His explanation is asinine. If the rake is so high that a professional who knows positive EV plays can't make a profit, what chance does an amateur have. In his example, the guy that played the higher rake games didn't win, he just loss less. I would rather play with better caliber players, lose the money, and consider it the fee for the learning. The whole concept of poker being a game of skill and not just gambling, rests on pot odds and positive EV plays. If the rake gets that high, players should stop playing there. The only game I know that the player has a chance of putting the odds in his/her favor other than poker is black jack. And if you actually use real strategy by counting cards, that will probably get you banned or worse. These jackpot sit-n-gos probably have extra rake built in. There is no way to know just how random the bigger jackpots are. At a normal table, winning a third of the time would break even. At the minimum jackpot, that now means winning half of the time just to break even. It is becoming obvious that his interest is in making money for the house and not professional poker players. Amateur poker players are supposed to lose. At least have the decency to have it be possible to make money once the lessons are learned
I am sorry if I was a bit strong with that last post. People please feel free to make a case for a higher rake. I am sure there can be a valid argument out there for a higher rake, but kid poker's version just didn't cut it.
Sounds to me like someone owns a chunk of the gambling sites. Higher rake means more income for the owners. It is just like Mr. Trump who gets rich off the backs of the peasants who he claims to support. For every winner, a million losers.
Either Daniel is a complete he is a sellout or completely ignorant about what he says about the online poker ecosystem. However, it seems unlikely he thinks all these recent changes are actually good for the games (is he that clueless?). Sounds like he is acting on his own self-interest.