General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

Page 5: Shitstorm on 2+2 about stars going to Weighted contributed rake

or track by Email or RSS


gargamel_fk

Avatar for gargamel_fk

29 posts
Joined 10/2009

Acombfosho it isn't true. Sure they decreased rake from 5% to 4.5 but they increased 5 handed rake from 2 to 3$. That would be really brutal for any 6-max player (cause around 25% of hands are 5 handed). That's why people didn't want the rake changes. If it was only decrease in rake to 4.5 no one would complain.

Posted over 6 years ago

DiggerTheDog

Avatar for DiggerTheDog

696 posts
Joined 09/2008

CLIFFS: Stars changed their rake structure to a fairer method for the MAJORITY of its players, from dealt to WC (which is already the industry standard for most rooms), reduced it's rake percentage from 5% to 4.5%, put a lower $2 cap on 5 handed games (previously $3).

This onslaught of logic on Stars behalf resulted in many slightly-losing/breakeven/slightly-winning players on 2+2 getting pissed, due to the fact that they are the ones who only earned an income in thanks to the glitches in their old rake system!

End cliffs/

This is a great post http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=30699918&postcount=556

Further more, it is the mass multi tabling nits who were destroying the games, quickly devouring the recreational players money between them. If the new rake system means they can't nit their way to profit (after bonuses of course) then to be honest it can only be good for the actual health of the games, hopefully the reasonable people who are for POKER are for the changes too. Poker is supposed to be a game of skill, whereas one can agree than dedication to grind out the hours and play 24+ tables at once in order to make a mathematically certain profit is a certain skill set in itself, it is a long way from what poker actually was, or indeed what it should considered to be...


That is absurd.

You cannot have your cake and eat it.

Nits have smaller winrates - so in fact the fish actually last longer than say vs HU play or a LAG.

Nits also function to slow the rate of the LAG taking money from the fish because of the small times they 3-bet or otherwise stunt the LAGs isolation of the fish.

Then if you look on aggregate on all nits vs all LAGs - nits are taking far less money out of the poker economy.

And

You do not seem to acknowledge that this change will basically make it even harder to make money playing <5/10 LHE.
WC as it currently stands will destroy PS the last bastion of LHE on the planet.

And do not get me started on the fact that they have ignored long overdue changes for this comprehensive overhaul.
No king of the hill for HU
No break on the rake for micro and nano players.

Give me a farking break with some of these answers in this thread.

Posted over 6 years ago

bananee

Avatar for bananee

167 posts
Joined 05/2010

CLIFFS: Stars changed their rake structure to a fairer method for the MAJORITY of its players, from dealt to WC (which is already the industry standard for most rooms), reduced it's rake percentage from 5% to 4.5%, put a lower $2 cap on 5 handed games (previously $3).



this is not true, the rake did not change, only the change to WC and the new distribution for VPPs.

Posted over 6 years ago

Acombfosho

Avatar for Acombfosho

3147 posts
Joined 06/2008

Is that so? If so I'm sorry for the mistake about that. I must have misread it on 2+2, I'm struggling to find it again as the thread is so long! My bad

Posted over 6 years ago

Acombfosho

Avatar for Acombfosho

3147 posts
Joined 06/2008

Can someone else post a more accurate cliffs then? That posts was a summary of what I took out of the thread when trudging through it last last night.

Posted over 6 years ago

Acombfosho

Avatar for Acombfosho

3147 posts
Joined 06/2008

Then if you look on aggregate on all nits vs all LAGs - nits are taking far less money out of the poker economy.



I have to disagree with this, for a few simple reasons.

First, a definition clarification is necessary.

When we talk about 'money out of the poker economy' what we are in fact referring to is 'total $ gained in profit, never to be redeposited back into the poker economy'. This is clear definition and remains true regardless of the playing style a player has.

Second, let's look at the numbers.

For arguments sake lets assume an average winning 24tabling nit wins 1bb/100 over 1,000,000 hands a year = 100 buyins + bonuses (which are pumped up further via the dealt method, essentially pay less, get more).

At the same time, again for arguments sake, lets assume a winning 4 tabling lag wins 4bb/100 over 250,000 hands a year = also 100 buyins (however with much less bonuses + paid more rake in reality, got less back)

Further more, winning nits far far FAR out number winning LAGs.

Both LAGs and NITS have roughly the same amount of 'money out of the poker economy' what we can better describe as referring to 'total $ gained in profit, never to be redeposited back into the poker economy'.
However winning NITS outnumber LAGS by far. And so by definition, they take more total money out of the poker economy.

If this was not the case, then why would people choose to play NIT style over LAG if being a winning LAG player was so easy and more profitable?

Posted over 6 years ago

DiggerTheDog

Avatar for DiggerTheDog

696 posts
Joined 09/2008

1. They are moving from dealt to WC
---> they are explicitly removing incentives from high volume to low volume players through its rakeback structure.

