INDUSTRY FORUM

  • 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.

  • pmsimkins

    • 2014 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    • 2015 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    @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.

    I see where you’re going with this spin but it’s not really correct.

    10 man $109 50/50
    Rake = 90/1090 = 8.26%
    Winning players rake calc vs 0 rake
    Rake = 18/218 = 8.26%

    100K tourney, 115K entry fees, 10k first
    Rake = 15000/115000 = 13%
    Winning players rake calc vs 0 rake
    Rake = 1500/11500 = 13%

    Ultimately how you finish doesnt impact what you pay to play.

  • SteveAvery

    What I worry about is that we’re seeing these dramatic rake increases so early in the game and it’s hard to believe that they’re due to profitability issues.

    I don’t recall Poker Stars or other sites increasing rake until they were in operation for several years. And if they did, it was done sporadically and only to a few game types. Most of the poker sites also implemented rewards programs that gave back much more to the player than the current DFS reward programs.

    To add to TwoGun’s post above, I think public pressure can also lead to rake reduction or potentially stop an increase in rake. Despite the fact RG posters and other sharp players are in the minority, we make up a substantial part of the entries that go into the big guaranteed GPPs. If enough people were to boycott them, particularly if they were running say something like the Millionaire Maker, it could have a significant impact and would be certain to draw a lot of attention.

  • alsmizzle

    • 2013 RotoGrinders TPOY Champion

    • 466

      RG Overall Ranking

    • $1M Prize Winner

    @SteveAvery said...

    I feel obligated to say this because I’m often quoting AlSmizz posts and taking opposite sides: I also think he’s a really good guy who has done and does a ton for this community.

    I have no problem with anyone who has a disagreement based on fact. I have a problem with people taking shots or making up facts in order to try and support their argument.

    As you’ve seen from me multiple times in this thread. Like you, I want lower rake…obviously, because it benefits me directly as a player. Unfortunately, I’m not sure I see a way to get there without the two things that Two Gun pointed out happening (which has pretty much been my point all along)

  • dan72

    @pmsimkins said...

    I see where you’re going with this spin but it’s not really correct.

    10 man $109 50/50
    Rake = 90/1090 = 8.26%
    Winning players rake calc vs 0 rake
    Rake = 18/218 = 8.26%

    100K tourney, 115K entry fees, 10k first
    Rake = 15000/115000 = 13%
    Winning players rake calc vs 0 rake
    Rake = 1500/11500 = 13%

    Ultimately how you finish doesnt impact what you pay to play.

    Well $109 50/50 have less rake. But winning players are paying 18% juice . They risked $109 to win $91. That’s ~18%. It’s the equivalent of a -118 bet in sports. Basically DFS 50/50s at $50 and below are the same as -120 bets in sports. If all games were -120 on both sides in sports it would be impossible to win in sports betting. IMPOSSIBLE!!

  • NCRick

    Ideally, the rake will be just high enough to make it impossible to win long term. Then once the pros quit, it will be better for everyone else even with higher rake.

  • Yukerboy

    • Blogger of the Month

    Luckily, DFS is not sports betting. Fanduel could rake 40% and I still play and take your monies.

    The edge of The Yuke is 99% bitches and as sharp as a razor.

    I say to DFS sites, raise it up and may the best survive.

    Oh, that would mean only I would be left. Maybe a couple others stick around…maybe not.

    Then what? You go bankrupt. But you got yours, right? Of course, you went in the hole advertising and bonus giving and all that shit only for players to see they were getting ass raped by your rakes after 3 months or so. Three months after that, they realize they aren’t the next Yuke or even Condia. They step away, thinking what a sham DFS is. The Sharks are left eating the Sharks. Until I stand alone among your tattered little shit broke ass website. But what a great 4 years it was, eh?

    Government has a tendency to fix industries when they give the appearance of being broken or bad for consumers. Tobacco, gas, automobile, airlines. If you don’t kill yourself from rakes, the government will fix the rakes for you. Sad, but true.

    Mic drop

  • yaleg34

    @Yukerboy said...

    Luckily, DFS is not sports betting. Fanduel could rake 40% and I still play and take your monies.

    The edge of The Yuke is 99% bitches and as sharp as a razor.

    I say to DFS sites, raise it up and may the best survive.

    Oh, that would mean only I would be left. Maybe a couple others stick around…maybe not.

    Then what? You go bankrupt. But you got yours, right? Of course, you went in the hole advertising and bonus giving and all that shit only for players to see they were getting ass raped by your rakes after 3 months or so. Three months after that, they realize they aren’t the next Yuke or even Condia. They step away, thinking what a sham DFS is. The Sharks are left eating the Sharks. Until I stand alone among your tattered little shit broke ass website. But what a great 4 years it was, eh?

