It is structured that way, which is fantastic, but in reality there is a big difference from Stars. At Stars, 100% of the rake taken you get credit for in the VIP program, but at WPN there is a split between what is credited to the VIP and what is credited towards the Beast.

And stars uses moreorless a weighted contributed system to award points to their system while WPN uses a dealt rake to distribute points. This is a major distinction.

The methodology to award points pulls in advancing in the program more quickly while the Beast system pulls the other way. I'll not pretend I know which pulls more, but I'm guessing it lands at fairly similar programs.

I'm ok with keeping the Dealt method, I think it brings alot of value to the site regulars and the poker sites - in the past on 2p2 I have made threads imploring sites to keep the Dealt method for rakeback. That is not what I'm arguing. What I have a problem with is the Beast is basically an extra tax put on casual players/fish and it puts more money in the regs pockets without the regs even having to play them for it. This is HORRIBLE for WPN's poker ecology and the quality of the cash games on your network. You cannot have promotions in place that serve to hurt fish and help regs and expect to grow. The Beast has to be canceled if you ever wanna compete with the big dogs in the industry.

If you take away the beast, you lose at least 3-5 players bringing in $2500 in rake generated a week that are also sitting down and creating games all hours throughout the day.

You lose the regulars and the site becomes a ghost town which will lead to extreme bum hunting.

Yes, because this is exactly what happened to Stars when all they had was a great VIP program.

I think you missed my point. We're discussing the loyalty program at Stars compared with WPN. I'm not talking about methods used to determine rakeback.

I said our program and Stars' program are nearly identical. You said they're not really because of the Beast taking up some of the rake. I'm saying this is countered by how the two sites give loyalty points to players.

Stars uses a weighted contributed method to give players points in the loyalty program. Fold preflop without contributing to the pot and you do not move forward in Stars' program.

WPN give players points in the loyalty program for simply being dealt cards. Fold preflop without contributing to the pot and you get loyalty points, move forward, in WPN's program.

What we offer players is better than what Stars has. It's better than what anyone has, to the best of my knowledge.

Don't forget WNP offers rec players deposit and reload bonuses. We also offer rec players things you don't see; money spent in acquisition tools and reactivation programs. These programs shovel much money into the economy as well.

First, you are making the assumption that dealt>contributed for every player which is not the case. There have been case studies on this in the past and I'm very informed about the difference. Even when we only look at the top ~50 rakers, not every single one of them benefits from the Dealt method, although admittedly WPN is giving out more with Dealt, overall, than they would be otherwise. We are probably looking at an overall difference of ~5-10% extra going back to the players because of dealt, which again solely benefits regs and screws fish out of more money (which I think is actually ok in this instance because the casual players are still getting VIP credit, and fish really don't care about rakeback too much). Using this in an argument FOR the beast though is counter-intuitive, because using the Dealt method is actually just an additional tax on the casual players and fish.

Talking solely about The Beast rake, the huge majority of your player base is getting screwed out of getting rewards on a tax that only benefits your top rakers, aka your winning players/regs. If we assume The Beast rake averages about 15% of total rake, that is 15% of rake that casual players never see again and goes directly into regs pockets. I'll repeat this again for emphasis, this is horrible for the poker ecology of WPN. Your two biggest "draws", dealt method and the beast, are hurting fish/casual players and only benefiting an elite few who are winning players anyway.

Take half of the $1,000 rewards and split them into $500 rewards.

Add on the 1/4th of the beast that goes into tourney tickets back to the cash payouts and you have a near perfect beast structure IMO.

Top 25 or so would make $500 or more with possibly 150-200 spots paying. It will create much more competition for more spots, and overall increase the amount of games running as well as rake generated.

10 tiers..

1. $50
2. $100
3. $150
4. $250
5. $350
6. $500
7. $750
8. $1000
9. $1500
10. $2000

problem solved.

#end thread

My point is it counterbalances in some capacity in speeding up the rewards program for a player where the Beast slows it down.

I may not be on the same page as you...let me make sure. You're throwing out that 15% of the rake is used for the Beast for a rec?

If that's the case, the best case for that player is he has 27% rakeback. Which means he's missing out on a 4% return. Am I following?

