This is the last thread on this topic, honest.

Here I want to pull together all the main ideas we've had so far. Things got messy in previous threads due to misunderstandings on the rake structure change, representatives and polls, etc. Hopefully this OP will clarify where things are and discussion can proceed. As you know, I am the only player going to the IOM in a week who plays FLHE. I am not a big part of the FL 2+2 community here. I want to make sure I go with the best understanding of all your key concerns.

I have read all posts from FLers in the thread in SSSH and the one in MicroSL. If i've missed some key discussions, please let me know.

Some preliminaries:

- I need hand samples for stakes below 25c/50c and above 5/10, 6-max and full ring. See this thread to learn more.
- If you want to play around with rake structures yourself, check the thread i started in Software.
- If you would rather discuss your concerns on Skype, please PM me and we can arrange a voice chat.

Okay, down to business (i am referring these as issue A and B as i am using the terminology other chats with the rest of the panel)

Issue A - The Rake Structure Switch to a Pure Percentage Rake System as Proposed

You can read the full rake table proposal in PS Steve's original thread. This plan was scrapped after an outcry from two groups - the SH NL players (with an increase in 5-handed caps) and the fixed limit community.

I think it is now clear that initial reaction was off the mark (unsuprising given the difficulty in estimate rake in 2 structures and the last-minute announcement, but that's another conversation).

Let's first discuss this change and come to a community consensus as to whether there are major issues with the proposal as it stands. This is not the place to argue for lower rake - we all want that, and that will be a separate discussion. But first lets decide if working within the parameters (a switch to pure % rake as proposed, with a slight but not large rake reduction) is workable for us.

After many voiced fears over an increase in lower stakes, boomer did the first real analysis and concluded that things were not as bleak as first thought:

He noted that 5/10+ would have seen significant rake reductions.

Based on real pot-size distributions from hand histories and a ghetto simulator I wrote, I did some more in-depth analysis, results posted here for 3-6 handed.

From that, it confirms with boomer that 5/10 stakes (and, making safe extrapolations, higher stakes) will benefit, with rake at 6-handed 5/10 dropping from 2.64BB/100 (per 'average' player) to 2.25.

Although less, the simulator also predicts the same or slight reduction in overall rake at 25c/50c, 1/2, 2/4 and 3/6, differing from Boomer's first calcs.

Data at full ring is less accurate with lower samples of hands but the results appear to be the same.

I don't have hands for lower stakes yet. Hopefully we can get some analysis done ahead of time here. PokerStars will be showing their own data for this, and Steve has stressed that it looks forward to "correcting some misunderstandings" we have had.

One concern I see here is that on all stakes, 3-handed rake increases significantly. At 5/10, this is from 1.66 to 2.89, 2/4 and 3/6 are similar (assuming ofc that the simulator is accurate). Do people see this as a real issue? Do you think it would prevent games from starting?

One thing i have done zero analysis on yet is heads up. I plan to next week.



Issue B - Limit Hold'em Issues, The Switch to Weighted Contributed, Rake and Game Health

Once we have issue A down - we can then look to large-scale proposals to put to Stars to ensure the long-term viability of limit hold'em across games and stakes.

This is a good opportunity for us to give customer feedback to PokerStars, however let's not have any pretense that we will come out with huge rake reductions or 8x multipliers or any such thing. Right now, we know Issue A is on the table. We don't know what else is up for debate. I see this meeting as a chance to provide some solid advice from the community. Let's keep in mind that PokerStars is a business - their goal is to make a profit. Our job is to ensure that they have their eyes set firmly with a long-term view of maintaining healthy, viable games, and keeping their market-leading position in Limit Hold'em. I can explain that unpopular changes may result in a large loss of high-volume players, and I can explain that a certain decision will make them more more long-term. But there's no point just suggesting lower rake because it's "fairer" ot a different rake calculation method that is more "just."

The issues I've seen raised so far specifically by the LHE community:

The switch to WC reduces the rakeback of high-volume players.

Absolution posted that, as a laggy 35/28, he will see a 5% reduction in rewards. SuckoutKing plays tighter and it will be 10-15%. Strixsr says reports that after a small sample, he saw a 6% decrease in rewards. I believe tpirahna posted on his blog that he actually saw a slight increase in VPPs playing his LAG game in mid- high-stakes.

There is also some commentary that a switch to WC will improve game quality, with less inticement to play "25/18 playing 10 tables, and fish should have more incentive to play; so WC could be better for the games in the long haul" as one poster puts it.

