Question on Dutch Boyd's - Rakefree.com

I had recently heard that his idea had gone bust but haven't really been able to find any information as to when/why/how it failed. I went to his site and read over his business plan. I have to say that I think it's a pretty good idea and I think that with the success of online poker that most current players would at least give this type of thing a shot since most decent players know about the rake factor and how much they are paying in rake per session. He has some pretty lofty marketing idea, some of which are a little far-fetched. However, the basic structure of the rakefree site itself is an interesting concept.

Anyway, I was just curious about the forum member's thoughts on this subject and if anyone has any articles about it. Thanks!

well I just went on the site, and it it looks a lot better from how it used to look, so I'm guessing he is actually going to go through with it. I'm guessing the success he and his friends had at the wsop helped to push this along.

Will be interesting to see what he will do if this site is successful considering the pokerspot issue.

The problem with the Rakefree idea is that it appeals to good players. The genius of Party Poker is that they target, market and tweek their games for the fish knowing everyone else will follow.

enough advertisements and i'm sure weak players will sign up sooner or later

The rakefree idea is very interesting but there are several hurdles. For one thing a lot of people are still upset about the way his last venture ended up.

yep, and i'm sure people who have lost money on pokerspot aren't happy that Dutch Boyd is playing 10k tournaments and such..

I think the idea will be implemented by someone either by Dutch or someone else. I think someone will be able to bankroll the idea, only $10 million, nowadays that is nothing. If I can raise 1.5 million for a driving range/miniature golf course they will be able to raise more than 10 million. Like I said either Dutch or somoene else. I agree with Fnord to some extent, though I think after a short time websites would have to institute the same or they would lose out. If this idea is brought to the market, people will leave the rake sites in droves. Soon there would be very little action at those sites such as Party, Paradise, and PokerStars, thus the exodus would continue. Sure it will depend on how they institute it. (ie marketing, advertising, software, pay-ins & payouts) I dont think I will be the 1st in line but maybe the 10,001st. Just my 2 cents.

That is if I ever win anything at poker again. I'm telling you this is more than a slump. It is unreal. Im going to play at the B&M tonight maybe that change will work.

I'll take a win anyway I can get it. Yes, with the way it is going I'll take charity. Thanks Smile

If you're already a losing, "action" player, why do you care about rake? Wouldn't you rather see a Bad Beat Jackpot?

How many times would you get a bad beat jackpot, almost never. Four of kind beaten?? I would certainly perfer $2 in every pot I win. That adds up!! You could play forever and never win a badbeat jackpot. Its the fricken lottery. Do you play that?

Are you suggesting fish make rational value decisions? Isn't their lack of ablity to think like this what makes them fish?

If you really want to see rakes go down, there is only one thing you can do about it. Write your Congressmen to get some national level regulation and legalization of online poker. The grey-market status of online poker right now drives up the costs and scares off potential competition.

With a legal green light Hanna, Circus Circus, etc. could run Party into the ground overnight.

BTW, played at the BBJ table this morning. ~250 hands, net -$30 mostly via my stupidity. Missed a couple value bets and chased around 3 hands I should have dumped. Amazingly soft table.

BTW2, I have it from a good source that Party will bring in over $500 million in revenue this year. They have found the best license to print money since Microsoft.

But why would they get rid of the rake? It works for them. They have the money to totally dominate the "little" guys(PartyPoker) on software, marketing, etc. But no reason to get rid of the rake. I agree it would take a while but if they were able to educate people on what the "rake" is people would change their habits. Like I said I would be the 10,001st player not the first. Waiting for the fish to move up stream. Staying around the normal sites until the play dried up or they changed thier rake structure.

BTW Being almost conservative to the point of liberatarian. The less the fricken goverment has its hands on the better.

Has aggressive competition lowered the rake in Vegas? They all have an agreement on what it should be, and all enjoy the profits. It takes new and different ideas to bring about change not government intevention. Also with how anti gambling the Republicans and Democrats are becoming there is very little chance of the federal government becoming less restrictive probably only more restrictive.

I know approx 1 billion (and growing) little rea$on$ the government will reconsider given time... Also, the competition in Vegas (or any local area) isn't as aggressive as the competition would get if online poker rooms opened up in the US.

I get it so the government could take their "rake". Are you trying to get me to flip out? Laughing

I think maybe some government competition would help lower their "rake". Their "rake" is way to big. Boy after the Presidential poll I'll probably hear it now.

Hey scgolfer - You seem in a little better spirits today. That's good. Did you calm down over night?

No not really but I'm trying the "Serenity Now" approach. Serenity now, Serenity now. The problem is that damn Fnord is getting me worked up over this thread. Just kidding. The overwhelming slump is not over yet, but hopefully tonight. Thanks for asking.

I agree with that analysis. I just dont see it getting easier to gamble, only harder. Once again my feeling is less government = good. Personal responsiblility = good. So you know my feelings. I think we agree on most of these political ideas though. Because the way the rake structure is now, the players lose the online company wins big, which I dont have a problem with in theory.
The whole thing reminds me of telephone bills.. Used to be a per minute charge then someone came up with a monthly unlimited plan. Now everyone uses unlimited use plan. I can assure you that everyone thought no way that would work.

To break even in most low limit games you have to win at least 1.BBs an hour, if there were a rake free site, I think a lot more marginally profitable players would surface.