No, the casual player is missing out on 15% of the rake paid. Why not just drop that extra Beast rake entirely? Charge extremely low rake across the board and not have The Beast? Then, you evenly distribute 15% of rake back into the playerpool, without giving it to the elite few grinders that make up a minority number on your site, and you can have the best VIP program on the planet for poker players that is more than enough incentive for your top grinders ($100,000 to make the equivalent of Supernova Elite I believe?) Your cash games would absolutely THRIVE, and they would be actually playable compared to now.

We may be at the point where we agree to disagree, but I do appreciate you having the discussion at the very least. I think it's important to have open dialogue, regardless of the outcome. It's been a fun debate

The casual player doesn't care about or likely know about rake.

The low rake business model has failed time and time again since 1999.

Removing a major marketing campaign would have massive financial implications and I'd bet very heavily is not an option at all.


--
Kahn

So do you want what is best for you or what is best for the site?

You misconstrued what I said about rake. I said it would be better to have them not rake the Beast and keep it in the poker economy rather than have the beast rake at all. If you wanted to keep the rake the same with no Beast, I'd be ok with that too.

Low rake business model has failed time and time again? You are referencing mostly-shady companies that used it as a scam technique basically. The industry leader, PokerStars, has been at the forefront of having the lowest rake in the industry with the best VIP program. So to say 'it has failed time and time again' is incorrect - Stars has the lowest rake and has the best VIP program for any of the top sites.

And I agree removing the beast would have massive financial implications - positive implications. Just because you've invested heavily in promoting something doesn't mean you should continue doing so if you find out it might not be best for your site.

i hate what this thread has become.

I like the Beast - I just think it can be tweaked to make it better. And I WPN really needs it to keep the games running at all times of day. For the lower volume players, the only category I care about are the fish. Just to improve the poker ecology, I have the following suggestion:

* if you are not going to change the way the tourney part of the Beast works, how about a way for me to donate my $55 ticket to some kind of fish pool? Because I win one every week and I NEVER play. Rather than have a dead seat, have someone enjoy it (and possibly rebuy into it).

* You can give the regs who donate some marginal benefit - faster cashouts, waiving some tournament fee, some store benefit (like lower VIP requirements), etc.

* you can choose the recipients as a function of losses per hand, win rate or some other metric.

A lot of the problems people have been saying in this thread can be solved by:
* creating more tiers in the Beast - you get more competition if you can go up a level with a solid session, or down a level if you skip a day. So you should have a new tier spaced < every 20 spots.
* reconfiguring that tourney Beast. That $55 ticket is a disproportionately large benefit the lower you get in the standings (up to 100%), and may not be fully appreciated. The lower tiers are the ones who seem to be complaining ITT. So use that money for something that the player pool would prefer (especially the lower end of the player pool).

What you fail to realize is that they are one and the same.


--
Kahn

Get rid of the beast or have the option to opt into it or something. Why should all my pots have a portion of rake go to some robot playing 12hrs a day in his underwear? You could even keep the rake the same and have big mtts for each stake level or something. IE play 10hrs a week at a stake and you get entry into an mtt that has whatever "Beast Money" from that week and that stake as a prizepool in a freeroll. Rake shouldnt be tierd massively from Green Smoothie all the way down to some rec playing an hour a week.

I am no robot. I am a very sensitive human being with loving friends and family (I have feelings too). Although I usually am wearing underwear, I also wear clothing on top of those underwear.

And in case you forgot, I am the one player that took the biggest hit in this whole thing, and have only stated that I want what is best for the player pool.


----
beep beep, boop bop, 0101101101

beast section is not reflecting new payout structure

looks ok on my end.

That's an interesting view you have of us casual players sir. See the beast is probably ok if it's kept within stake levels. No-one grinds 25NL & 50NL for a living, we just play for fun, hoping to make a couple of bucks. Most of the people that cash high on the beast dont play these lower stakes. Why should I be taxed an extra 15% per hand that goes directly to someone not even playing my stakes? How is that a part of poker?

Right now there is more 100NL tables running than any other stake. Keeping the Beast within stakes would encourage more action at all stakes would it not?

You are not taxed an extra 15% per hand. The beast drop is part of the rake that is going back to the players. If there was no beast promo the cost of playing the hand would be the same, the only difference would be that the money would go directly to WPN and not back to the players. If you wanted to argue that players lose a small amount of rakeback due to the beast drop I would understand almost but what most people fail to realize is that at least the money is kept within the poker economy which is far greater than having the company take it no matter which players benefit.

It should be noted also that many of the high volume players are at so many tables that they are playing far from good poker. A decent "rec" player should be able to notice these players and take advantage of that fact.