----> the gap between the rate of realised rakeback by high volume (now) and low volume (new) - results in Pokerstars pocketing the difference.

Pokerstars has justified this "fairness" - a convenient cover cause LAGs etc complain and help their cause.
But instead of creating a system whereby the LAGs get the same (as nits) and the nits retain their current rate
_ pokerstars is pocketing the difference
they also cite changed business conditions - US removal and increase regulations in Eurozone countries as well as "moving to industry standards" as other reasons.

It has been estimated that the result will be anywhere from 8 million to 30 million less be paid back to regulars as a whole.

Some scripts have shown that even 24/22 NLHE 6M will still be worse off.
Not just nits most will be worse off.

Which is leaving aside all of the tactics and poor communication by PS.
Announcing it will be announced Dec 15
delayed with no reasons why

Then when announced a shitstorm developed over the worst parts but some like myself over the whole package

They then removed the "compensatory parts of it" and kept WC

They then issued a statement that passively aggressively blamed us on 2+2 for the removal of the compensation.

We then organised a sitout.

They then told us upon that threat - that we could have some representative go to the Isle of Man in 3 weeks - but that they would not have an open online discussion but it had to be in person under NDA's

We then began a sitout and was shutdown to 1 tables and had our software rights curtailed.

All the while non of the real problems with Pokerstars are dealt with.


So please show some support for other players trying to keep a monopoly honest because one day we hope our American friends will join us again on a decent site and not have PS ruin its best features whilst ignoring its faults.

Posted over 6 years ago

Acombfosho

Avatar for Acombfosho

3147 posts
Joined 06/2008

1. They are moving from dealt to WC.



This is true. It is fairly obvious however that WC is a fairer system, as the name Weighted Contributed implies, you are only attributed rake in accordance with what you actually contributed to the pot.

With respect to the rest of your post, it appears clearly aggravating the way in which stars has conducted this change, with poor communication to members of 2+2 throughout the whole process.

However, it would be good to bare in mind that Stars as a global brand, caters to all variety of poker players, not only 2+2 members and mass multi-tablers. It makes sense to cater to the majority of their players by changing the rake to a fairer system for the majority, and at the same time making a healthier profit. Stars is a business after all.

Finally, Stars is not a monopoly, this is evident by the fact that you are free to play anywhere else, and that there are many other competitors to Stars out there. They just happen to be the best overall in terms of service, support, and software. In short, they are running their business better than the rest of the competition.

This post http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=30699918&postcount=556 appeals to reason, so I will happily re-quote it below:

He is responding to SpeedLimiter, whose quote is placed in emphasis and bold

Originally Posted by SpeedLimiter
The protests had literally nothing to do with the change from dealt to WC. Its about the overall increase in rake taken from the poker ecosystem. Many players including myself are happy with WC, the problem is how the reward system, which when conceived was based on a dealt method of rewarding VPPs is no longer a viable reward system when used in tandem with WC. With these changes the whole player pool, from top to bottom is going to bleed out. (1st to go will be limit and cap games.)

This of course isn't true. If the new rake system starts killing the player pool, PS will quickly change it. They understand better than you they can't survive without a healthy player pool.

I'm wondering how many of the strikers still live at home, because the whole effort strikes as one of the most childish, unprofessional acts, akin to something a spoiled child would do if their parents took away the keys to the car the parents pay for.

Or its as if a group of car salesmen were told by management that commissions were going to be reduced in the future, so they barricaded the car lot to prevent customers coming in. Of course they'll get fired, you can't try to damage the business you work for and expect not to.

PokerStars has every right to raise their rake. You have every right to stop playing there. Every business has the right to "profit maximization", including yours, and including PokerStars.

If PokerStars can raise rake and increase their profits without hurting their business, they absolutely should. Just as the strikers can increase their profits by switching games, styles or sites. The funniest posts are the ones that accuse PokerStars of "greed" when the strikers are just as greedy, as they are essentially demanding PokerStars forgo profits it could make so the strikers can make more.

It doesn't matter what PS paid in the past, if they realize they didn't need to pay such high benefits, they have the right to pay less this year.

If PS's new program simply doesn't work for you or your games, the right response is to tell PS, and switch sites if they won't listen. Trying to damage their games by blocking what lists or sitting out games is foolish, and by making the relationship antagonistic, you made it harder for PokerStars to listen to you.

The silliest part is the furor over the switch to contributed rake as a measure. It is a great change that is long overdue. If you were able to make SNE by 24 tabling while playing a very low VPIP style, that's great, but you have to understand how bad that style is for the games. So suck it up, adjust, play a few more hands, and few less tables (and hopefully enjoy the additional action it will create), and continue to lobby PS to tweak the VIP program to help compensate you for those adjustments.