I was speaking to someone at the w/e at Empire on the 1/2 6max table and it costs him $75 a week for the privelege of playing. Without the rake he's be a marginal winner.

On a seperate point, has anyone noticed a huge increase in what i call blackjack players?

They play almost every hand but post flop they have half an idea of what they are doing, the ones i have seen and spoken to openly admit they are riding there luck. These players aren't to be confused with maniacs, at the SD he usually had a hand. I told him I was adding him to my buddy list so i could take his money, half in jest, we were actually having some pretty good banter (he was a pretty decent guy) although he'd lightened me for $40.

I rarely pure bluff anyways, the players are to bad to realise what you are representing most of the time...

*Last edited by Toasty on Thu, 17 Jun 2004, 8:55pm; edited 1 time in total*

double post Embarassed

I semi-bluff (I also take a lot of free cards, esp with AK, damn thing keeps missing) but its not often ill stone cold bluff, if i'm chasing an oesd ill bet if the flush hits too but stone cold bluffing is -EV a lot of the time.

I'll bet on the end if I miss, if the first and last cards are the same suit (Obvioulsy if its a bluffing opportunity). This is because most bluffs of this kind have pot odds of around 5:1, which is similar to the odds of the first card being the same as the last cards suit.

This means i'm bluffing roughly the same as the pot odds which according to TOP is optimal bluffing stratergy.

If you havn't heard of this I'll give an explanation from the book and a link to the book on amazon to be fair to Sklansky. Its pretty much bluffing the correct % of the time to turn a slightly loseing hand into a slightly winning hand and there is nothing your opp can do about it.

Also, most players I meet seem to call down any piece of the flop and my bluffs only usually work against A high. I think in the 2/4 you can bluff a lot more as people are more money scared. 1/2 max are quite loose and people go into check and call mode if they have a hand and think they are beat.

I just happened to glance at the Rakefree.com website and they have updated it and say they are now in software development and should be sending out a newsletter very soon. I wonder if they will be able to do it.

*bump*

Dutch said something about trying to post here. Curious what he has to say about the buisness...

That being said, it would be nice to be rid of...

o An absurdly high rake
o NLHE with stacks at 50x BB and under.
o SnGs with short stacks and an absurd blind progression.
o Upcomming BBJ drop

...and still be able to play with the low limit fish we've come to admire.

I hope Dutch posts here to give us an update. It would be nice to have an online poker room without the usual high rake.

Just my opinion but dutche's business model seems to have more holes than my poker game.

His idea of earning interest on player deposits, while intriguing would (in most jurisdictions, particularly US and Canada) require something along the lines of a bank charter, and sad to say, he is about 100million off the required assets to get one (you cannot invest deposits with a cash reserve system unless you are classified as an investment company or a chartered bank).
--I could be wrong about this but I believe this to be true as I am studying Investment and Banking right now--

Furthermore, he has no solid figures as to estimated costs for the first 12-18 months (usually what it takes a good company to start operating in the black), he has used loose figures such as 500k for marketing, it would be proper to state something along the lines of 100K for website advertisements (IE MSN.com, but Pacific poker has got that wrapped up).
250K for first customers bonuses (great way to bring people in, as word of mouth tends cause the most growth in these sites)

But other than the curious business plan, I DON'T mind paying the rake/tournament fees, because these sites do cost a lot in upkeep (imagine the havoc of just 1 server going down, because there is always money on the line). Dutch would need probably at the very minimum over 500K in equipment if he expects enough traffic to maintain a profit. (I believe fnord is in software, but Im sure he can back me up on the cost of mission critical servers)

And most importantly of all, Dutch has failed (to my knowledge) to detail how the shuffling system will work. I feel comfortable playing at PokerStars knowing how the random factors are determined. If Dutch were to opt for a random number(s) selected from a list -no matter how large- it would never truly be random, and then we would have a system similar to Victor Chandler Poker (my opinion, but I think its the worst shuffling system out there{hugely disproportionate amount of flushes, and boats}).

Just speaking for myself the rake/tournament fees have not been an issue as I normally win enough that a 10% fee on my winnings is simply the tax, but I live in Canada and I don't have to declare gambling winnings, which, I suppose makes it more profitable in the long run (just the thought of winning $5m in the WSOP and instantly giving 50-60% {not sure on tax rate in states} back to the gov't makes me sick).

Anyways, I'm gonna get off the soapbox now, to let anyone destroy this post. I will always go fishing in the pond with fish, but I don't think Dutche's site is planned out well enough to succeed, could be wrong but he fails to list any staff members with a Commerce/business education for overseeing the project, and there are no accountants as yet (also a bad sign). Dutch may be a good poker player, but that does not make him a businessman.

*deep breath in* ok, im done.

Depending on the traffic, your hardware/software numbers are right on, or low. I imagine Stars and Party which both average well over 15k users at a time, have probably over a million invested in hardware.

about half way through this forum people started talking about dutch boyd's old project, pokerspot i think?, and how people might be upset still from this. i have never heard of this or what happened. if someone could fill me in i would appreciate it.. thanks

Poker Forum

Join Our Poker Community!

Poker Forum Index

Poker Etcetera

Question on Dutch Boyd's - Rakefree.com

Poker Forum Index

Poker Etcetera

Question on Dutch Boyd's - Rakefree.com