David Peters broke owing money to many people
https://x.com/DylanLinde/status/20464123...
I deeply regret doing business with David Peters. Last summer Davi
Peters is almost solely a NLH player (check his HendonMob profile,) players who play PLO and non-NLH games in addition to NLH are far more valuable due to the games spread at the WSOP across the full schedule. If the WSOP was only NLH he would go for a far higher price, presuming that he is planning to play and has the funds/backing to play the full schedule. Even without playing PLO and mix, the price he went for seems to point to the drafters thinking him playing is obviously questionable to some degree.
Anyone who doesn't play PLO and mix games are bad/terrible buys in the fantasy draft and should mainly only be used to fill out slots 5 - 8 once all the solid WSOP full schedule grinders have gone. The real value in the draft is picking up "unknowns" for $1 or very solid all-around players who people aren't even sure are going to show up so have a bargain price on them. I seem to remember seeing James Obst go for like $1 - $3 one of the recent years and that is the most ridiculous price ever if he was actually playing which we can only assume the drafters didn't think he was.
Not my point… considering that incident, I would’ve thought he’d go underdrafted- maybe someone takes a random $1 flyer without any information.
Going for $3, I’d assume there was an insider tip that he and Dylan Linde (and others he’s in “bad debt” with) squared up somehow already or else he wouldn’t be playing any events at all.
They probably just think those in debt tend to run the hottest, look at Chino and Hawkins.
Not my point… considering that incident, I would’ve thought he’d go underdrafted- maybe someone takes a random $1 flyer without any information.
Going for $3, I’d assume there was an insider tip that he and Dylan Linde (and others he’s in “bad debt” with) squared up somehow already or else he wouldn’t be playing any events at all.
There’s always people out there who owe money out there playing events
Polarbears analysis was spot on and you guys are trying to nitpick the parts that don't matter to feel right.You guys are missing the fact that the rake has to be so high that a skilled player looks at the combination of rake + player pool and thinks its not worthwhile to play there, which would mean the rake is so high that the skilled player likely can't win.You are talking a
This !
It’s bizarre to argue more rake is better.
Some guys act as if fishs are blind people who don’t realize what’s going on.
Anyone who talk w fishs knows they complain about it too. The money don’t hurt them, but it hit their ego. The don’t want win 20k pot and see 19k chips in front of them.
Btw here in Brazil games are 5% uncapped. 20k pot, house gets 1k . Huge raked kill fishs faster too.
Might changed last 2-3 years but it’s has been like that for 15+years since i started playing.
More rake is better if you are the owner of the game. It’s terrible for everyone else.
Some guys here played those games… yea Amazing games. Fishs loses big, pro win small, house wins huge. WTF
Smaller rake, fish’s loses not so big, pro wins decent, house wins enough.
Anyone who think more rake is better should play in Brazil.
This ! It’s bizarre to argue more rake is better.Some guys act as if fishs are blind people who don’t realize what’s going on. Anyone who talk w fishs knows they complain about it too. The money don’t hurt them, but it hit their ego. The don’t want win 20k pot and see 19k chips in front of them. Btw here in Brazil games are 5% uncapped. 20k pot, house gets 1k . Huge raked kill
Nobody Is arguing for 1000 dollar a hand rake. There is nuance to everything.
I have a friend who grinds 2/5 nl. He specifically gets to his local room right AFTER the high hand ends. Why? Because half the room clears out then and guess the type of player who makes up the bulk of that half. It's worth the couple dollars an hour in more rake (which no high hand effectively is) for him the better game. If it was 5 percent uncapped that would be a much different story bc you cant overcome that.
Nobody Is arguing for 1000 dollar a hand rake. There is nuance to everything.I have a friend who grinds 2/5 nl. He specifically gets to his local room right AFTER the high hand ends. Why? Because half the room clears out then and guess the type of player who makes up the bulk of that half. It's worth the couple dollars an hour in more rake (which no high hand effectively is) fo
Interesting. Idk where his local card room is, but I’d say the games are softer during the really big high hand promos- ton of recs jumping in doing crazy sh*t.
Nobody Is arguing for 1000 dollar a hand rake. There is nuance to everything.I have a friend who grinds 2/5 nl. He specifically gets to his local room right AFTER the high hand ends. Why? Because half the room clears out then and guess the type of player who makes up the bulk of that half. It's worth the couple dollars an hour in more rake (which no high hand effectively is) fo
Defend more rake is better is mental gymnastics.
It’s mind blowing that this is an actual discussion .
Interesting. Idk where his local card room is, but I’d say the games are softer during the really big high hand promos- ton of recs jumping in doing crazy sh*t.
There isn’t big high hand promos lol. Rake is high because owners want more money. And i don’t blame them, in their shoes id take as big as possible.
Games aren’t soft when you pay 5% uncapped. It’s astronomical big.
Playing live in USA is easier than high rake games in Brazil.
Its difficult to me to realize people don’t understand what a high rake means lol. It literally became your biggest opponent, who never loses.
Oh wait, but we weren’t talking about that high rake. Well, you said more rake is better lol
As for David peters, pathetic. The way he replied looks really bad.
Everyone has problems sometimes but how you handle the situation makes difference.
It's mind blowing that some people are stupid enough to believe that because a game with many fish at a higher rake is better than a game with no fish at a slightly lower rake is a better choice it means high rake is good rather than playing fish is good.
It's mind blowing that some people are stupid enough to believe that because a game with many fish at a higher rake is better than a game with no fish at a slightly lower rake is a better choice it means high rake is good rather than playing fish is good.
