INDUSTRY FORUM

Comments

  • Send9

    How is it possible that DFS sites are increasing rake instead of decreasing it? They have all shown that they’re profitable, why be so greedy and try to take more. This isn’t helping grow the industry. Pokerstars recently tried to increase rake but poker players pushed back and Pokerstars ended up leaving it alone. We need to do the same.

  • JBigg23

    FD has a lot of revenues tied up with affiliates and their customers referred to them. I wonder what percentage of their revenues are tied to paying their affiliates.

  • whits23

    2010 FFFC Finalist, 2010 DFBC Finalist, 2011 FFFC Finalist, 2014 DSBC Finalist

    • x2

      2010 FanDuel WFFC Finalist

    • 2011 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    Here is what would almost be a good idea..what if sites lowered the rake according to how much you spent OR rake back? yes you can say FD points is a version but did you also know if you refer a freind those count against you? i would prefer to see lower rake tiers? Of course it would benefit the higher players and be against society where the rich pay more it would be the rich pay less for a change.

    I would like to see more difficult formats too…as much as we talk research..pro’s, experts and Guru status is it really that hard to make a lineup? Sites goal is to make it so we all trade money till they have it and we do not.

    I also wonder if sites prefer the single entry guys in mass droves or the multi entry poker players who each can win or lose 20k a week? I really think single entry vegas type contest would make now days as you may see 50k people in single entry games on nfl. Single entry qualifiers with single entry main event where you can only win a single entry.

  • JBigg23

    Perhaps we could turn this discussion to what an acceptable rake structure would be, for all games. What if 10% flat rake was used for h2h and gpps, but there was a clear cut rakeback system that would allow us to drive the rake down depending on if we took cash or game tickets. What would those rake %s be afterwards?

  • kaetorade

    • 2013 DraftStreet DSBBC Finalist

    @JBigg23 said...

    FD has a lot of revenues tied up with affiliates and their customers referred to them. I wonder what percentage of their revenues are tied to paying their affiliates.

    You can earn up to 35% w/o being an affiliate, so I imagine affiliates are at least 40%.

  • TwoSHAE

    Why would sites begin offering rakeback if they don’t have to? It doesn’t make any sense. They’re not just going to give you a handout because you are unhappy with the changes they are making that they believe will improve their business. Any change you propose to them has to be of the form: “Do X. If you do X, you will make more money in the long-run because of reasons Y and Z.” Any sort of “what is fair” or “what the regs want” argument is completely lost on an operator. It is also important for everyone to realize that if you are a net withdrawer from a site, you are already (or eventually will be) bad for the site.

  • dan72

    @JBigg23 said...

    Perhaps we could turn this discussion to what an acceptable rake structure would be, for all games. What if 10% flat rake was used for h2h and gpps, but there was a clear cut rakeback system that would allow us to drive the rake down depending on if we took cash or game tickets. What would those rake %s be afterwards?

    Acceptable rake is 4.55% same as sports betting.

  • einars

    @dan72 said...

    Acceptable rake is 4.55% same as sports betting.

    lol

  • einars

    @JBigg23 said...

    Perhaps we could turn this discussion to what an acceptable rake structure would be, for all games.

    discussing a specific acceptable rake is ridiculous because you dont have a clue what the company’s operating expenses are. its like saying i think my car should be 12K because thats what i want it to be.

    its all about what you personally can beat/play

  • pmsimkins

    • 2014 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    • 2015 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    @whits23 said...

    Here is what would almost be a good idea..what if sites lowered the rake according to how much you spent

    I’d be happy with that. First 50K you play in a year raked X%, next 100K raked Y% etc. There’d be plenty of complaining on here, but it’s pretty fair and economy of scale is how pricing runs for everything else. The guy who comes in makes an account deposits $25, plays a couple times and leaves is where the bulk of their expense is, let him pay for it.

    I’d also like to see a much larger difference between the rake on high dollar and low dollar games. This would kill a couple birds with one stone.

  • sethayates

    @pmsimkins said...

