Should ACR do a progressive rake for MTT's???

How about a progressive rake where only winners who cash pay a percentage of their win to rake. Losers just pay prizepool. Re-entries are 0% rake. This way there is no insult to injury. The rake would be graduated with 1st place playing the most as a %. I think it would fuel more re-entries bigger prizepools, lower the overlays for ACR and I think the more of a windfall the players get the more of a percentage they are willing to get charged that they do not mind. Obviously if you ask folks how much they want to pay the answer would be a firm 0% but gamblers often tip (which they shouldn't do) after a huge win got me thinking of this idea.

I am just throwing this idea out there as it makes sense for ACR to minimize their layovers,losing players avoid revenue based rake, psychologically winners don't care about paying a % as long as they won.

I know calculating a MTT tournament is like calculating the Universe, quite difficult. Anything obvious I am missing? Unforeseen consequences. Idea came to me in last couple minutes and it likely would have already been thought of. Thoughts?????

*Crickets*

I thought this was an interesting topic and have submitted to the tournament director.

I havent done the calculation. But if the rake of 3000 tourneys players is like 1000$, I bet winners wont like to pay for all the rake from their prizes.

Spaceman said:

I havent done the calculation. But if the rake of 3000 tourneys players is like 1000$, I bet winners wont like to pay for all the rake from their prizes.

Click to expand...

Flip side is that for all of the times they have been losing, they would be saving on rake. I would think it might balance out in the long run.

This is similar to the thinking of the new rule for some MTTs where the BB pays the ante. I think there may be some merit in what @playinggameswithu is proposing.

You got any answer from them yet? I am curious..

So, wouldn't the Tournament buy-in have to be larger to compensate for the rake take? Seems like the prize pool would be smaller. And would any rebuy or add-on be leveraged against the rake, possibly lowering % winners would have to pay?

This queston has been bugging me for awhile, but I dont really think this would change anything. I will try to explain.

If we take a $10 + 1 turny and it got 100 players there will be $ 1000 in the prize pool and $ 100 to the site. Lets asume (for easy math) that in this perticular turny, the winner get 20% of the prize pool (the prizes is set as percentege of the prize pool). In this case the winner will get $ 200. If the whole $11 go to the prize pool (as in no rake at all), the prize pool will be $1100, and the winner would get $220. The way I see it the winner is in a way paying $20 in rake in this particular example. It doesnt really matter if you call it a $11 turny instead because the sites will take their cut and it doesent matter if they take it from the start or from the prize pool.

Even if you "cut" the rake from the start and call it a $10 turny with intention to rake the winners it doesnt really change anything. The site would still claim their percentage as rake, and will is this case take it from the prize pool. This will just lead to a smaller prize pool and again smaller prizes. You have basically just made it a turny with lower buy in.

Does this make any sense?


Just my 2 cents

Sprockett

Spaceman said:

You got any answer from them yet? I am curious..

Click to expand...

Unfortunately just generic BS canned response.

Spaceman said:

I havent done the calculation. But if the rake of 3000 tourneys players is like 1000$, I bet winners wont like to pay for all the rake from their prizes.

Click to expand...

If the winner gets a huge payday they are open to paying quite a bit in just celebrations,tips etc. That windfall mentality really takes over. I think progressive rakes encourage bigger prizepool and more participants.