my problema isnt with the games, it makes sense for the house to keep a part and it isnt likely that the amount would increase a lot if the tax decreased significantly.

The other day fizer said it makes sense to pay for the tournament, but that i desagree with:
1)if you take the tax out of everyone who enters the tournament there is no need to add na additional fee
2)it doesnt make sense to be the host to pay the entire cost when other players will benefit with part of the coins

Pooh, try joining the 5 coin games, the best players dont play there (you wont get to the 7500 coins, but still?

You can actually still make use of coins even without getting 7500.

At 1500, you can buy a clan or a year-long membership. At 3500, you can buy a lifetime membership. You can also buy map packs, but that's probably not as appealing because you can just level up.

Maybe Fizzer can add 200-coin monthly memberships as well. Or other coin-based in-game rewards, even silly decorative stuff like profile themes.

Edited 8/14/2015 08:33:43

But anyway.... Assume....With a 10% tax, there are about than 0.5% of the players that could have positive coin flow (per reason 1 above). With a 1% tax, there are likely 20% of players that could have positive coin flow. Therefore, you get a 40 times increase in the number of coin game players for a 10x decrease in tax rate.

Thus, I just raised revenue by 4x, not cut it by 10x.

You start this off with the word "assume" and 2 random numbers (which may make sense to you but since you don't have the statistics we cannot verify) and we have no idea how accruate your 0.5% or your 20% are. And then you end with a comment about how much money you've just made for Fizzer.

You also skipped a pretty critical assumption, that just because the percentage of players with a positive coin flow has increased by 40, the number of coin games (assuming the average stake of each coin game stays the same, which I don't think it would) would increase by 40 as well. Which I'm not sure is true either.

Sorry if I look like I'm just trying to start an argument with you, I'm just trying to make sure we can work if it is good or not for FizzMerc to reduce the rake and still make as much if not more money without skipping any steps in the assumptions, or they won't do it (and i would definitely be a fan of them doing it).

With 10% rake you need to win 55.55.. % games
With 1% you still need to win more than 50% - not a big difference, if someone is not able to maintain positive balance now, changing rake wouldn't help him either.
Also completly i agree with :

I don't think the point of coin games is to make money. I think the point is to gamble. It adds an aspect of intensity when your money is on the line even if it is just 80 cents.

Assuming there's no fun in it and you play coin games for money - that's not worth the time you spend on it.

But back to the topic -> no matter how high the rake is, you still need to win more than 50% games. That means that others have to lose more than 50%. And if someone is losing he will eventually quit. Warlight is not poker or blackjack - there's no way to dream about lucky cards and winning big money. After losing few games anyone can realize - "heh, i'm not good enough, no point losing more money".

Maybe Fizzer can add 200-coin monthly memberships as well. Or other coin-based in-game rewards, even silly decorative stuff like profile themes.

+1 Many players won't even try coin games as they can see '7500 is so far away'. Something more realistic could surely lure more people into it.

Edited 8/14/2015 09:24:49

deleted

Edited 8/14/2015 09:40:27