|
Found a great post on twoplustwo from 'Lego05' that puts quite a hole in the 'rigging the cards for action' debate, here it is:
Rake is capped ... usually rake is like 5% with a max of like $3. Say we're playing with $100 stacks at a .5/$1 table. Each player puts in $30 so a pot of $60. 5% of $60 is $3 so $3 is the rake but that's it ... rake is now maxxed out. Each player has $70 left but if each player puts that $70 in the pot no new rake is collected on that $140 ... still just $3 rake.
So pot stays at $60 site collects $3 rake and game continues and more rake is collected ....... players go all-in for last $70 dollars and site collects $3 rake and one player loses all money and game is over and no more rake is collected.
If you were the site which would you prefer?
As you can see for poker sites to maximize their profits they need players to have money and keep playing. For them to maximize profits they want lots of medium sized pots and lots of split pots and would most likely rather err from medium sized pots toward smaller pots rather than larger pots so players don't get wiped out and the games can keep going and they can keep collecting.
Yet for some reason nearly every single rigged theory has the idea that sites give setup hands or cause huge beats or something with the goal toward inflating the size of the pot. In reality making the pots bigger is not what the sites want to do ... it is near the opposite of what they want to do.
If I decided to rig a poker site to increase rake at that site I would rig it to create as many medium sized pots as I could (TPWK hands vs. TPGK or some second pairs) and I would err toward smaller pots ..... I would also rig for a lot of split pots as that is pure gold ..... the site collects all the rake and each player gets their money back (minus the rake of course) and they keep playing with basically the same amount they had before.
|