Sloe Times

After Iggy's monster post and reading a note on JD's blog about it, I thought I'd chime in on my own thoughts regarding rake free poker and dealing with the fish.

I guess I don't particularly care about zerorake or rakefree for the simple reason that Iggy mentioned, the average player doesn't put enough thought into it to find that to be a good deal. Ergo, the average player will gravitate towards the places like Party where there's lots of action and marketing to attract them. Having looked over my Poker Tracker data I see where paid out $97 in rake to Party, $36 in rake to Paradise, $236 to Absolute, and who knows how much to Ultimate Bet. This data goes from 5/7 - 8/5, so nearly 3 months.

Since I hadn't looked at this before, one of the scary thoughts is that the rake paid out on Absolute is pretty high considering I've only played about 200 more hands there than I have on Party. I'll attribute a lot of that to playing the 6 max tables since I tend to play the 10 seaters at Party.

Observation: Six max tables must be even more of a cash cow for the poker rooms than the 5+1 SNGs

Anyway, based on those totals over a 3 month period I'd have to say that if my play had been all at one site that cost me $90 (for the same time period) I'd be up >$279 in my bank roll and that's nothing to sneeze at. However, going back to the premise that sharks don't eat other sharks there's no sense in leaving the Party/Empire scene. That doesn't mean I won't check out places like Doyle's Room but there's really no other place as profitable to be right now.

So, if I were to be able to suggest a change to Party that would improve my desire to play there above anywhere else, hook me up with rake rebate program that would refund me 25%, 50%, or even 75% of my rake based on how much I play. Funny that even Empire has a points program but Party does not. Here's a perfect opportunity for them to implement one and introduce a "rake rebate for points program"