33 replies to this topic

[MilesZS]

Dutch Boyd famously failed at starting an online cardroom a few years ago. He claims that it was the credit card go-between they chose or whatever, and he claims it left HIM bankrupt (and all of the players on his site failed to recieve their winnings -- but evidently they got their credit card companies to nullify the deposits).He has a new idea, and a new business plan. RakeFree.com will be unique in that instead of charging a percentage rake for ring tables and fees for all tournaments, he instead plans on charging $30 per month to play ring games, $30 per month to play tournaments, or $50 per month to do both. The fee will not be an upfront cost every month, but rather will be raked from the games you play until you have paid the full monthly price, then you will pay no more rake. So really, what it's doing is saying "We will only rake a total of $30 per person if they play all ring games." --- not exactly Rake Free.That being said, I find this an extremely intriguing idea. I was hoping to get a feel for what you guys all thought about it, and if you guys would try this site out, all things considered. I think I'd like to write kind of a preview article on Boyd's idea and how it's being accepted. You are my "Poker Community at-large". As far as I go, if I, at that time, was having success at pokerstars and enjoying it, it would really come down to the competition at RakeFree. I wouldn't switch just because of the modified rake idea, I don't think. If the competition was comparable, it would be hard to justify NOT switching, with the possibility of losing less money to the house. Any other thoughts?

[Wilderness]

Well, first of all I wouldn't buy into any idea of his since the last disaster.Also, there would never be any micro or small limit games on something like that because you would never pay that much in rake/fees to play a bunch of fairly low limit cash games or low buy-in tournaments in order to make the 30 or 50 bucks a month worthwhile. If you don't have small limits to attract fish, I think you'd have a very hard time bringing fish into the website, which means that most good players won't want to play there.

[doublesuited!]

Nope. No way.He's had his chances and proved to be unworthy of anyone's trust. Gank has been very public about his dealings with Dutch and he doesn't have anything nice to say. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us. I'd rather lose my money through rakes than just handing it to Dutch.

[LIPOKERPACK]

Rakefree.com was the project he has been trying to get to take off for a few years now. I think he just doesnt have enough funding to launch a massive advertising and marketing campaign along with massive bonus offers to at least match the top online poker sites.

[dna4ever]

I really only play small limit tournies and small ring tables and even at that my rakes is sometimes $3 or $4 a day so if you multplied that out over say 25 poker days thats $75 - $100 so defintely a net rake savings for me even at the terribly low limits.I still dont know what to think about Dutch Boyd. I have certainly read about his previous business disaster and he is selling stakes of himself to WSOP events on ebay, here is one thats going on right now ... http://cgi.ebay.com/...ssPageName=WDVWI have a tough time putting my money and trust into a guy who asks the masses of ebay to help stake him in $10,000 events. You know sites like stars, party, ub, etc have put millions into security, coding, etc and I never have any doubts if I want to withdrawal at any given time I can do so. The net result of all this is even though it may be a little bit cheaper rake I don't see myself ever buying into it.

[faketree]

I agree with the other posts; I'd try and stay as far away from Dutch as possible. The whole thing with his old site is very shady and now all his friends are speaking out against him. As for the rakefree idea, it is sound. The rates that online cardrooms charge are so high. 10% for everything. Live rooms charge 10% for tourneys and take usually a small amount from live pots. This goes towards dealer pay, rent, equipment, etc. All the online rooms have to pay for is equipment and a couple dorky programmers. And they have hundreds maybe thousands of tables going with thousands of players at them. They must be making a killing. The rakefree idea would let them still make some pretty decent bank but it doesn't seem to be exorbidant like the others.That being said, I still wouldn't transfer any money into anything that has Dutch's name on it.

[jayistheman]

faketree said:

I agree with the other posts; I'd try and stay as far away from Dutch as possible. The whole thing with his old site is very shady and now all his friends are speaking out against him. As for the rakefree idea, it is sound. The rates that online cardrooms charge are so high. 10% for everything. Live rooms charge 10% for tourneys and take usually a small amount from live pots. This goes towards dealer pay, rent, equipment, etc. All the online rooms have to pay for is equipment and a couple dorky programmers. And they have hundreds maybe thousands of tables going with thousands of players at them. They must be making a killing. The rakefree idea would let them still make some pretty decent bank but it doesn't seem to be exorbidant like the others.That being said, I still wouldn't transfer any money into anything that has Dutch's name on it.

DORKY PROGRAMMERS???wtf was that for... im a programmer.... some of the most successful card players are programmers... eh, im not really pissed.... most everybody in all of my cs classes is a total wiener. i understand the stereotype....but all these online card rooms are really run by indian people who are bathing in money... thats all there is to it.

