The use of % is indded confusing here. But it's just taking 14% of your points and giving you that many Cents. That's my best guess anyway.


Examples of exchanging the points earned on $10 rake:

Old: 100 * .10 = 10 (10 cents exchange value)

New: 70 * .14 = 9.8 (9.8 cents exchange value)

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.


Exactly. Im making Max Cut my official mathematician.

I think the Stars example is confusing because of all the confounding variables that exist, due to their multi-tiered VIP system with various VPP/FPP ratios.

It seems to me that if there was a site that offered flat rakeback to everyone, say 35% for example, (regardless of volume and without any additional VIP system) and they switched from dealt to WC it would be breakeven for the site.

(Except for the existance of fish who dont get rakeback, in that case they would be saving money with WC, since that money would get split up among the rest of the table using the dealt method.)

I could be wrong though, still checking it out. I found a few threads on it, like this:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...eback-1143492/

but its such a cluster---- its hard to get to the bottom of it.

Yes, Max's math makes perfect sense, but I think it would have been more clear if you had said "you now get 7 points per $1 and they're worth ~1.4 cents so the value will be the exact same as on Merge".

When you said point value was changing from 10% to 14% is was easy to interpret that as an increase in rb.

BTW, i'm not upset that the point value is still worth 10% rb, I just got my hopes up for a minute due to the misunderstanding.

Just leave me out of the dealt vs contributed black hole debate.

FWIW when FT changed from to contributed I noticed no change in the games. I know I did not alter my game.

.

So this means full ring players are making off with bank on Ronin or am I missing something?

Show me one example of a site switching to Contributed Method and regulars receiving the same or better off afterwards?

Every single time this has happened, it ends up being a huge dent in regulars' pockets, and deposited into either fish pockets(via points that they dont care about anyway), or back into the site's pockets directly.

Not one single time has a site switched to Contributed or WC and regs been nearly unaffected.

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 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.

+1. I definitely thought it was a good thing and a RB increase. I'm still not exactly sure of everything Shane has been saying in this thread regarding whatever it is they're doing. I haven't gone back to look at it too closely to figure it out because I'm not really in the mood nor am that curious about it right now.

I'm assuming/hoping it will be spelled out relatively well at some point....although they never did anything like that on their site for the previous VIP stuff. The website had a very basic run-down of the VIP that could be interpreted in many different ways and required a lot more questions being asked on here as to exactly how the heck it all worked. I appreciated the efforts by Rizen towards making it as simple as possible but even without the casino-bonus nonsense there was still some lack of clarity there (although the bigger issues were certainly in the casino stuff).

But I certainly wasn't getting at all what Shane was saying regarding the 14% thing. The fact that somebody else understood that has me optimistic though.

All told, the biggest issue of all is one that I haven't seen specifically addressed (may have missed it) but to me is even more important than dealt/contributed. No BBJ Tables!!!!

If I had to choose between dealt-rakeback or No BBJ tables I think I would choose No BBJ. It is that important to me...and I believe to most right-thinking players as well.

BBJ tables are a net negative on the players AND on the site/network itself. It really helps kill games and drains more players far too quickly. Since Cake currently has no BBJ and I think it would be too much of a software change for Revolution to put one together right away I'm hoping there is no BBJ right from the start AND that it remains that way.

Making this decision would impress me very much that Revolution has the long-term interests of the health of their games and wants to get it right.

Wont this just reward the fit/fold nits and punish lag players. Joe showdown will never get the RB he earned. Contributed RB makes the most sense to me so everything is fair and sqaure.

This seems to be the case. I've seen the number mentioned a few times now that you'd have to be a winning 35-40 vpip player to break even with the switch, everyone tighter than that would lose value.

Maybe Lock will decide to just keep using the dealt method long-term, it would be great for players and would set them apart from other sites.

+1 on Dealt Obviously

+2 on No BBJ Tables Obviously

If you look at recent online poker traffic histories, I think you can directly correlate the amount of money taken out of the poker ecosystem by the switch from dealt to contributed by the majority of sites. It is a unsustainable business model because just because you are a 'reg' doesn't mean you are good. You have people losing $40k a year on Stars but making lots of money because of rewards. This is GOOD for the games. There is a reason why Stars, up until this year, was killing the competition - regs were getting extra rewards with Dealt, and it allowed alot of people that otherwise would be losers to stay in the game. All Contributed does is take money out of poker player's pockets and puts about 25% of it into fishes hands and 75% of it into the sites pockets - which actually is a BAD thing for the sites. If you refuse to take care of the ecosystem, the games will slowly die out.

Look at EVERY major site over the last 12 months. 90% of them have lost traffic, and you can't blame BF for it. The reason why is that contributed makes the games significantly over raked, where Dealt hides that deficiency by giving extra compensation to the players. Online cash game traffic has been in a freefall for well over a year, and it's cause fish die at the same rate regardless of rewards, while the regulars got their rake increased significantly by all the major sites.

And if Lock switches the Cake network from Dealt to Contributed they are incredibly ill-informed and it will further reinforce the doubters assertions that this network it set up to be a huge fail.

I'm all for the dealt argument, you'll destroy merge if you keep with it.

I should know this, but isn't Lock currently on Dealt method for rake calculations?


(I probably shouldn't have begun reading this thread hammered at 7am, lol)

ge - No, they are on contributed.

Completely agree. Having been on both methods, you get better promos and bennies on contributed than dealt. Everyone splits points on dealt, and the site can't offer the same rewards system - without going busto. PLUS - I can than choose to be as nitty as I want, earn rakeback based on actual play (helping out in this loosing streaks), and adding value to my wins. Better deals and higher rakeback can be paid if the site goes contributed, and keeps folks from sitting out earning the same points as those risking their bankrolls. Incentive to play - I say.

Let me know of a site that benefitted in terms of traffic that started with dealt and moved to contributed. After you fail to find one, come back and finish this post.

If you are a winning poker player, dealt is significantly better in a vast majority of cases.

FTP did not lose significant market share when it switched. In fact, some of the reason its belly up is percentage of US players. The traffic comparison between Merge and Cake? How's that dealt system working for you? Change is scary, but I saw no loss in benefits between the two methods. If you don't play pots, what can I say (and my vpips under 20).

Its currently contributed on Merge, but will be dealt when we switch to Revolution on June 1st.

What will rakeback players be able to spend points on?