With all of the issues currently facing the industry regarding the NYT article and the general truth that the sharks prey on the fish I wanted to bump this idea that I posted over a year ago in the forums. I thought this was a decent idea that was fairly well received by the community, but we never had any response from any site on the idea. Now that there are major concerns with this issue in the major media, perhaps this could be used as a solution.
From over a year ago …
I have been brainstorming ideas on how to effectively keep the massive BR guys out of low stakes games for a while and couldn’t come up with a solid idea, but this morning I stumbled across something that I think might work, however I am not sure how feasible it is for the sites and their profit margins.
First, every game gets raked at 10%, no matter what it is, including the high stakes games.
Second, the site would introduce a rakeback program which would incentivize higher stakes gameplay.
For example, there are 5 tiers of rakeback (obviously these can be changed, just for explanation purposes), at 1%, 4%, 8%, 13%, 20%. To achieve 1% rakeback, you just have to opt into the program and play 1 game, no matter what is played. Now to achieve higher levels of rakeback, it would require an average buy in floor and a total $ played. There would be a chart indicating the 2 requirements a player would need to make the higher bracket. For example, to reach 20% rakeback, a player would need to play $20,000 worth of games for the month with an average buy-in of $75 dollars. To achieve 13% rakeback, $13,500 worth of games with an average buy in of $45 dollars. I did not spend too much time trying to figure out the numbers of how much in entries the top players clear in a month of what is feasible for the average buy-in limit, these numbers would obviously be edited by the site based on their player base and the numbers their player base are putting up in a month.
Granted, this will be beneficial to the sharks but it would definitely help the newer players trying to build a bankroll. I think this would make high-stakes players very anti low stakes games as playing in a few 1, 2, and 5 dollar games are going to drag their ABI down and risk them dropping into a lower rakeback level.”
Basically I think I undestimated the industry’s growth and with the 10k games and such, that would obviously skew the ABI amount for the rakeback program. The top tier would obviously have to be something much higher, like an ABI of 200, and on down, but this idea would keep the highest stakes players out of the lower buy-ins as they would no doubt be making more in rakeback than they could get at playing the 1-20 dollar games. Obviously someone with more data on the situation (ie, DraftKings/FanDuel) could run some numbers and find out if this actually is a feasible solution for their profit margins. This could be done in cash games only, or cash games and tournaments or hybrids of both.