| Revision as of 02:43, 8 August 2011 editDegenFarang (talk | contribs)2,116 edits →Reference removed?← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:48, 8 August 2011 edit undoDegenFarang (talk | contribs)2,116 edits →Reference removed?Next edit → | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
| :::::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. ] (]) 02:29, 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. ] (]) 02:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::2005, I will find a better reference. ] (]) 02:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC) | ::::::2005, I will find a better reference. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:36, 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. ] (]) 01:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:48, 8 August 2011
 | Rakeback was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 27 February 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Rake (poker). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
 | Gambling: Poker Start‑class Low‑importance  | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 2005, I will find a better reference. DegenFarang (talk) 02:43, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)