Talk:Rake (poker)

Re-added rake free concept 10/20/2006

After a long and thoughtful debate regarding the existence of rake free cardrooms, it has been decided that the "rakefree" article should be merged into the "rake" article. Please keep the idea in this article, so as to preclude the need for a separate "rake free" article. Please see AfD/Rakefree for more information and an archive of the debate.Cloudreaver 15:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Added definition and links to rake free cardrooms

The reader deserves to know this information, which is highly beneficial to the poker-playing public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudreaver (talk • contribs)

I don't think that adding links to online cardrooms in this particular article is appropriate. Since the article is about the rake, it would make as much sense to list online cardrooms which DO collect a rake as it does to list online cardrooms which don't. Rray 22:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Rake is a concept. No rake, rake free, or any other way of saying "abscense of rake" is just that. This article is certainly not for specififying the rake structures of online cardrooms. Articles about cardrooms can talk about whatever their features might be. 2005 23:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There is definitely a difference between the concept of rake and rakefree. It is the same delineation as that between "care" and "carefree". Keep the two articles separate. Do not impose your personal bias and POV on others. Cloudreaver 22:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a matter of personal bias and POV, but of simple common sense. It's not a notable enough concept to warrant a separate article. Rray 10:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The 'Mechanisms' section classifies a monthly subscription fee as a form of rake, which I agree with, so I don't think it makes sense to describe such a cardroom as 'Rake free' later in the article. —Kymacpherson 12:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Nice edit. Rray 16:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

May I ask why you removed my link to an article which is btw more relevant than this wikipedia article + the three outbounds that are on it?!

This article doesn't exist for you to drop gby and spam your website. If you think this article can be improved, do so. 2005 08:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see, only you can spam your web site here...sorry won't happend again.

Rakeback Article?

Rakeback is a far more detailed and nuanced topic than the inclusion here gives it credit for. I think it is definitely deserving of its own article. I would be glad to start the article, find some RS's and begin writing it. I'm sure as it gets going many other editors will be able to contribute as well. I assume this has been discussed before so I'll wait to hear previous objections or reasons why it doesn't have its own article before I create it. Thanks DegenFarang (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok well if I don't get any feedback or history on this topic I'll just assume no such article has ever existed and create one on my own in the next couple of days. Would appreciate some feedback so I don't waste my efforts though, thanks. DegenFarang (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I left some feedback regarding the idea over at the discussion page for the poker wikiproject, but I'll repeat it here. I don't think anyone will have a problem with an article about rakeback existing; the difficulty will be in finding reliable sources on the subject. No reliable source = no article. Rray (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced rakeback is worthy of a standalone article. Is there really that much to say? My main concern is that it will just be another spam magnet. Every two-bob rakeback site will want a mention. I can see this one being another on my watch list... Hazir (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced either. How much encyclopedic could there be to say about what is essentially a rebate program applied to online poker? Luckily plenty of Wikipedians watch the poker articles for spam. Rray (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I started it, let me know what you guys think. Rakeback. There is actually quite a lot to say. The industry is constantly evolving and every network has their own way of attacking it. If you include loyalty programs, rake races, rakeback, points programs etc then it could be a massive article. As a rule and to avoid spam I think we should prohibit the naming of any individual rakeback site because they all offer the exact same thing. What should be mentioned is the individual poker sites - though they wont need to come here to spam as their information is encyclopedic and should be incluced. i.e. what does PokerStars offer, what does Full Tilt offer etc. The affiliates all offer whatever those sites say they can offer so the affiliate sites themselves are not relevant imo. DegenFarang (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As a standalone article rakeback is really scraping the barrel. Unless it's improved, I will be nominating it for deletion/merging. And no, I won't help improve the article as I don't think there's anything more to say about rakeback. Hazir (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Read the sources listed on the talk page and cited in the article. There is plenty more to say. There can be a review of what each network allows. There can be an explanation section of what a VIP program is and why some networks choose that over rakeback. There can be an explanation of rake races and freerolls that some affiliates offer on top of the rakeback they give players, many of these subsidized by the rooms. There can be a history section to explain how and why rakeback started and how it has evolved. PartyPoker, PokerStars, iPoker, FullTilt, Bodog and MicroGaming each have taken a completely different approach to rakeback and each can be analyzed for why they did it and how these approaches differ with pro's and con's. RS's are already provided for most of this on the talk page or in the article, you just need to read. DegenFarang (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a terrible article writer or I would do this stuff myself. I'm not good with Wiki Markup, creating infoboxes, adding images, knowing what to put in the intro and general wording. I can find lots of sources and will edit whatever blocks of text people put in the article for accuracy.DegenFarang (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference removed?

I'm confused about the removal of the reference below:

Time rakes are generally reserved for higher limit games ($10-$20 and above).

