You sure are trying very hard not to answer questions directly? If you're not allowed to say that's cool (and just say that) but if that's not the case why be vague and duck questions? I'm sure there isn't anyone reading this that's interested in 2c/4c.

I cant ask questions because I don't have the data in front of me so I cannot quote you exact figures, and I'm not confortable going from memory. When we have the breakdown by games/stakes.

You asked about stakes below $1/2. Two stakes below this were analysed on p1, so i pointed you towards them. Feel free to use the tool and analyze your own stakes, as you were encouraged 2 weeks ago. You could also have sent your hands to me and I would have posted the results.

As for your questions about NL, these are best directed to the main thread in the zoo or NL forums.

edit: more results posted here http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=204

The question about NL was asking why the NL reps got a rake % that gets incrementally lower as you decrease stakes when you agreed to a rake % that increases as you decrease stakes. To me that seems like propping up midstakes at the expense of micro/small stakes which was something I can't remember being suggested anywhere. You can't pin it on a different rake structure as they're now all true %. I don't this this question requires data in front of you as it's a question about your negotiating position.

this may be slightly off but afaik, from 3-4 years ago, rake was around 3BB/100 at 50c/$1. at 5/T it's around 2,6BB/100 right now. yet the skill difference between the two stakes (avg skill of regs), and the average number of fish available /table, can't even be compared. not mentioning the fact that if you are playing 50c/1$ or below, you shouldn't be cashing out but instead focus on building a roll (whereas at 5/T and above you are likely to be cashing out as a semipro or pro). The bottom line is, if you can't swiftly and easily move up under the current rake conditions from the micros, then you shouldn't, in the first place. It's not the 3-4BB/100 rake that's holding you back.

I understand what you're saying but simply moving up shouldn't be the only answer. Over 720,000 hands lifetime at $0.50/1.00 on stars I've won $9384 for about 1.3 BB/100. In that same time I've been raked $29354 which is 4.08 BB/100. There aren't too many regs with higher winrates, this might be because we all suck but it doesn't strike me as a fair balance between winrates and rake when the majority of money taken off the table by the highest winners goes to the site.

I wasn't hoping for much out of these negotiations but the fact these highly raked games have been ignored is disappointing.

Ok thanks now I understand the question. Basically I think this is an artifact at looking at rake tables and not actual rake paid. Rake is collected very differently at FL games, so what works for one may not work for another.

I wasn't going for some aesthetic property of decreasing %s or anything else. Rake is a property of its caps and %, of pot sizes at those games and the distribution of seated players.

To make the decisions, I looked at actual rake data in both $ and BB/100 across the stakes, and tested different rake structures to see the results. I also looked and aggregate (anonymous) winrate information of players to aid in finding trouble spots. Using all that, with the parameters defined, we have this rake table. Few changes were made because i think the proposed construction of the FL tables was pretty good and focused on the trouble spots. Again, i recommend not focusing on the numbers in the table, as they may be misleading. What's important is rake paid.

I agree that the rake at the micros is high. But you did have fair options. You have made close to 10k and another ~10 in rb. That's easily enough to play 5/T+ but instead you choose to keep playing low stakes and complaining about the high rake instead of improving and moving up. It was your choice, if you wanna blame someone, blame yourself first imo, not the circumstances.

I am going to reply to ant___z who is posting FLHE concerns in the main thread. I have no desire to post back in there at least until the full dataset is out, but i would like to cover one concern.

One inaccuracy here - "winning styles" at FL did not really see a reduction in rewards. Many winners have posted net gains in VPPs. We did look at empirical data on this and there may be a slight reduction overall -certainly for some (but not all) winnings styles - but it's nothing close to that of NL or PL.

But to your general point - I agree, and PokerStars heard these concerns and also agreed. If you read my FL report, i state that the changes, although positive, is not enough to re-vitalize the games. A lot of FL discussion was focused not on the rake (during hte meeting, significant rake reductions that would be needed to see a FL resurgence - like 10%+ were just not on the table. I did still raise them).

Instead, it was on promotions and game quality. I think this matches well the sentiments raised in this thread. I won't repeat it all here, but I suggest you read the second half of the FL trip report if you haven't already.

OK cool, thx for trying.

I (400k vpp last year) wont be back till that IS on the table .

Absolution said at 35/28 there's a 5% decrease. That's about the loosest stats the winning regs have. There may be very few people up to about 40/30
28/22 has a 15% decrease.
I'd say at least 95% of the winning regulars experienced a loss in VPP

awesome job Hood and thanks a lot for your efforts!


not sure if ur serious, but i wouldnt hold my breath on a 10+ % rake decrease.
And unless it came as a total donation from stars (no cutting of expenses like f.ex advertising) it would be the poker equivalent to pissing in your pants to keep warm in cold weather. Nice and warm in the beginning and then later very very cold

I will check others players numbers when I have time to it but I am getting a cut of about 16.5%. My stats dont differ much from other regs at the 0.5/1 to 2/4 6max range so I would assume that regs in general are getting similar cuts.

That's my problem with this - and to put it clear I will state again that by saying this I am not putting it on you at all, I dont see it as being your fault or anything, as a matter of fact this is how Stars has been behaving consistently toward FL games - they express concerns but (till the moment) the concern amounts to nothing.

They didnt make any significant change on rake and lets say, they promised some promos. We will have to wait for it and to see what those promos are and what are the effects on the game.



But for now, the "act" doesnt reflect the "expressed concern".




Based on my experience though, I will keep assuming that the game is tougher to beat (I am still a winner after the changes, I will note) until I see plenty of info that convinces me otherwise. I got a significant cut and my stats dont differ that much from most of other regs/winners aside from a couple of exceptions that I have in mind. I will look into it better anyway to see if I am really that wrong/inaccurate on that matter.

Just to note that I had already read the trip report by then and my concerns were already reflecting (or accounting for) what I read there.

Just to add it to the sample:

30/18 here with my current style - the last 400K hands or so - and slightly above 40% wtsd. The cut - 16,5%.

(apart from any effect of happy hours)

16%? how the hell is that possible
for me, 21k hands played this month, HEM showing 15126 with last year's vpp stat and I got 15096 according to the stars client.