So if they weren't representing high stakes players, how did they manage to bargain with the rake of high stakes games?

I wonder what would happen if it was the opposite. If highstakes guys went there and made a deal where they pay less rake, while micro-midstakes guys have to pay more to make up for it.

The reps tried to put that exact thing in reverse.

Irrespective of the end results/personal feelings, I would like to extend my thanks to all 5 reps who took the time to visit Stars on our behalf and face the ensuing ****-storm afterwards.



Sadly, I get the increasing feeling that you made a misread there. He was repping the hand 'best interest' but actually holding the (our?) nuts, i.e. 'maintaining profits'.



Please don't come over all 'for King and Country' with us Joss, there's no need. Having voted for you in the poll, I perceived that "your duty" was to represent the entire micro-stakes community at the talks, specifically with regard to ideas proposed in the multiple threads. You returned with:

• reduced rake (not huge, we're still being royally screwed at 6-max PLO, but grats anyway)
• changed, but still un-hittable caps
• a new NLH-exclusive 0.08/0.16 game (that none of us asked for (and will probably make Stars more monies in the long run))
• a new man-crush joke, no offense

Peace and love y'all,
Phi

I already answered this in the zoo in the post I made that included the introduction of the graphs. The $50NL results were removed due to a bias in the data. It's the first stake where heads up is offered. This seems like it would not be a major factor but it is. The resulting composition of the data for the top players players and games is completely unlike any other stake.

You are substantially overestimating the influence the reps actually had.

Had it occurred to you that Stars likely already had planned beforehand exactly what they were willing to offer. And they are not a generous company. Any 'concessions' they give to Joe are going to come at a loss to Tom. And by convincing the reps they were the ones persuading Stars to accept these changes they get to avoid any PR problems over it. The reps come back proudly trumpeting their 'results.' And now Instead of higher stakes players screaming at Stars, they're screaming at lower stakes players. And instead of lower stakes players screaming at Stars, they're screaming at the reps.

Yes it spoilt your pretty picture
cmon

Do the NL100+ winrates include HU then? I did ask in-thread but don't remember getting an answer.
I think one of the reps suggested a player data thread where stuff can be chewed over better.

by the way I didn't get an answer to this either

I assumed your question was rhetorical. I try to give people some modicum of credit.

It's not the heads up but the resultant bias, as I said. The vast majority of 'top winners' at 50 were microstakes kaintds to put it one way. While it's an interesting sample in isolation it's not comparable to any other game or stake. Even the highest stakes where, as mentioned, bum hunting would be a major concern for top winners the vast majority of them actually had large sample sizes against a wide spectrum of player types - as is the case for every other stake. Every stake besides $50NL.

Feel free to PM me if you want other clarifications or if you still don't understand why I thought your question was rhetorical. I'm not going to hijack any other threads with you.

So they're trying to sell this as trickle up economics?

Yes what a silly question, everyone's rake will go down What was I thinking?
If you try and link 'low' winrates to rake reductions I don't see why the reverse is verboten.

Just making sure people don't get all overly emotional (again) when you post your nice tidy picture without knowing its 'limitations'.

Haven't you and your ilk done enough screaming at Stars already? The negotiations turned from a rational discussion of the 2012 changes into a stupid howl of primitive rage at rake in general.

Apathy is a helluva drug sputum.

Cheap, too

I think I got zero answers to this particular question in the Zoo so maybe our hosts would care to have a stab.

If I was PS:

1. My goal would be to reduce edges as far as possible ---> slows down the rate of net outflows
2. Increase the amount of time it requires to achieve the outflow ---> rakeback that requires turnover before player receives cash ----> slow down outflow
3. Increase the rate of rake events on average per $ taken out ---> another way of saying reduce edge

Because I believe that PS has little control over the rate of $ being deposited by net contributors.

I think it's more like Robin Hood economics.

Points (1) and (2) are almost certainly true, and (3) very well might be as well.

Look, Stars w/out any significant competition has got us by the balls here: if they raise the rake the average depositor Digger mentioned ($20) isn't going to care very often- he's going to go gamble it up at the place he has seen on TV. If one doesn't think this is the case, then I challenge one to explain to me why people feed money into the penny slots at every casino on Planet Earth.

If regulars leave Stars in large numbers to protest exorbitant rake, then at some point the games will become so soft regulars will return until the rake is still further increased. This process maximizes Stars' short term bottom line and it appears they know this.

With me so far?

So, it's important to separate two independent points, (1) The micro, low, and mistakes rake are unbelievably, destructively high and show no signs of decreasing, (2) The high stakes rake should be raised to "pay for" a lowering of the lower stakes rake. Well, I agree strongly with (1) and disagree strongly with (2), and there is nothing inconsistent or self-serving about it. Do I think the current rake at lower stakes is more exorbitant than the proposed increases at higher stakes? Yes, of course I do. However, I think the lower stakes rake should be lowered, and the high stakes rake should be kept the same- Poker Stars is a highly profitable company, and until I see evidence that Stars' profit margins aren't stratospherically high I'm not going to change my position. I think the rest of you should do the same, and I'm disappointed 2p2's representatives at the Isle of Mann were content to bargain with my interests rather than address the problem head-on.

Edit: I haven't read the whole threads on the topic and am just citing Peru's post and interpreting that with respect to the 50-300% rake increase being enacted. Perhaps others at the Isle of Mann argued differently.

this.

and there's nothing we can do about it, frankly. so, you might as well respect the hustle and play there or make a stand and not play there-- they don't give a ****, believe me.