    I’d be happy with that. First 50K you play in a year raked X%, next 100K raked Y% etc. There’d be plenty of complaining on here, but it’s pretty fair and economy of scale is how pricing runs for everything else. The guy who comes in makes an account deposits $25, plays a couple times and leaves is where the bulk of their expense is, let him pay for it.

    I’d also like to see a much larger difference between the rake on high dollar and low dollar games. This would kill a couple birds with one stone.

    I agree with the end of this. If we want to get rid of “sharks” in low dollar games just raise the rake. What if games under $10 were suddenly raked at 20%? I bet the sharks would still play but complain about it.

  • yaleg34

    @sethayates said...

    I agree with the end of this. If we want to get rid of “sharks” in low dollar games just raise the rake. What if games under $10 were suddenly raked at 20%? I bet the sharks would still play but complain about it.

    lol, no they wouldn’t

  • pmsimkins

    • 2014 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    • 2015 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    I obviously don’t know the full contest distribution, but I’d guess for the high volume sports that a very modest increase in rake on less than $200 games would wash a large decrease in rake on greater than or equal to $200 games.

  • TwoSHAE

    @pmsimkins said...

    I’d be happy with that. First 50K you play in a year raked X%, next 100K raked Y% etc. There’d be plenty of complaining on here, but it’s pretty fair and economy of scale is how pricing runs for everything else. The guy who comes in makes an account deposits $25, plays a couple times and leaves is where the bulk of their expense is, let him pay for it.

    I’d also like to see a much larger difference between the rake on high dollar and low dollar games. This would kill a couple birds with one stone.

    This is never going to happen, because fairness has nothing to do with it. It would be interesting to see DK try it, though, since they have something to gain from it.

  • sethayates

    @yaleg34 said...

    lol, no they wouldn’t

    Some of them already buy max entries in the $25 double up at 15% when there are 10% 50/50s. Why do you think 20% would stop them?

  • TwoSHAE

    @sethayates said...

    Some of them already buy max entries in the $25 double up at 15% when there are 10% 50/50s. Why do you think 20% would stop them?

    Because their edge is somewhere between 0 and 5%, maybe (at least for some people)

  • tianyihe

    @sethayates said...

    m already buy max entries in the $25 double up at 15% when there are 10% 50/50s. Why do you think 20

    If you are a real shark that plays on pure probability, it would take out those who’s win % in these events that have a winning % between 59% and 62.5%; only those that have a winning % above 62.5% would keep on playing.

  • pmsimkins

    • 2014 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    • 2015 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    @sethayates said...

    Some of them already buy max entries in the $25 double up at 15% when there are 10% 50/50s. Why do you think 20% would stop them?

    I think you’re both partially right. If you have 10K a day to bet, and you’re savy, you’re putting that 10K in the contests with the highest ROI for you, that have action available.

    By lowering rake in high dollar contests you obviously raise the ROI and raise the amount of action available in those contests. If the player can now get his entire 10K in a play in a more profitable situation playing $200 contests he will. If he can’t he’ll still be in everything below. It’s really only speculation how that’d ultimately shake out

  • JBigg23

    @einars said...

    lol

    lolol

  • sethayates

    @pmsimkins said...

    I think you’re both partially right. If you have 10K a day to bet, and you’re savy, you’re putting that 10K in the contests with the highest ROI for you, that have action available.

    By lowering rake in high dollar contests you obviously raise the ROI and raise the amount of action available in those contests. If the player can now get his entire 10K in a play in a more profitable situation playing $200 contests he will. If he can’t he’ll still be in everything below. It’s really only speculation how that’d ultimately shake out

    I can guarantee this much, when the rake under $109 is all the same, it invites even higher bankrolled players down to $1.

    I also have no idea how it would shake out but I wouldn’t mind paying more rake in lower contests if that meant playing equally skilled opponents.

  • pmsimkins

    • 2014 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    • 2015 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    @sethayates said...

    I can guarantee this much, when the rake under $109 is all the same, it invites even higher bankrolled players down to $1.

    Definitely. In my opinion this is a way bigger problem for the industry than the aggregate rake being too high.