It seems as if the citation was removed, but it wasn't replaced with another source that would be somehow more reliable. (I think the source is reliable enough for this kind of fact.) But the actual information was left in the article. Why would the reference be removed but the information left in the article without comment? Is there a question about the reliability of the source or the accuracy of the statement? Rray (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Find a different reference. A self published blog is not the place to be getting information about casino operations. DegenFarang (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

An expert website (recognized as expert by the new York Times, Times of London and associated press) owned by a billion dollar company is an excellent reference. You don't get to pretend otherwise. 2005 (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

She is not an expert on casino operations she was quoted as an expert on women in poker DegenFarang (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Not that I agree that this reference isn't good, but shouldn't the editor who removed the reference provide a better reference? That would seem like a more constructive approach. Rray (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

2005, I will find a better reference. DegenFarang (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

2005, there actually doesn't appear to be much about this on the internet, from any source. Thus, I think the content should be removed entirely. It cannot be confirmed, that I can see, anywhere, that what she said on her blog is accurate. DegenFarang (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not an expert website and it wasn't used in any of those places as a source for how casinos operate. She has been used as an 'expert' on women in poker. Were this an article about women in poker, you may have a point. It is not, however. DegenFarang (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually the person who wrote the article is Jesse Knight. If you go to the reference page in question, his name is hyperlinked to a biography of himself. In that bio, it states that he has held many poker job titles including Casino Poker Manager. A poker room manager seems like a reliable source to me. TheTakeover (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

2005 until you stop using your meatpuppets and post on your own account nothing you have to say has any merit in this discussion whatsoever. DegenFarang (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a reference from a poker room manager's article on the subject would be an appropriate reference. I look forward to additional opinions on this one. Rray (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You agree with yourself? That's a new one. All of this discussion is irrelevant until we get an editor in here who is not 2005. DegenFarang (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you disagree that an article written by a poker room manager is a poor reference for information like this? If so, why? Rray (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the reference. If someone thinks the reference is unacceptable, perhaps using a better reference would be productive. But I don't think there's anything especially controversial about this particular reference on this particular fact. Rray (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

References

Comments

• Please add reliable sources to demonstrate notability under WP:CORP. Darksun 21:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you for the links Darksun. Will work on this. --Ollila 15:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to use this page to spam your website again. The redirect goes to the appropriate article space for the term. 2005 18:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• 2005 the reported issue was about lack of demonstration of the notability of the company within the article and not about spam. As a novice writer I was not aware of the notability criteria of Wikipedia, but after reviewing it I believe it should be fulfilled as the company has been cited at least by reputable industry publications Card Player and Poker Europa. I will work on to gather independent references that were completely missing from the initial article, and rewrite it to comply. --Ollila 00:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no way your coompany is noteable enough for an artcile. Second, as the owner of the site you have a plain conflict of interest so should restrain yourself from any other promotion of your company. Third, if you do insist on continuing, the proper article title would be "Rakeback.com" not "Rakeback", which is a general term that covers many, many, many other thinsg besides your company. 2005 00:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The name of the company is "Rakeback", not "Rakeback.com". Notability can be asserted by the company having substantive coverage within the industry, and as WP:NOTE states the concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". Although this could also be argued, as the combined monthly rake of Rakeback customers amounts to estimated 0.5% of World's total rake based on Wikipedia online poker revenue estimate. Just as a comment, as no original research about these numbers at the time. --Ollila 14:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

2005 What do you mean by rakeback meaning "many, many, many other things"? I understand that rakeback only has one meaning, as the term is made up to describe the process. As seen from Google Trends, the word only began to be used after 2005 when Rakeback started online operations and made it popular (http://www.google.com/trends?q=rakeback). --Ollila 14:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this. You aren't going to get an article about your non-notable company on this page. "Rakeback" means getting some rack back, not the name of your company. The article on furniture is not about furniture.com. Now please move on. Rakeback is covered by the encyclopedia in a sensible way and you have a blatant conflict of interest concerning your company, which is merely one of many many many non-notable companies offering rakeback. 2005 20:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Why ask me to stop talking on a talk page. This is what these pages are for. On my comments I have not proposed any action before notability is substantive, so no need for such an attacking tone. --Ollila 07:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You tried to hijack a page on the encylopedia in an inappropriate way. See WP:COI for starters. 2005 08:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Start Page

It appears this was at once a page but was created as spam for a rakeback site. I would like to create and expand the article examining rakeback as a topic, not to promote a website. I think I have the beginnings of an article here. Here are some additional RS's and there is more information that can be gleaned from the sources in the article, for anybody who would like to help expand it: 1 2 3 4 DegenFarang (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please Help Expand The Article!!

There is lots of information in the RS's I linked above and in the article. Please help to flesh it out and add sections. If somebody can also please add a tag to the article of some kind asking for assistance or identifying a problem, I don't know the different tags. Thank you DegenFarang (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)