    Government has a tendency to fix industries when they give the appearance of being broken or bad for consumers. Tobacco, gas, automobile, airlines. If you don’t kill yourself from rakes, the government will fix the rakes for you. Sad, but true.

    Mic drop

    pure unabashed awesomeness

  • clarnzz

    @Yukerboy said...

    Fanduel could rake 40% and I still play and take your monies.

    You do realize that you would be winning $6 on a $5 dollar wager in said scenario and would have to beat someone 5 out of 6 days just to break even….

  • TwoSHAE

    @clarnzz said...

    You do realize that you would be winning $6 on a $5 dollar wager in said scenario and would have to beat someone 5 out of 6 days just to break even….

    You do realize that he’s trolling and if 5 out of 6 people fall into his trap, he will keep tarding up threads like this…

  • clarnzz

    @TwoSHAE said...

    You do realize that he’s trolling and if 5 out of 6 people fall into his trap, he will keep tarding up threads like this

    Oh I know, just wanted to make a knock you upside the head point so that people who may not be familiar with rake see it’s HUGE impact on a person’s ability to succeed.

  • tgowen

    • Blogger of the Month

    @SteveAvery said...

    To add to TwoGun’s post above, I think public pressure can also lead to rake reduction or potentially stop an increase in rake. Despite the fact RG posters and other sharp players are in the minority, we make up a substantial part of the entries that go into the big guaranteed GPPs. If enough people were to boycott them, particularly if they were running say something like the Millionaire Maker, it could have a significant impact and would be certain to draw a lot of attention.

    I think the fear in doing something like this is a site then saying one of two things:

    “Fine, if you don’t want to join this then we will quit offering it.” And as a result we see more GPP’s at a smaller level. This might have an adverse effect on the site, but that is totally dependent on whether or not the majority of players care about something like a $1M tournament or are happy with the $250K level things. I have no idea what the answer to this is.

    or

    “Fine, don’t join. We call your bluff, and will continue to hold the tournaments while you miss out on everything. We think you’ll crack first and when you do, don’t expect many favors when you return.”

    To me, the only way the rake issue gets solved is if a huge competitor emerges (I’m looking at you ESPN) and knows they can immediately become the big fish in the ocean without doing a quarter of the advertising sites like FD and DK do.

  • Yukerboy

    • Blogger of the Month

    @TwoSHAE said...

    You do realize that he’s trolling and if 5 out of 6 people fall into his trap, he will keep tarding up threads like this…

    Hyperbole is neither trolling nor tarding. I think most will recognize it for what it is (especially when they see my actual rank/record).

    People play lotteries with 50% rake. Everyone knows the lottery is a losing proposition but it’s risk vs reward. No one buys a ticket hoping to win double their money.

    This is why cash games will be abandoned by the median player. You already see it in the scores. Days where a lower score was needed to cash in a GPP than a GTD double up.

  • Putz

    Make better lineups. Beat the rake.

  • electrichaz3

    The common theme i see is all the former/current poker pros warning people because we’ve seen this play out before, and it does not end well. and just like the endless 2p2 threads that were just like this, there was a group of naysayers arguing just for the sake of playing devils advocate.

    rake increases are bad. the most accurate post was made by 2 guns. At some point in time we will reach a point where the games are not worth trying to beat, and unless we protest it, it will kill the game.

    dfs players should know about the recent pokerstars attempt at a money grab. protest works, taking it for the sake of taking it is ridiculous. Enough people sharing a common idea or goal can turn a businesses tide, no question. that is why the monopoly owner of online poker backed down due to a few thousand poker pros on some forums sitting out of some games and creating a stir.

    i wish we would do what we in the poker community failed to do years ago. that being stop arguing with each other about things that are freaking obvious and instead concentrating on the many enemies this game will bring our way from legislation to rake etc etc.

  • pmsimkins

    • 2014 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    • 2015 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    @dan72 said...

    Well $109 50/50 have less rake. But winning players are paying 18% juice .

    No. You don’t understand rake. Let me frame it this way.

    I’m having a cribbage tournament (so sick of poker talk) at my house. 10 guys and each pays $25. A $5 bill goes straight into my pocket when they walk in to buy pizzas. The $20 bill goes into a jar. The winner takes the $200 out of the jar at the end of the night.

    Do you still think the winner paid $50 to play and the rest played for free, or did we each pay $5 to play?

  • TwoSHAE

    @pmsimkins said...

    No. You don’t understand rake. Let me frame it this way.

    I’m having a cribbage tournament (so sick of poker talk) at my house. 10 guys and each pays $25. A $5 bill goes straight into my pocket when they walk in to buy pizzas. The $20 bill goes into a jar. The winner takes the $200 out of the jar at the end of the night.

    Do you still think the winner paid $50 to play and the rest played for free, or did we each pay $5 to play?

    If every person had a 10% chance of winning, then everyone paid $5 to play. Otherwise, they didn’t.

