+1 for dealt

Dealt is much better than contributed. The only people that do better in contributed is the house since the players that would benefit for contributed are fish and they don't have rakeback.

I'm always happy to hear feedback. Honestly the people I talked to outside this forum with overwhelmingly in favor of contributed. I feel like dealt encourages A LOT of people to play just super tight mass tables and/or encourages a lot of short stackers who don't really contribute a lot to the rake but are benefiting a lot from the rakeback.

I honestly prefer contributed, but obviously it's in my interest to do what's best for Lock/Revolution and not just push what I personally think is best, so I'm happy to hear counter arguements.

-Rizen

The problem is that 1 point per $1 is not good for those that play 6 max and heads up. They need to correct the distribution of their points. Right now it is horrible for heads up and moderately bad for a full 6 max game. It makes it difficult for you to climb up in stakes.

They need to change the amount of points awarded based on the number of players. This is the only way that is fair. Even if some people will complain that it is not fair.

2 players the points needs to be 3.5 pts per $1 awarded.
3 players the points needs to be about 2.33 pts per $1 awarded
4 players the points needs to be 1.75 pts per $1 awarded
5 players the points needs to be 1.4 pts per $1 awarded
6 players the points needs to be about 1.17 points per $1 awarded

7 players = 10% cash for points
8+ is better than 10% cash for points

Now I realize that some people will complain because they feel a $1 rake should be worth the same regardless of table. However, this would make it so a $1 rake is worth the same based on the number of players. In other words $700 in rake at a table is worth 10% cash for points for each player.

Edit:

This is based on the current dealt system. If they switched to contributed the points would have to be 7 per $1 to equal the 10%.

The vast majority of intelligent players on 2+2 understand why dealt works better.

Your argument is kind of old-school logic before FT and Stars made switches and people could see the results.

Dealt does provide some encouragement for the nits as you are saying. But the sites that have switched from dealt to contributed do not seem to have a significant difference in number of multi-tablers or nits, etc. The tables do not get better/looser.

Contributed means that the overall player-pool receives less. A 'regular' TAG'ish tight player is going to make less via contributed than dealt. This has happened over and over on all the sites that did such switches. Very few players make more via contributed.

So basically contributed gives less back to the players and therefore works as a rake increase for the site. And in turn that hurts the games.

Hope that makes sense. That's the problem with it as viewed by many (pretty much everyone who is advocating dealt). Thanks for considering different views.

Rizen - I get that dealt vs. contributed is an important debate but isn't it more important to hurry up and fix what is broken in the current system? The difference in how points are calculated among various games is unfair, illogical and it is costing Lock business right now.
Don't think of it as deciding upon a new points system. Instead think of it as fixing an error that is screwing over some of your clients ... think of it as taking down a banner ad telling the HUNL community you don't want their business.

OP had a great thread on this...pretty much sums up everything. Hopefully Lock will take this into consideration.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/19...hread-1205358/

Why would you all insta-leave if they switched from dealt? You won't play poker? Must have rakeback without playing? What other US facing site is dealt?

FPP system should be switched, even though it currently favors me. But please keep dealt rb.

Never seizes to amaze me how prevalent level I thinking is. The parasites love to push the argument that a switch from dealt to contributed is nothing more than a cash-grab by the sites. They support this by "data" showing that under the contributed the sites total RB payout is less than it would be or is under dealt. Hence why they so vehemently cry that it's nothing more than a redistribution from the parasites back to the sites' coffers. However, what amuses me the most is that the parasites fail to acknowledge a simple business fact that sites spend resources on marketing, software development, various promotions, etc; things which at the margin will attract new blood or an influx of recreational money into the IP economy. In other words, the money that they don't waste on subsidizing the parasites is the money that they can and do invest to go after the recreational player (the ultimate source of $$$ in the poker economy). But hey such analysis requires an ability to think above level I, and if the parasites did have an ability to think on multiple levels they would spend more energy on trying to learn how to actually play poker and how to profit at the tables, instead of wasting their limited cognitive capacity on advocating for the age old protectionism.

^ i'm yet to see an influx of fish and increased promotions on a site that switched from dealt to W/C. hard to measure but i'm not convinced that there is a cause and effect relationship there at all

it didn't happen on party (actually they have decreased the value of promotions, and traffic is dropping massively) or stars (same promos schedule + falling traffic). on full tilt in the short time between the switch and BF the games didnt improve. promos (the odd Take 2 and rush week) stayed the same iirc

sites did just fine in attracting fish and being profitable businesses under the dealt method (stars, FTP, party pre 2011) before BF. switching to W/C has historically been a pure money grab (evidence = pokerstars steve admitting this on 2+2, party stock dropping, etc.), not as a way to instead spend the same amount recouped on extra marketing + promos

quick post but i'm sure others can pick apart your (level II?) reasoning better

question for you de facto:

Why do you think Stars became 10 times larger than any other site on the planet, and was growing steadily long after Black Friday(after you remove the lump of USA players as a whole), but then coinciding exactly with their switch to contributed this year, have experienced a 25% DECLINE in overall traffic when they seemingly have had unsurpassed growth since after Party left in 2006?

To your argument about that extra money being spent on promos and attracting new players: Nowhere else that a switch to contributed has occurred (even on Stars, which should be the model for every poker site), has this extra money gone towards that. It goes straight into the site's coffers, not back to the players.

The ONLY people who have EVER benefited from a change to contributed are:
1. Sites
2. Fish (getting a few more cents back to later forget are even in their account)
3. 40+ VPIP super lags, of which there are extremely few that are winning in the first place.

So if you don't fit one of those 3, and are still arguing for contributed, you need to ask yourself if your hatred of "parasites" is so high that you are willing to reduce your own paycheck.

lol de facto.

By that logic you should be advocating for the site to raise the rake to 15% and $5 cap because they can take all that great extra money they are making and use it for marketing, etc.

You either are interested in the rake being lower or you are not.

If the rake remains the same AND the site gives less total rakeback to the players than before, then that is the same as a rake increase.

I thought that was a really obvious and easy to understand concept for pretty much anyone. But apparently not.

Rizen, please link sources when you claim that an overwhelming majority support contributed outside 2p2. It had to of been a poll on zynga poker or something, because any intelligent poker player that truly understands dealt vs contributed would never choose contributed. Cake has always had great action at cash games, and have been dealt since their inception. To claim that the way rakeback is calculated has any effect on the quality of games is nonsense. Theres zero proof to back it up, even though i can understand the thought process.

im gonna make money either way but dealt gives backs so much more not to just myself but to everyone else......schwatt is completely right about 40+ vpip lags, another thing to add to that is if ur playing 40vpip+ how many tables can u actually handle at a time to benefit from contributed?