  • dan72

    You can look at DFS rake this way too. Who is paying the rake? How much is someone paying compared to if the game had no rake. Maybe it’s best to refer to rake as juice in thus examplenn

    In a 50/50 game. The top half is paying 20% juice and the bottom half is paying 0%. So people who end up winning 60% of their 50/50s are actually paying 12% juice.

    In a GPP. The juice is essentially being paid by the people on the first page or two of the leaderboard. But they don’t care or complain cause they just won a boatload of cash

    Now in a 12% raked double up. The top 44% are paying no juice. The bottom 50% are paying no juice. The middlish 6% (44.1%-50%) are paying 200% rake. Not once has someone finished in that middlish 6% and said crap I just paid 200% juice.

    This is why sites are able to raise the rake in these double-ups recently. Only 6% of the people are getting hurt and they probably don’t even realize it.

    Now of course if you are a grinder it is inevitable that you will finish in this middlish 6% which is why you have to hate this. But the casual player doesnt think the rake will effect him in a double-up.

  • dan72

    @pmsimkins said...

    Definitely. In my opinion this is a way bigger problem for the industry than the aggregate rake being too high.

    That’s why Fanduel has contest limits and thus really isn’t an issue on their site.

  • tianyihe

    @dan72 said...

    You can look at DFS rake this way too. Who is paying the rake? How much is someone paying compared to if the game had no rake. Maybe it’s best to refer to rake as juice in thus examplenn

    In a 50/50 game. The top half is paying 20% juice and the bottom half is paying 0%. So people who end up winning 60% of their 50/50s are actually paying 12% juice.

    In a GPP. The juice is essentially being paid by the people on the first page or two of the leaderboard. But they don’t care or complain cause they just won a boatload of cash

    Now in a 12% raked double up. The top 44% are paying no juice. The bottom 50% are paying no juice. The middlish 6% (44.1%-50%) are paying 200% rake. Not once has someone finished in that middlish 6% and said crap I just paid 200% juice.

    This is why sites are able to raise the rake in these double-ups recently. Only 6% of the people are getting hurt and they probably don’t even realize it.

    Now of course if you are a grinder it is inevitable that you will finish in this middlish 6% which is why you have to hate this. But the casual player doesnt think the rake will effect him in a double-up.

    Some pretty astute observations here.

  • Jeff7kv

    .

    @JBigg23 said...

    lolol

    Dude, have you lol’d so much, you actually lolol’d?

  • TwoGun

    • 193

      RG Overall Ranking

    • x3

      $1M Prize Winner

    • x5

      2019 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    At the end of the day, there are two pressures that can lead to reduced rake:

    1. Players flock to a lower rake site more and ditch the higher rake site, causing the higher rake site to lower rake. I would describe this as competitor pressure.

    2. The site decides the rake is too high since it is killing off its player base. Former high volume players quit or play a lot less, reducing the ability of the site to have large prize pools which attract and retain the casual players. Let’s call this ecosystem pressure.

    To elaborate on point two, this is basically how PokerStars evaluates their rake.. PokerStars has a large swath of high volume players that are basically break-even to slight winners due to the rewards system. If they raised rake too much, these players quit or play a lot less (since they would become losers) and the site liquidity drops. Casual players care first and foremost about liquidity, so you’d see a higher attrition rate among them as well.

    No DFS site is really in this position yet though as a monopolistic entity or as one where the games have tightened up so much that high volume players are quitting en masse.
  • X Unread Thread
  • X Thread with New Replies*
  • *Jumps to your first unread reply

Subforum Index

RotoGrinders.com is the home of the daily fantasy sports community. Our content, rankings, member blogs, promotions and forum discussion all cater to the players that like to create a new fantasy team every day of the week.

If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, crisis counseling and referral services can be accessed by calling 1-800-GAMBLER (1-800-426-2537) (IL). Gambling problem? Call 1-800-Gambler (NJ/WV/PA), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (CO) or 1-800-BETS OFF (IA). 21+. NJ/PA/WV/IN/IA/CO/IL only.