    His earlier assertion that winning 50/50 players pay more rake is totally fair.

  • iconfantasyJoe

    @pmsimkins said...

    No. You don’t understand rake. Let me frame it this way.

    I’m having a cribbage tournament (so sick of poker talk) at my house. 10 guys and each pays $25. A $5 bill goes straight into my pocket when they walk in to buy pizzas. The $20 bill goes into a jar. The winner takes the $200 out of the jar at the end of the night.

    Do you still think the winner paid $50 to play and the rest played for free, or did we each pay $5 to play?

    The real question is, where did you get the Pizza from? I’d pay $6 if the pizza was good enough.

    Lemme know, i’ll study some cribbage strats.

  • JBigg23

    @tgowen said...

    I think the fear in doing something like this is a site then saying one of two things:

    “Fine, if you don’t want to join this then we will quit offering it.” And as a result we see more GPP’s at a smaller level. This might have an adverse effect on the site, but that is totally dependent on whether or not the majority of players care about something like a $1M tournament or are happy with the $250K level things. I have no idea what the answer to this is.

    or

    “Fine, don’t join. We call your bluff, and will continue to hold the tournaments while you miss out on everything. We think you’ll crack first and when you do, don’t expect many favors when you return.”

    To me, the only way the rake issue gets solved is if a huge competitor emerges (I’m looking at you ESPN) and knows they can immediately become the big fish in the ocean without doing a quarter of the advertising sites like FD and DK do.

    Or everyone could flee to another site to play, and that site would be in position to increase their prizes because of that.

  • tgowen

    • Blogger of the Month

    @JBigg23 said...

    Or everyone could flee to another site to play, and that site would be in position to increase their prizes because of that.

    Yes, but I think you are miscalculating the amount of time it would take for a site to increase their prize pool to the level DK/FD are currently at. Those sites didn’t jump their prizes up over night, it took days, weeks, months and years to gradually get them to the level they are at now. With that, it took consistency over that same time period of having a player base that was proven to be reliable enough to take the risk of putting that much guaranteed money on the line.

    Right now there is nothing even remotely close to what DK/FD offer, so while people are more than welcome to move to another site, they better be in it for the long haul. It’s gonna take more than a RG thread request to get their GPP’s to where everyone will want them (this includes every level from the $1 to $100+ range).

  • Mjdfan258

    in fanduel contest history its interesting because they basically allow you to see how much money they have profited off you by showing every contest included in the winnings label if you take that huge number and find 15% of that its ridiculous how much they make off us players they can at least provide some overlay if there was overlay i wouldnt give a shit about rake fd hasnt had overlay in forever

  • pmsimkins

    • 2014 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    • 2015 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    @iconfantasyJoe said...

    The real question is, where did you get the Pizza from? I’d pay $6 if the pizza was good enough.

    Lemme know, i’ll study some cribbage strats.

    I got it from Papa John. He’s a tea party schill who uses the exact same accounting to show the top 1% pay too much taxes. :-)

  • pmsimkins

    • 2014 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    • 2015 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    @TwoSHAE said...

    If every person had a 10% chance of winning, then everyone paid $5 to play. Otherwise, they didn’t.

    His earlier assertion that winning 50/50 players pay more rake is totally fair.

    Ugh paragraph 1 directly contradicts paragraph 2.

    This is why discussing rake is about as useful as discussing politics. 90% of people don’t get it. I dont mind debating with a steveavery or a whits who disagree, but at least get it. I feel like the rest is the Brawndo argument in Idiocracy.

  • pmsimkins

    • 2014 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    • 2015 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    @Mjdfan258 said...

    in fanduel contest history its interesting because they basically allow you to see how much money they have profited off you by showing every contest included in the winnings label if you take that huge number and find 15% of that its ridiculous how much they make off us players they can at least provide some overlay if there was overlay i wouldnt give a shit about rake fd hasnt had overlay in forever

    Good lord, seriously?

    They legally have to to predetermine the prize pool. How would you like them to guarantee you overlay?

    I’m literally sad.

  • PlinyTheYounger

    @pmsimkins said...

    Good lord, seriously?

    They legally have to to predetermine the prize pool. How would you like them to guarantee you overlay?

    I’m literally sad.

    +100,000

  • Putz

    @Mjdfan258 said...

    in fanduel contest history its interesting because they basically allow you to see how much money they have profited off you by showing every contest included in the winnings label if you take that huge number and find 15% of that its ridiculous how much they make off us players they can at least provide some overlay if there was overlay i wouldnt give a shit about rake fd hasnt had overlay in forever

  • X Unread Thread
  • X Thread with New Replies*
  • *Jumps to your first unread reply

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/MI), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (CO), 1-800-BETS OFF (IA), 1-888-532-3500 (VA) or call/text TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN).