Official "PLEASE KEEP DEALT RB" Thread

[vanity02]

So we can keep score I made a ghetto poll. If someone wants to make better be my guest.
Vote for dealt vs contributed!

[atheist]

I voted dealt.

[ez2cy]

Originally Posted by PoopyPokemon

Are we supposed to email Lock Poker support about receiving rakeback? I emailed a couple people because I didn't receive my rakeback from last night's session and was wondering what is up. Thanks

I have no idea what is going on. I thought we were suppose to have a choice? I did not change anything but tonite there was money in my casino account. ???? I'm assuming it was rakeback. Would that be correct?

[MicroBob]

+1 to Chazley's points.

I was disappointed when Shane said they would be switching to contributed eventually...after being initially pleased a few days prior with the news that the site would be dealt. And I rolled my eyes at the commonly used (and misunderstood) fairness argument. But I am super-happy that Lock indeed seems to be legitimately listening to customer input here and to me is demonstrating a willingness to reconsider.

If they are simply misinformed how this stuff works and effects the games AND want to learn then that is fantastic.

Shane has asked me to contribute in this thread for the collection of opinions he is going to take to Jen about this. Very happy to be invited to do so.

I spelled out most my key thoughts in answering a couple of questions in a different thread so I am simply going to copy that over here if you don't mind.

Originally Posted by JimAfternoon

Seems like contributed has to be the most fair, that way you get rakeback based on the exact amount you payed in rake. Dealt means that supernits can sit and earn rakeback without actually paying rake, meaning they end up with a higher RB% than a looser player. Is this not correct?

Originally Posted by CPGJ

I think it was wrong and a money grab when FTP and Stars did it because they didn't adjust the system to keep rewards the same for grinders while hiding behind the strawman "fairness" argument. Lock is giving everyone 36%RB and other VIP benefits for grinders so it's not the same. We'll see how it plays out in the long run.

Originally Posted by MicroBob

Jim, Part of that is true. The other part is not. The contributed method means that Revolution will not be paying out nearly as much overall.

And Shane's contention that it better rewards the players that are earning Revolution the money is DEFINITELY incorrect.

Pretty disappointed to hear of their plans on this but am thankful they told everyone ahead of time.

Maybe there is a chance they actually believe the line that Shane gave us and are just misinformed in which case perhaps they could be convinced to not make the change. My hunch is that they do understand that the line Shane gave is B.S. and that they are going to go through with it anyway.

Originally Posted by MicroBob

CPGJ - This is a fair point and I hope it works out that way. Calling it a strawman "fairness" argument is definitely a good way of putting it.

Originally Posted by imjustshane

The way we see the dealt vs contributed is that with dealt its harder to directly tie the VIP point rewards to the actual rake contributed by the player but by switching to contributed there is a direct correlation and we can better reward the players that are providing the rake.

Are you saying that by staying with dealt there are more VIP points awarded and therefore that rewards the players more or have I missed the point?

Originally Posted by MicroBob

Shane - Yes, that is essentially the point....although maybe better to say "more VIP/rakeback dollars paid out" than total points I guess.


Jim - Stars is full of it. And they absolutely know this (because it would be impossible for them not to). It's pretty distasteful and it's incredibly blatant the way they do their points as opposed to Lock which certainly could be more debateable imo.

On Stars, the VPP's are essentially rakeback...but you get a VP-multiplier the higher up you go. If you are bronze-level on Stars you are getting maybe 6% or something. Bronze gets 1x FPP's for every VPP they earn. The FPP's are what they get to spend in the store to buy their bonuses. Supernova's earn 3.5x FPP's for every VPP they earn.

If you are Supernova or Supernova-Elite you are getting 30-60% or so.

By "redistributing" to reward the loosest player who pays the most rake, they are essentially raising some 90% see-flop single-tabling fish (who is going to go bust anyway and could care less about the points) from 6% to maybe 8%...while decreasing every other 40% type player at the table down to 25%. Giving more to the players that earn 1x FPP's while giving less to the players who earn 3.5x FPP's makes it clear how this will end up.