Does the community feel I should argue against a switch to WC, or that SN/SNE players need more rewards to balance this loss? I think at 3/6, and def at 5/10+, players will see a rake reduction that will counterbalance some reward loss. I do think there is some possibility that games will improve. I don't know if this happened when FT switched or when PartyPoker did, but then neither site has a rewards program that is similar to SN/SNE so they may not be great comparatives.

Rake is too high at micro/low stakes. A cut in rake will have a ripple-effect throughout the limits and greatly boost the game liquidity.

This seems to be a common sentiment. There is even some pragmatic suggestions of a rake increase at higher stakes to compensate for a reduction in stakes at low/nanostakes.

Fixed limit is shrinking and we need to encourage more players to play the games

Many posters lament that PokerStars doesn't do enough to encourage others to play our game. I'm sure we all agree that LHE is the funnest game there is around and more people should get involved.

One suggestion from OziBattler that has some popular support is a "different game reload bonus" that encourages cross-game liquidity.

Any other ideas here? How have the happy hours this month effected games at LHE? Are these gimmic/one-off promotions important for LHE or should I focus more on issues like lower microstakes rake?

Some other issues perhaps not brought up

Here's a few things off the top of my head that I haven't really been discussed much yet, by I thought i would throw in to the ring. Some of them go off the topic of rake/rewards but otherwise may help re-invigorate FLHE. If anyone feels i should be speaking out on these issues or others, add your thoughts.

* Heads-up. Heads up FL at 1/2 is not a beatable game, bellatrix posted in the SSSH thread, and most HUFL players would agree.

* Are microstakes games beatable? Can you beat the game at 10c/20c?

* Different stakes. Anyone feel PokerStars should add in 8/16, 20/40?

* 4-max tables. PokerStars has this facility. I think 4-max would be the nuts.


A final note

This post was made from Sect7G and is very pertinent. Stress mine:

So lets get the nitty gritty of A done, but lets also get some good conversation going on B. Why has the game being dying steadily, and what should we do to re-invigorate it?

the huhu rake at FR and 6max tables is capped higher than pure hu tables. the originally proposed rake changes where to make the rake cap the same regardless of table type. this change is a no brainer imo.

4-max would be nice, but im not a fan of anything that will further segregate an already small player pool.

Re: 3 handed rake-- The game insta-breaks as soon as a fish leaves, and no one starts games without a fish; also people will stay and play 3 handed or hu if there is a fish there, regardless of the rake. So I don't think this has much of an effect.

Re: WC/Dying games-- Whether or not this change provides less VPP's for regs, this is the most fair way to do it. The mass SNE grind has got to be a big reason the games have gotten steadily worse. Maybe if Stars put more effort into accomodating the fish, and less to accomodate 25/18 10-tabler, the games would be better.

I have some data from 2c/4c, only for 8 and 9-handed:


A surprisingly large reduction, but i checked the rake tables so it seems right. Specifically for 2c/4c the rake cap in the proposed is set to 1c (4.5% rake %), compared to 4c in the existing.

+1

you might also broach the subject of higher stakes hu tables. i believe some have speculated that the lack of high stakes hu tables is actually beneficial to the game health on stars. i dont really have a strong opinion on this either way. however i do find it curious that they eventually added high stakes hunl. it would also be nice to have them for no other reason than getting rid of the annoying "hu pls" standard that exists.

a little off topic, but concerns game health.

IMO: Stars should advertise their cash game promotions more. The current Happy Hours attract tons of grinders for the added rakeback, but they dont really cater to recreational players. Thinking back to FTP times, u KNEW when happy hours were going. There were banners everywhere flashing, popups on every table and so on. On stars you don't even know how many "extra" VPPs you've earned playing.

Similar (from what i gather), most Casinos love to spread Limit Holdem because it pretty much rapes people with rake. I'm cool with all the raping as long as there are plenty of new players constantly coming into the games. So special LHE promotions would be swell, like "LHE happy hours" or "try out a new game today - earn 50% more FPPs" or something to that regard. I'm sure O8 or Stud or Mixed Games players would like that as well. OBviously needs banners or flashing things somewhere to tell the people about the promotions thoguh.

i tend to think that the absence of high stakes hu tables led to better mid and high ring game health on stars pre-black friday. ftp had hu all the way up and often no ring game higher than 5/10...

Has anybody with high WTSD numbers run this tool? (I'm on travel on my mac, but will try when I come home). It would seem to me that's the stat that would make the 3/6 go to positive under the rake changes and to BE at 2/4.

Definitely implement the rake cap when playing HU at 6max and FR tables (though I thought they already did that?).