[Spidurman]

The main problem with those sites is that the only people who really understand rake and its true cost are serious players - most of whom are good.The lesser players (fish) don't get it, and they flock to the regular sites. Your earn rate is driven far more by the fish than by the rake

[faketree]

jayistheman said:

DORKY PROGRAMMERS???wtf was that for... im a programmer.... some of the most successful card players are programmers... eh, im not really censored.... most everybody in all of my cs classes is a total wiener. i understand the stereotype....but all these online card rooms are really run by indian people who are bathing in money... thats all there is to it.

i'm a programmer as well jay....why do you think i have so much free time to spend in this forum? :-) :-) :-)

[AceOfSpaiDs]

I don't like Dutch Boyd, so regardless of his last disaster, he would be the last person I'd throw my money to

[Matt Miner]

too bad dutch boyd is a sketchball because paying only $30 in rake a month would pretty much kick ass.

[jayistheman]

faketree said:

jayistheman said:

DORKY PROGRAMMERS???wtf was that for... im a programmer.... some of the most successful card players are programmers... eh, im not really censored.... most everybody in all of my cs classes is a total wiener. i understand the stereotype....but all these online card rooms are really run by indian people who are bathing in money... thats all there is to it.

i'm a programmer as well jay....why do you think i have so much free time to spend in this forum? :-) :-) :-)

lol... im actually at work now

[MilesZS]

yeah, he seems kinda shady. After all, he is lawyer. By the way, an average online poker room will rake in $50 million per year. PokerStars has made $47,000 on one single multi-table satellite that only took a couple hours and only "virtual" space. Wow.I can see where Dutch Boyd wants a piece of this money, but maybe he should just join a team such as FullTilt (but please god Dutch, don't join FullTilt. I like Full Tilt right now.)If he had other people that you respected in this venture with him, would you be more apt to consider? Not a Crew member, mind you.

[AllenRay4]

miles, what's wrong with Full Tilt?? I think their Last Hand feature is absolutely awesome. I realize you can get all this information later at other sites but having it right at your disposal immediately after a hand is great, not to mention, being able to look at their mucked cardsi only thing i don't like is there seems to have a lot of A-10 straights. (KJ outdrawing AA, etc but I gave up complaining about online hands a long time ago-not worth it

[Dane]

Spidurman said:

The main problem with those sites is that the only people who really understand rake and its true cost are serious players - most of whom are good.The lesser players (fish) don't get it, and they flock to the regular sites. Your earn rate is driven far more by the fish than by the rake

Couldnt agree more, bad players just wont go for it and thats where the money is for us average players (me anyway) and I dont trust Dutch.

[breiten19]

I am pretty much in agreement with everyone else...I pay $50 in tournament buyins and rakes in an hour, but no money of mine is going to Dutch Boyd ever after the last venture. I would be interesed to see if one of the majors decided to go this way (partypoker pstars UltimateBet) if they could pull everyone from the other sites. A flat rate like that for all playerswould leave the big money players foaming at the mouth.If he gets it started don't question his ability to market the thing....he's git ESPN swinging from his nuts apparently.

[MilesZS]

AllenRay4 said:

miles, what's wrong with Full Tilt?? I think their Last Hand feature is absolutely awesome. I realize you can get all this information later at other sites but having it right at your disposal immediately after a hand is great, not to mention, being able to look at their mucked cardsi only thing i don't like is there seems to have a lot of A-10 straights. (KJ outdrawing AA, etc but I gave up complaining about online hands a long time ago-not worth it

I said "Please God Dutch, don't join Full Tilt. I like Full Tilt right now." ... What I meant by that was this: I don't want Dutch to join Full Tilt because I would consider that adding sewage to my drinking water. Full Tilt is awesome both for its spokes team and for its software. I understand the competition is a bit tougher than other places, and the tables are not all full like they are at PokerStars, but that's fine. In fact, I went on there last night and asked Chris Ferguson a question or two (while watching the text from a bunch of IDIOTS saying things like "Dood, I AM JESUS. CHRIS FERGUSON IS HORRIBLE! LOOK HE IS LOSING!!")Thanks for all the responses guys. I'm guessing the only way any of you would try RakeFree.com is if PokerStars bought the domain and gave Dutch a lollipop for his troubles.

[tentenoffsuit]

I'd join. I like Dutch... Must be the minority...

[Spidurman]

breiten19 said:

I am pretty much in agreement with everyone else...I pay $50 in tournament buyins and rakes in an hour.

The question isn't how much you pay (the good player) - its how much more the fish pay to you than the rake. you need fish for a game, bigger factor than rake.

[MilesZS]

I don't think liking Dutch was as much the problem as his PokerSpot.com was the problem. Around 1000 people saw no winnings from PokerSpot.com, even though there should have been cashouts given to many players. One couple claimed they were owed $56,000. Dutch made matters worse by making many excuses before claiming it was Net Pro Ltd.'s fault, and not the sites fault. That could very well be the case, but the guy complicated things. Add the fact that there are other people who know him and say he's shady. Too bad he had to come up with a great idea after ruining his own credibility, huh?