Something like that anyway. The basic point is, Stars has the numbers that they are doling out WAY fewer FPP's in total than they were before. They pay a player like me $10k less in rakeback for the same amount of play while paying out $100 more to a handful of the very fishiest.

The vast majority of players end up way worse in the contributed system on Stars and it's incredibly disingenuous of them to claim otherwise. It's not just the super-nits who play 12% of their hands or something. It will also work out less for a fairly active TAG or even semi-LAG type player as well.


For Lock, I think the increased "levels" as you go up Ronin could end up being kind of similar to this although not as dramatically as the Bronze-SNE difference on Stars.

That's my take on much of that nonsense anyway. The idea that contributed would help players who aren't super-nits has pretty much been proven false after the implementation of this contributed stuff. The idea that it helps loosen up the games doesn't seem correct either simply based on anecdotal evidence from the sites that have made the switch. Just no detectable difference really.

Originally Posted by imjustshane

Is this based on you being a tight player, or does this apply generally as well? Im very interested to hear more peoples thoughts on this.

Originally Posted by MicroBob

This really doesn't have that much to do with a player being particularly tight. As long as you aren't some 50%+ see-flop type of player you would likely be either worse off or about the same on a switch from dealt to contributed.

And right now the differences would be somewhat similar to how it is on Stars. That is, if you keep White, Silver, Black levels on Lock and the lower-level players get lower rakeback, then basically you are increasing some 10% rakeback player to 15% with the contributed points while reducing some 50% players down to 35%. Something like that anyway.

The points and redemption are worth less for the lower level players. And the net-result is the site not paying out as much in total. I am all for the lower-level players getting better rakeback. They deserve it. But the higher-volume players, who keep the games running the most and put in the most volume, should not have a reduction in value. Which is essentially what Stars has done and what I do not care to see Lock do.

I was very encouraged by the previous announcement by Lock that they were going with a dealt system.

[MicroBob]

Originally Posted by ez2cy

I have no idea what is going on. I thought we were suppose to have a choice? I did not change anything but tonite there was money in my casino account. ???? I'm assuming it was rakeback. Would that be correct?

This isn't the thread for that question at all. But to get this moving along: It is probably either a mistake or some weird transfer...or perhaps you played on the site several months ago and they paid your casino bonus from your poker play.

Last year they did part of their rakeback as bonuses into your casino account. If you played last June then they didn't pay this bonus until November because there was a weird delay involved. So perhaps it was something like that.

The best way to get to the bottom of it would be to contact Shane or support directly and ask them how the heck the money got there.

[Chazley]

I appreciate you coming in and putting alot of time into your post Microbob - I think it's very important they change their mind before they make what I believe would be a huge mistake of switching to contributed.

I'm not exactly the best at articulating my thoughts but I'm doing my best in this thread because someone needs to let Lock hear our viewpoint.

[THEROBBOB20]

As long as it is dealt i will be playing solely on Lock. If it switches i will probably end up switching back to Merge. Also the software is starting to grow on me.

[Grafter]

Probably the most interesting thread I've read in awhile.

A few random unsober thoughts

1) All? sites/networks used to be dealt, but Revolution is the only one? now dealt. Most sites grew during the boom.

2) Starting with Bodog and/or Ongame Essence the concept evolved thru

a) Grinders were taking advantage or the RB system and fish didn't have RB, so paying out less where easily possible was a no brainer, in the short term

b) Grinders will continue to play anyway and fish reload until they're busto, but fish are harder to find, post-boom (and since USA credit cards stopped pouring money into the system), so protecting the fish and so the eco system is a good idea.

c) Attracting any new players is expensive and a reduction in benefits to already captured players can be marketed to the grinders as helping the fish which preserves the eco system.

Some of this would have happened anyway as the market matured. The difference between b) and c) is that b) was a flawed theory and c) is a dodgy justification based on those that tried it were lucky in that margins were marginally increased, just as nearly everyone in the industry hit stagnant or dropping player pools and/or revenues due to the end of the boom/USA legislation/European market segregation and increased taxation.

3) Being the only dealt friendly place is a big USP, but realizing it after you increase base RB is pretty clumsy.