Some discussion on how to make the lobby more attractive and not a bunch of people playing the bumhunting lottery. Though unfortunately I don't have a solution to this one. I mean perhaps make different tables of one person waiting visible at different times to different people, while always showing the 2+ tables (?).

Unfortunately I don't know how to solve the "limit is dying" debate. Just keep your eyes and ears open, Hood. Steve said he has a lot of data to show you guys, which you can parse (after signing NDAs). Anything that you can gather - demographics, hands played, times (even age distributions, gender, stakes, etc.).

lol that's a cute idea, turning the sharks into chameleons

yeah for sure i tend to think that too... but still, thats only speculation, i wonder if its just a coincidence or if there is something causal. i suppose im just a sorta curious what stars thinking is on the topic.

The only data the tool gets from observed hand histories it a distribution of pot sizes. The hero doesn't have to be involved in the hand. The hero play style should not confer any bias on the data (the only bias i can see is that at least one 2+2 reg was at the observed hand, but that hardly narrows things down)

PokerStars made a policy change regarding everyone sitting out at high stakes tables, could someone just summarise that for me (or point me to a post that summarizes it). I want to make sure i'm well versed on all recent changes.

Yes good point, I forgot that and put that in the OP. That was a proposed change that is important.

Although HUHU rake at 0.5/1, 1/2 and 2/4 is still way too high. The irony is that I don't think anyone from the HUFL forum will suggest rake reduction at lower stakes as that would be seen as just encouraging more regs in to the HU games (which barely exist today).


Right, again i was waiting to see if any of the HU community commented on this (they have not yet). I think most people just have accepted that PokerStars HU games (and beyond) have dried up, and that's just a lack of recreational players and the lack of regs willing to play other regs (at NL you get a bunch of high stakes reg "battles" but for what ever reason rarely happens at FL. I know hasu used to play $1k/$2k with other winners. But I don't think if stars started opening highstakes tables would everyone just start playing each other).

If anyone does feel strongly about this either way please chime in. Personally I see it as rather academic now whether higher stakes tables are offered so I won't bring it up unless there some community consensus.

Hi Hood!

There are two things that i feel are very important at this point:

1. Have more promotions that are aimed at recreational players. Both to get them to deposit and to add excitement to their playing experience. Im thinking about something similar to a bbj but maybe on a different level (bigger chance of winning and less payout). Im sure the creative crew over at PS could do a way better job than me at figuring out something cool.

2. Getting rid of or at least minimizing the predatory sit-in / sit-out thing that is being exercised to such an extreme by most regs these days. Who knows how many recreational players are scared off by this practice on a yearly basis. I can certainly guarantee that it is costing both pokersites and regs a ton of money.

10 and 11 have the new rules aimed for this exact problem:
http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/policies/ring/
Unfortunately the rules are not being enforced yet so noone seems to care about them




It would also be really really interesting if stars could explain some its reasoning behind keeping rake at the levels it does. Are they f.ex based off of levels calculated to be long-term sustainable for the poker ecosystem while at the same time close to optimal profitability wise for PS?
I know the actual numbers are probably treated as a business secret, but to at least know how much thought is behind having the rake at current levels would be nice to know as it would silence a lot of the speculation (mostly negative) going on among the regs today.

A couple thoughts.

1) A flat rake system might work if the first 3 big blinds are free. So, there is no rake up to 3 big binds, but then every dollar after is raked at some % (dependent on stakes) until the pot reaches the cap. The max rake is basically fine as it is, but the cap should be lowered to $2 for $2/4. A jump from $1 max. @ $1/2 to $3 max. @ $2/4 makes no sense. This should help keep $2/4's rake in line with $1/2 in terms of bb/100. One thing I heard that might make sense is to raise the rake cap to $2.50 at 5-handed rather than $3 if Pokerstars is insistent on a shift (for games $3/6 and above).

2) Since WC and lower rake both mean fewer vpp/hand, there should be a significant drop in the number of people who reach SN and SNE. Ultimately, one would expect fewer people to even attempt to reach SN and/or SNE. If Pokerstars doesn't want to see a long-term drop in volume, they should consider increasing the vpp multiplier by 0.5; it is simple and relatively clean. By increasing the multiplier, the vpp/hand earned will be closer to what it was before. That means they don't lose as many grinders and games.



P.S. It is my opinion that Pokerstars should take an unprecedented step and deeply cut rake while utilizing a simpler VIP program. I believe there is a window of opportunity for Pokerstars to stave off the massive competition it will soon find from Party Poker and WSOP.com. However, I do not believe Pokerstars has any interest in significantly cutting rake.