily reduce their profit. This is not something that most companies are prepared to do.
To reduce the rake on the more popular games would have a bigger effect on profit margins.
The rake also has to cover the cost of all the freerolls and promotions.
Players that play on Sky, do so for different reasons, to those that play on Pokerstars.
When we used to have a betting tax everyone paid 10%, whether you bet £1 or £10k, and whether it was on a dog race that took 30 seconds, a football match that took 90 minutes, or a golf tournament that took 4 days. Nobody got any of the tax back.
The bigger volume players are rewarded with a bigger rakeback on every game they play, whether it is a dym that lasts 20 minutes, or a tourney that lasts four or five hours.
My argument is that the sit n go's would run a lot more often if the rake was more competitive. Maybe there would be a short term hit on profits, but in the long run I would argue the opposite.
There is an optimum price point for everything and its my feeling that its off on SNGs currently.
In the (admittedly flawed) poll over half of people who responded said they would play more if rake was less, and quite a few people mentioned before the poll existed that they don't play because the rake is too high.
There is an Indian restaurant quite near me that had a half price food promo. It was so successful they decided to keep the food at half price and continue to be full every night.
There are not that many players that get to priority with sit n go's currently either.
If I felt that Sky was exploiting me by making excessive profits on the higher rake, I might take a different view, but I don't believe this to be the case from the financial results I have seen. If we ask Sky to give in certain areas we have to expect them to take in others.
With Sky becoming part of The Stars Group there is the possibility that the existing Stars software could be used and through synergies the fixed costs reduce and cheaper rate be an option. However, this in turn might result in something that some Sky Players might not appreciate - an entire migration of Sky poker players to the Stars Group. As Mick McCarthy might say, careful what you wish for.
Finally, I appreciate that every poker player makes different choices, but from my perspective there are only so many hours I want to play poker per week. There are other things in life I want to dedicate time to. Reducing the rake to 0% (which I know is totally unrealistic) would not encourage me to play any more.
I don't really know enough about this to be arguing the toss.
I packed up playing dyms.
This was because I wasn't very good at them, rather than anything to do with the rake.
I was surprised at the very low percentage roi, achieved by the very good players, on these games
.
I can see that with this in mind what a difference a reduction in the rake would make.
However, I couldn't see Sky considering this, unless it led to the attraction of more players, and had little effect on the bottom line.
The players that would be most affected by a rake reduction are obviously the higher volume players.
The players it would least affect are the casual players that don't play many games.
So you would probably have to base your more players argument, on attracting volume players from other sites.
You could argue that doing away with the freerolls could help fund a reduction, but this would probably discourage new players from joining the site.
I don't know why the rake on heads up games is so low. If you take into account the rakeback for the very high volume players, it leaves a very small margin for Sky.
Whilst I appreciate conducting a poll could be valuable, I think that asking poker players if they would like to pay less rake, is a bit like asking people in proper jobs if they would like to pay less income tax.
The rewards system does encourage players to play more to get a bigger rake back, which effectively means paying less rake, by playing more.
I think that the only chance of getting this through would be if it could be proved that it would encourage more players to play on the site.
Good luck with it.