4) The RPG comparisons are very powerful. Cake tried hard and came close especially with gold cards, but also with gold chips, loyalty levels etc but never quite got it right.

Think levelling up, special weapons and armour, avatars etc etc. PKR is a good example of another unique take that doesn't work as well as it might, but is not following the crowd in online poker provider terms.

5) Following on from 4) Instead of completely dumping name changes, which some people liked, how about just charge us for "creating a new character" via reduction of rakeback, starting further down the vip ladder etc. An icon or flag that says the player has more than one character and isn't a newbie would avoid unfair advantage. Much less transaction hits for site or player, much less ID fakery and a new game of "spot the player"

6) In the short term you don't have that much competition with regards to your USA customers, but need to look at where the deposits are coming in from and the cashouts going out to, relative to rake generated and expenses incurred.

Longer term, is it better to follow the crowd and somehow stand out or to zig when others zag? Leaving merge and forming Revolution suggests that the former has been tried with some success and the latter is now preferred.

[RikaKazak]

PLEASE keep dealt rb

It's one of the big advantages cake/revolution has over merge/bovada (and one of the top 3 reasons why my main site was cake over the past year).

[waq]

Thanks for holding your tongue.

We know we are not making the decisions.

When FT switched to contributed it was an obvious cash grab for them with the way they were structured. It was supposed to improve the games. They did not change. My game does not change depending on whether my RB/rewards is dealt or contributed. To those that say dealt causes players to play tighter, show me how playing tighter than the way I usually play makes me MORE money when dealt RB is used.

[Chazley]

Love how he starts out by saying he's holding his tongue on the issue.. then claims he's on level 2 on the issue, then goes on the explain his level 1 thinking on the issue.

Standard post by de facto though.

[Chazley]

By the way, my original OP was almost entirely dedicated to showing Lock why it's good for THEM to keep dealt RB.

[JSpazz]

some ideas about switching to contributed:

- there are probably a lot of players on revolution playing a tight, marginally winning game and profiting mainly from rakeback, seeing as cake is afaik the only dealt room for Americans
- if you change to contributed, those players will start losing money or at least having huge variance and will move on to greener pastures (yatahay? bovada?)
- let's see who profits with those players lost:
* if there will be more fish per table, regulars will have easier games and a bigger chunk of fish deposits will go to regulars' pockets, meaning less rake for you
* if the reg to fish ratio on the tables remains the same, fish will again lose faster vs 5 good regs than vs 2 good and 3 b/e regs, again less rake for you
- fish obviously won't be happier because their deposits will on average last shorter
- regs won't be happier because there will be less traffic
- and ultimately less traffic means your rake earned per hour goes down

IMO switching to contributed could be a long-term profitable move for the site seeing as poker players seem to be a pretty lazy bunch, but on cake you're probably have too many break-even grinders to make this work. Revolution and Merge are running awfully near the sustenance border with their high reg-to-fish ratio (I know it's there in HUSNGs so I presume the situation can't be any better in cash games), and that generates a lot of rake for the site by keeping winners' winrates to the minimum. You have a good thing going here, don't destroy it

[$Betpot$]

Only problem with dealt is it makes the games stale and boring for the fish, the easier you make it to B/E through RB the worst the games get as you will have multiple regs playing to many tables slowing the games down.

Nothing worse then looking through the lobby and the same guys are playing nearly every table on the network.

[Braggadocio]

Originally Posted by $Betpot$

Only problem with dealt is it makes the games stale and boring for the fish, the easier you make it to B/E through RB the worst the games get as you will have multiple regs playing to many tables slowing the games down.

Nothing worse then looking through the lobby and the same guys are playing nearly every table on the network.

If you search through the lobby on Merge, you'll basically find the same regs on most tables. Mass multi-tablers simply enjoy playing 12+ tables, get bored with less, and will continue to play as many tables regardless of the dealt or contributed method, though most, if not all, would certainly prefer dealt over contributed. With this in mind I would assume the games would become even more stale since multi-tabling regs will continue to play the same tables, yet won't start contesting more pots, decreasing their win rates, just to be better rewarded with rakeback. Just my opinion though.

+1 for dealt.