You act like this is a coincidence when it's often not.that's what you're not getting. the types of people chasing a dollar cheaper rake/promos aren't the type of people you want in the game. Of course playing fish is good. And when all of the nits go chase the cheapest rake and the fish don't guess what happens.
wsex was one of if not the biggest online sportsbooks in the world in 2005ish. they started offering 100 percent rake back. the games were atrocious compared to any other site and there weren't a ton of games. gee tough choice I could have played on wsex and paid no rake or I could have played on other sites and printed money without even having to be good at poker.
Honestly I'm glad people like you exist. If you were playing in 2005 youd be on wsex. If 2 casinos were next to each other and one had a dollar cheaper rake than the other that's where you'd be. Fine by me. Pay the cheaper rake all you want no matter that.
As mentioned there's nuance to it.
6$ rake at caesars>$8 rake at the Bike.
5% up to $25 homegame with several drunk guys with money to burn > $8 rake at the Bike.
This is common sense.
Ultimately though, shilling for a "more rake is better" policy as a multimillionaire who likely doesnt even pay for his own buyins is dirty.
It's mind blowing that some people are stupid enough to believe that because a game with many fish at a higher rake is better than a game with no fish at a slightly lower rake is a better choice it means high rake is good rather than playing fish is good.
You act like this is a coincidence when it's often not.that's what you're not getting. the types of people chasing a dollar
And I'm glad fools like you exist. You admit you are defending a lie in your first sentence. For higher rake to be good you need to be able to write that it is never a coincidence. A little curious as to whether you are a fool and believe what you write or a dishonest shill that knows they are lying. My guess is fool as shills know better than to write your first sentence.
And I'm glad fools like you exist. You admit you are defending a lie in your first sentence. For higher rake to be good you need to be able to write that it is never a coincidence. A little curious as to whether you are a fool and believe what you write or a dishonest shill that knows they are lying. My guess is fool as shills know better than to write your first sentence.
yes you got me I'm a dishonest shill hahha.
Who exactly am I shilling for Einstein?
It's amazing how many poker players, even winning poker players have zero common sense/street smarts and don't understand simple things like slightly higher rake (lack of garbage like free rolls) can lead to a better game. Then again so many of these idiots destroy their own games bc they think bad players have to play no matter what. They'll study to get 11 cents of ev out of a hand that comes up once and year and then not go to the casino next door bc the rake is a dollar higher lmao.
Again thing about who cares about things like the absolute cheapest rake or garbage like hourly free rolls (which at the end of the day is just lower rake) such as the ones at Horseshoe. And tell me those things don't lead to worse games.
At the end of the day you take your money and play where you want and I'll take my shill money (what site/casino again?) and I'll play where I want.
The quality of a game is almost entirely based on the players in the game. If you're playing with a bunch of splashy, talkative, friendly players it's gonna be a good game. if you're playing with a bunch of angry, nitty misregs and condescending, ******* grinders it's gonna be a **** game. You can draw a loose correlation between higher rake and better quality of games, but I think it skirts the main issue regarding game quality in most areas, which is all the ****ing misregs and ******* grinders. Raising the rake may cull their numbers but it's also gonna cull a significant portion of your fun splashy recs while acting as an economic siphon to local poker markets as well. There should be a more elegant solution.
edit: reading the comment back, the fact that words like assh0le and ***** are asterisk'd out on a forum full of adults dedicated to pursuing and discussing a hobby revolving around gambling is genuinely absurd to me. Like a scene in some satirical black comedy horror movie with a pastor playing in a seedy bar-basement card room admonishing a mobster for saying "hell" instead of "heck".
I don't understand what is being argued - you have two factors in play the rake and your winrate that determine your profit. You could have 4x the rake and still be more profitable in a game then a game with no rake. Nothing else to be said.
And I'm glad fools like you exist. You admit you are defending a lie in your first sentence. For higher rake to be good you need to be able to write that it is never a coincidence. A little curious as to whether you are a fool and believe what you write or a dishonest shill that knows they are lying. My guess is fool as shills know better than to write your first sentence.
yes
FWIW, he was wavering between shill or fool and settled on fool….but then I’m a fool too because I agree
Only issue is the phrasing, he could have said something like higher rake isn’t always necessarily bad and go through the reasons.
But people go way extreme overboard acting like it’s some unforgivable act. He wasn’t some insurance lawyer fighting to deny legit claims or a drug dealer handing out free samples to teens.
He was simply the ambassador for a company that was trying to put a positive spin (that was not without merit) on a price increase. Get over it.
David Peters in the final 135 of the monster stack, guaranteed 12k, maybe Dylan will be waiting at the cage for him.
For you to believe what DG said(higher rake is good) given a choice between a higher raked game and a lower raked game you will pick the higher one. Look at the entire concept. If you believe the higher rake drives away pros as they can not win how do you believe you can win when they can't? And if it doesn't drive them away what benefit do you hold the average player gets from more rake? I agree a celebrity using their brand to push a lie is not as bad as the drug dealer handing out free samples but given how much the industry he is lying to push takes from the public every year I believe he is scum.
For you to believe what DG said(higher rake is good) given a choice between a higher raked game and a lower raked game you will pick the higher one. Look at the entire concept. If you believe the higher rake drives away pros as they can not win how do you believe you can win when they can't And if it doesn't drive them away what benefit do you hold the average player gets from
I said slightly higher rake can make a better game bc a lot of regs will gravitate towards the lower rake game (or game with some sort of hourly free roll type promo which is essentially just a lower raked game.) I didn't say they CAN'T win. You're putting words in my mouth.
I think a lot of them are making a mistake by making the lower rake game their priority. And I'm glad that they make this mistake.
