You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!
Rake a suggestion
Ok over recent years we've always heard about issues with rake specifically at lower levels.
Now theres some situations that definately need changing. Minimum pot for example is a must. Ive literally seen a 2p pot raked. (UTG lost everything bar 1p, SB got refunded diff and no one else entered) obviously that meant when the now BB won the hand, they doubled up to yeap 1p.
So i Suggest minimum rake.
I would also like to suggest reducing the rake at lower levels from 7.5% to 3%.
There is also a maximum rake, which could be increased slightly at NL100+ only to make up for this loss to skys income. I believe currently that is £1.80 which doesnt effect too much on a £200 pot. less than 1% actually. So boost that up to £3 shouldn't show too much of a dent to players winrates up there, while making it much more sustainable at the lower levels. I also personally feel like Max rake should be reduced at lower levels but i have no easy solution for that.
The £5.75 bh's also need rake reduced. 15% rake is too much. Even the £3 bh's only have 10% rake, so why do the £5 ones have 15% (same with the £2 ones).
I've offered a solution which should help long term maintain a similar income while fixing the amount raked for lower levels.
Comments
Suggesting to lower it will no doubt fall on deaf ears anyway.
The one that makes me laugh is the Russian roulettes, how can you justify raking 10% on a game that literally lasts one hand?
If the £5.75 BH games went from getting 80+ runners to regularly seeing less than 10 runners then I'm sure Sky would quickly find ways of changing their offering.
As it is, people will happily / begrudgingly pay that level of rake so why fix something that from the business POV isn't broke?
Taking a contrary view of the NL100+ tables - I suppose the skill-edge there is so much less than at micro-stakes that 0.5% - 1% extra rake can make a big difference, whereas 7.5% vs the high quantity of recreational players at NL4 should still be easily beatable for a competent player (at least that's what I'm aspiring towards!)
'too much of a dent to players winrates up there'
I cant decide if you are trying to wind higher stakes players up or are you just lacking in intelligence.
Of course raising the rake to £3 would kill winrates.
I do agree with you though that 7.5% is too high. I think it should be a 5% or less at all tables.
something does need to be done but you and I know it wont be anytime soon.
it is really time to vote with your feet so to speak as I have done. ive moved elsewhere where rake at micro cash is very low (1% at nl4, 3% at nl10 before it flats out at 5% at nl25). you know the idea behind it so wont go into it again but it has defo worked for me.
im elsewhere, playing and rolled for higher levels than I was here, where im now paying more rake overall because I could move up quicker because I wasn't being strangled by the rake.
it is a no brainer in my eyes but don't expect it to change here anytime soon
Also agree that rake at 7.5% is too high but think OP is almost certainly not a 'solution' to the problem
Think there needs to be more to the solution than simply saying 'let's dump higher rake on the higher limits' and suggesting unrealistic rake changes (7.5% to 3%)
There needs to be some consideration that Sky will be making far greater money on the higher tables than they are on the low and ultimately they will approach this from a business perspective rather than speculating that money will trickle up to the higher levels,
What are the business reasons for making these rake changes? As I write this there are 37 nl4 tables running...with the rake changes suggested in the OP there would need to be around 80-90 nl4 tables in order for them to be making the same amount of rake which is completely unrealistic assuming they agree and change rake to 3% from 7.5%
Considering there are so many tables running why on earth would Sky ever look at this issue and think anything other than 'problem? what problem?'