Stars does award VPPs for spins at their normal rate. That will be a lower effective rake return percentage than WPN for players that score Sit&Crush money, but a bit higher than WPN for players that do not score Sit&Crush money. This is assuming WPN will be awarding VIP rewards/rakeback.

Note: I changed the released date to April 14th.

Also:

Jackpot Poker will contribute normally to the VIP program for players on that program.
Jackpot Poker will receive rakeback normally for players on rakeback.
Jackpot will receive points normally towards the Sit & Crush leaderboard.

Excellent job sir. Look forward to playing these.

has anyone brought up the fact that the rake and the chance of hitting a jackpot is pretty much the same on wpn as stars (6% and 1 in 100,000), but the multipliers differ greatly?

3600x on stars, 2500x on wpn for the top jackpot.

the 2x and 4x frequency favor wpn slightly, but is that enough to overcome the lower multipliers in the higher less occuring jackpot levels?

im sure there is a simulator that can run it.

my apologies if this has already been brought up and discussed.

You should take another variance class if you think that a higher top multiplier is better than more 4x :P
The rake is the same for these two examples (so both are giving away the same money over a sample of 100k) but from a variance point of view its better to have more 4x and less 2x than to have a huge top tier multiplier. An extreme example with the highest possible variance for this case would be 99.999 times a 2x multiplier and 1 time a 1kk (or whatever) multiplier. So the structure itself is better than the stars 3 and 7$ buyin.
If you dig deeper you will see that the structure is indeed the same like the stars 15-60$ spins but with a higher rake and therefore lesser payouts to the top 3 pools

I think that you may have missed his point. I think that he was only asking if the multipliers for the WPN games added up to the same as the multipliers for the PokerStars games. I think that he was only trying to figure out if the 2 games were equivalent.

Read my post again...as I stated the structure is better than the 3-7$ spins on stars but worse than 15-60$ due to the higher rake (otherwise they would be exactly equal).
The same % of rake means that they will obv. pay out the same money per 100k games...

I did read your post. I just don't see how variance has anything to do with his question.

What do you mean by "overcome"?

I assume you're comparing Jackpot Poker to the $3/$7 spins which have the same effective rake. If you're asking about variance/swings, then as Furo86 points out, given the same effective rake, having more money distributed (with higher frequencies) in the lower tiers will mean less variance and thus less severe swings.

If you're asking about ROI, there will only be a very slight difference, but it's not due to the differences in tier frequencies or multipliers (between Jackpots and $3/$7 spins). The difference is due to the slightly different payout structure in the top 3 tiers, where WPN pays 75%/15%/10% to 1st place, 2nd place and 3rd place but Stars pays 83.3%/8.3%/8.3%. So any slight difference in expected ROI will depend on your finish distribution in games where you hit a top-3 tier Jackpot. (We're probably talking about only a few buyins difference over 10k games).

If your asking if the numbers add up so the expected prize pool size equates to an effective rake of 6%, then yes.

I never noticed that similarity. Looks like the multiplier differences extend down to 5 tiers.

You realize he didn't ask anything about variance whatsoever right?

was just trying to see if wpn was paying out the same amount as stars (per 100,000 games). had zero to do with variance.

Looking forward to trying these.

Why only 75% to the victor? It should be 80-90

these running yet?

Tomorrow, after downtime.

cant wait to get running, been looking forward to giving this a try since they were announced as being added.

so is there only one buyin of $2?

Where are the other stakes?

so I guess we have to just trust them that whatever magic rng they are using actually does in fact pay out the 5k 1/100k times...

nvm I see $10 now

who will be the lucky .00001% group!

Do they take rake afterwards or something
I have been winning and then my cashier is all odd and not reflecting what I should have

Couldn't in essence five hundred thousand games be played then it hits five in row
Or is it a pure one in one hundred k?

They should have a count kinda like their dumb message when you are getting ev in a tourney and they try to draw more to it

Ether they are taking rake from the established prize or my money ain't hitting the cashier

Viktor Blom is not playing on the WPN.