Would dropping the rake in £1k+ events influence numbers?

[aaron1867]

Let's take for example GUKPT, UKIPT & DTD events that are buyins around the £1k mark.

Do you think these tournaments would be looked upon differently if they potentially dropped the £100 rake?

[jakally]

Let's take for example GUKPT, UKIPT & DTD events that are buyins around the £1k mark.

Do you think these tournaments would be looked upon differently if they potentially dropped the £100 rake?

Personally I think it would make next to zero difference if it was £1070 vs £1100.
Rake free would be a usp and would probably attract some attention, initially at least.

[Boba Fett]

Not noticeably. Size of buyin, location, prizepool affects turnout, probably in that order

[tikay]

IMO, it would not make a dot of difference, except to the Cardrooms, who would be less inclined to run them, & offer worse value in other ways to offset the loss.

We want to be charged a fair fee, but we need the Cardrooms to be properly rewarded, too. 

[Karabiner]

What would the response be if they made them £1K+£200?

[aaron1867]

dropping off £100 completely would be great as a one off, surely? It could be there to experiment, I appreciate that x,y,z card toom has to make money, but perhaps when some of the events are struggling to make the money and dropping tens of thousands that maybe testing the water with dropping the reg fee completely as a one off would maybe see them make the guarantee?

I think someone made a good point about the rake for the £100+£20 though - I think if it wasn't for the decent guarantee they wouldn't make it, so I don't know *shrug*

Away from the big comps I do however see that the local comps that are less than £30 buyin now are minimum £5 rake, there is even £5 rake on £10 tournaments too

[tikay]

In Vegas, away from the WSOP, the rake is far higher than here.

For their various Summer Series......

Orleans charge up to 19%

Golden Nugget charge up to 20%

Planet Hollywood charge up to 29%. (the min reg feee for sub $200 is 22.4%)

Venetian charge up to 18%. 

I've not seen Binions 2015 Summer Series yet, but they'll average 20%.

Some of those numbers include almost mandatory extras, such as "Dealer/Staff Bonus", which entitles us to additional chips.

In my experience, it does not seem to affect the numbers playing.

[UgotNuts]

I think what they charge is usually fair. They have to cover wages, utilities, licenses costs ect.... I would say they probably might even make a loss basing costs VS reg fee. Of course they should make money through other streams through, Food & Drink, Table games and other ventures.

Agree with Tikay, if they stopped charging Reg fees they would be eating too deeply into their margins and would have to stop running them.  

[tikay]

The rake is irrelevant to some, as they never cash, Matt The Hoople being a perfect example.

[bergeroo]

A GUKPT is 1000+90.

A UKIPT is effectively 970+130

So I guess I would choose the GUKPT

[Doobs]

A GUKPT is 1000+90.

A UKIPT is effectively 985+115

So I guess I would choose the GUKPT

Think I have played 20 GUKPTs, one UKIPT.  I know Neil has mentioned avoiding the high rake before too.  UKIPT seems to have dropped the extra day, so maybe I'll play a 2nd soon.  Rake, distance and days all make a difference. 

[TightEnd]

A GUKPT is 1000+90.

A UKIPT is effectively 970+130

So I guess I would choose the GUKPT

but all other things are not equal though

just taking this UKIPT (accepting that for some the guarantees are lower, that the locations are trickier, that some of the tour's policies don't appeal to some etc)

GUKPT gte £200k, UKIPT gte £1m

part of the issue here is that the venue is taking on a significant "nosebleed" guarantees. sometimes it works, occasionally it doesn't but i don't think a higher return for the venue (which if it is higher rake would get swamped if they miss the guarantee wide anyway) is inconsistent with the bigger risk.

[bergeroo]

I would agree, however I would say that anything that DTD does should come with and asterisk because Mr Yong has more guts than most other people running poker.

Recently there was a UKIPT and a GUKPT in London back to back. For me it was no contest. But you pays your money and you takes your choice.

I would say a decision to play a tournament should come down to a mixture of finding your highest ROI and your best player experience. However those two things are weighted will vary from person to person.

Personally I don't live in the UK mostly, so I will sometimes plan my trips back the same week so I can play a tournament.

I don't mind playing smaller tournaments because I think I play final tables well and have a good understanding of ICM. So smaller fields, more final tables and in theory less variance. To get that I feel ok sometimes sacrificing a chance of a big bink.

A GUKPT is 1000+90.

A UKIPT is effectively 970+130

So I guess I would choose the GUKPT

but all other things are not equal though

just taking this UKIPT (accepting that for some the guarantees are lower, that the locations are trickier, that some of the tour's policies don't appeal to some etc)

GUKPT gte £200k, UKIPT gte £1m

part of the issue here is that the venue is taking on a significant "nosebleed" guarantees. sometimes it works, occasionally it doesn't but i don't think a higher return for the venue (which if it is higher rake would get swamped if they miss the guarantee wide anyway) is inconsistent with the bigger risk.

[Doobs]

A GUKPT is 1000+90.

A UKIPT is effectively 970+130

So I guess I would choose the GUKPT

but all other things are not equal though

just taking this UKIPT (accepting that for some the guarantees are lower, that the locations are trickier, that some of the tour's policies don't appeal to some etc)

GUKPT gte £200k, UKIPT gte £1m

part of the issue here is that the venue is taking on a significant "nosebleed" guarantees. sometimes it works, occasionally it doesn't but i don't think a higher return for the venue (which if it is higher rake would get swamped if they miss the guarantee wide anyway) is inconsistent with the bigger risk.

The headline figure is absolutely unimportant, it is all about the ROI.

To be fair I have played a couple of events at DTD I wouldn't have elsewhere. 

[TightEnd]

A GUKPT is 1000+90.

A UKIPT is effectively 970+130

So I guess I would choose the GUKPT

but all other things are not equal though

just taking this UKIPT (accepting that for some the guarantees are lower, that the locations are trickier, that some of the tour's policies don't appeal to some etc)

GUKPT gte £200k, UKIPT gte £1m

part of the issue here is that the venue is taking on a significant "nosebleed" guarantees. sometimes it works, occasionally it doesn't but i don't think a higher return for the venue (which if it is higher rake would get swamped if they miss the guarantee wide anyway) is inconsistent with the bigger risk.

The headline figure is absolutely unimportant, it is all about the ROI.

To be fair I have played a couple of events at DTD I wouldn't have elsewhere. 

the headline figure is important to some, less so to others

similarly the rake, way down the list to some, more important to others

as everyone is saying its a range of factors but the headline figure/opportunity for a big bink is, i would suggest, important to lots of players