Sorry I may have got my facts jumbled up in the eariler attempt at making CLIFF's.

Both gargamel_fk and bananee seem to be mixed up too

gargamel_fk said:

Sure they decreased rake from 5% to 4.5



then only a few minutes later bananee said:

this is not true, the rake did not change, only the change to WC and the new distribution for VPPs



So it seems like we are all confused, aside from the only clear change, dealt rake is gone, and WC is here to stay.. ??

Posted over 6 years ago

DiggerTheDog

Avatar for DiggerTheDog

696 posts
Joined 09/2008

Ok

If you are gonna quote stuff like that to me - then there is no reason for me to continue to post in this thread.

That quote is literally somewhere between absurd or obtuse.

WC changes will kill limit holdem below 5/10.
Fact.
WC changes as they stand will take money from winning players MOST winning players not just Nits although they will be hit hardest.
Fact.
WC as they stand will result in more player funds going to pokerstars - what they do after that who knows - I guess we can hope they spend it well.
Fact.

Leave the childish live in your parents quotes in the trash where they belong.

Posted over 6 years ago

Acombfosho

Avatar for Acombfosho

3147 posts
Joined 06/2008

DiggerTheDog, if all you took from that entire post was a personal or emotional attack against you or other players, then please consider yourself mistaken. It was an appeal to reason.

The 'winning players' we are speaking of are two different kinds when you consider that one set is a winning player due mainly to exploiting an aberrant rake structure and another set is winning due to playing better poker than their competitors.

While we all agree rake is too high, either WC, dealt, WTA or otherwise, it's a non argument to say dealt is 'fairer'. Disputes about the effect on the current state of the games aside; It is a non disputable fact that WTA>WC>dealt in terms of fairness.

Posted over 6 years ago

gargamel_fk

Avatar for gargamel_fk

29 posts
Joined 10/2009

Nah my bad. They reversed the rake changes cause players weren't happy about it. S now we have WC with the same rake structure.
Sorry for the confusion that I made with my post

Posted over 6 years ago

Hielko

Avatar for Hielko

4407 posts
Joined 07/2008

However, it would be good to bare in mind that Stars as a global brand, caters to all variety of poker players, not only 2+2 members and mass multi-tablers. It makes sense to cater to the majority of their players by changing the rake to a fairer system for the majority, and at the same time making a healthier profit. Stars is a business after all.


Yes, and the sad fact is that the optimal poker business is absolutely not one that is attractive for regulars. Regulars take money out of the games that otherwise would go to the site.

If this was not the case, then why would people choose to play NIT style over LAG if being a winning LAG player was so easy and more profitable?


It's because playing like a nit is easier, and removing those players from the player pool is certainly not going to make games better. Removing the worst regulars from the game will obviously result in the average regular being better -> your average edge is becoming smaller -> your winrate goes down -> more money goes towards rake.

Posted over 6 years ago

DiggerTheDog

Avatar for DiggerTheDog

696 posts
Joined 09/2008

Pokerstars instead of choosing to improve the rakeback for Looser players to the level of or better than nits.
Chooses instead to remove rakeback level of nits below that of looser players.

Can you see the effect of the difference between the two?

Hint - one ends up with more money to Pokerstars.


Fairness give me a break.

50NL has the same rake cap as 1000NL.

leave me alone.

Posted over 6 years ago

Acombfosho

Avatar for Acombfosho

3147 posts
Joined 06/2008

Yes, and the sad fact is that the optimal poker business is absolutely not one that is attractive for regulars. Regulars take money out of the games that otherwise would go to the site.



You're right, the optimal poker 'business' would be akin to the network enet (last I heard was €7 rake cap!), but this is far from what Stars is doing. Stars still has the best rake in the whole industry.

It's because playing like a nit is easier, and removing those players from the player pool is certainly not going to make games better. Removing the worst regulars from the game will obviously result in the average regular being better -> your average edge is becoming smaller -> your winrate goes down -> more money goes towards rake.



There seems to be a leap in logic here. Removing the worst regs (who can't make money without manipulating the dealt rake structure to their advantage, so will have to quit), will surely mean more money in the poker economy overall for good players (those players who are good enough to beat other poker players, at poker) as the worst regs (losing players before bonuses) will not be able to withdraw any money any more, thus leaving more for the better players.

Unless there something missing I can't see!?

Posted over 6 years ago

Acombfosho

Avatar for Acombfosho

3147 posts
Joined 06/2008

Also, this is the official PokerStars Steve thread on Internet Poker forum on 2+2
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28/internet-poker/pokerstars-com-vip-program-ring-game-rake-changes-effective-january-1-2012-a-1145272/

It states rake is lowered to 4.5% from 5%. Is this now defunct?

Posted over 6 years ago




HomePoker ForumsGeneral Poker Discussion → Shitstorm on 2+2 about stars going to Weighted contributed rake