Discussion Thread re PokerStars Player Reps Report. Feb 2012

[xPeru]

Originally Posted by Jah Onion

A bit extra? are you ****ing kidding me?

If I play 200k hands of 100NL FR on stars I get ~50k VPPs which is 500$ in stellar and 175k fpps which is 2800$ for a total of 3300$ rakeback

If I play 200k hands of 100NL FR on merge I get 6000$ rakeback


So I am paying 2700$ EXTRA to stars every 200k hands. This is paying a bit extra in your opinion? jfc. Well no ****ing wonder you're so happy with the changes, you just have no ****ing clue.

Assume you are Supernova if you're doing decent volume at FR 100NL, then you are getting just over 42% rakeback according to my calculations, based on 3k hands a day over the year at 4.45bb/100 in rake.

Calculating where to play is not RB alone, you also have to look at how much rake you are paying, what volume of hands you can sustain on the software and what potential win rates are. On top of that you have to make a decision about trusting the site and whether it has decent fraud/collusion protection.

It's not obvious to me what is the right thing to do in your position. One of the things we have to do if we want to make a living at this game is decide where we can maximise our EV. Here's a picture of my desktop - count the rooms I play on, and you can believe I've deleted half a dozen in the last 2 years.



It's pretty clear to me that PokerStars has adopted a market position which tries to balance their needs, our needs and depositing players' needs. Othger sites have adopted different balancing points. Sometimes we can exploit the differences between sites, and as professional players, we would be dumb not to.

At the end of the day, I always come back to Stars because I can't afford to have some site collapse taking with it my entire bank roll. I definitely don't get the best RB deal possible, but for me other things outweigh this. It's not for me to tell anyone what the right solution is for them, it all depends on what your priorities are.

Originally Posted by kingc11

The reps seemed to have worked their ass's off. They obv did their best, theyre in all the stars games.

I cant seem to get this questions answered tho. Is anyone getting better rakeback then before? Im getting less vpp/hand paying a ton more rake per vpp, fine. People getting the same vpp/hand as last year are paying more rake per vpp.

So doesnt that mean the guy playing 50% of hands lets say, is also paying more rake per vpp?

I dont have anger that people have in this thread, but I do just want Steve or who ever to just say the vip system is much worst than it was before. Isnt this page false advertisement?

http://www.pokerstars.com/vip/tiers/

thx.

I think the bolded part is an unfairn criticism. They weren't paying the rake for the VPPs they were getting because of the dealt system, now they are getting their something closer to their fair share of VPPs per $ they actually pay in rake.

As a result of the changes there are two dynamics in action: tighter players (most of us) are getting fewer VPPs than we did before which equals fewer FPPs which equals a less $ rakeback. Plus, if PS figures hold true, players at 600NL and below are paying less rake, so the total rake on which they get rakeback has been reduced. Lower rake and lower RB % (for most of us) mean fewer dollars in benefits for us. This is not likely to be fully offset by our extra winnings from the lower rake. On the other hand, the changes should encourage more recreational players to redeposit (because more of them will move from big losers to marginal losers or even marginal winners (then move up to where they lose!).

I believe that the net effect of the changes will be proportionally more money coming to players and less money going to Stars.

One of the reasons I get so criticised here, is that I believe that Stars had no business need to make these changes revenue negative for them and yet they did, and actually put us ahead of their short term profits in our mutual longer term interest. I praise them for doing this (and you can see from my screenshot that my loyalty to Stars is based on venality not romance!).

edit, I know someone will ask: those are my two sons in the wallpaper.

[DiggertheDog]

Pokerstars Steve probably has me on ignore but I will try and make an achievable suggestion.

I think that they could look at rejigging the rakeback offered to truly 'recreational' low limit players and new players.

1) they could offer the $600 first deposit on all of the first $600 deposited rather than the first deposit upto $600.
So if a young European just turns 18 and cannot afford to deposit $600 USD in one hit but can be expected to deposit $600 in instalments of say $100 a week for a couple of months - then I think that is idea that has some merit.
2) Adjunct to that - is that if the player forgets or does not realise the deposit bonus was there - that they should get a reminder email from Pokerstars and a leeway period of say one week - to enter the code.

I think they are two thing specifically targetted at new players that effectively reduces intial rakeback.

[DiggertheDog]

Again on rakeback and bonus's for recreational/new/nano stakes players.

With the precondition of no withdrawals in the previous 3 months.

For players with less than $250 - you could have $250 worth of SNE rakeback.

It could be play like a Supernova Elite - give them 1 month....
For each $ that they generate of rake they get rakeback ~ to SNE - with a specific cashout rate of the $4k upto $250.
If they deposit to double their bankroll.

This could be part of a promotion or an ongoing offset for low volume low stakes players.

[DiggertheDog]

Those two suggestion have the benefit of being:

1)Targetted specifically at those
- that get raked the most as %
- net depositors
- likely new and recreational players

2) They will give PS direct information on the specific effect of targetted incentives to encourage volume for low stakes, recreational players

3) It is limited away from regulars and directly at those that fund the poker ecosystem.

4) Does not cost as much as broad brush rake reductions but at least gives PS a view at what the possible effects might be if they were to drastically reduce effective rake.

[DiggertheDog]

It could be used as a part of 'we are poker'...

If the player doubles his bankroll by depositing upto the $250

Those players whilst they are generating SNE rates - will be able to use the VIP Stars of a SNE elite player on PS cash tables <$25 buyin.

That way the player gets the ego boost of being a SNE - and they get to show off at the table.

To achieve the $250 total - they will increase their volume.

You could have a promotional Freeroll for the people who clear that $250 - with win a coaching review or have a SnG with a PS pro.

[Admania]

Xperu, that was a good post and nice wallpaper of your sons. What frustrates me about Stars is they use the argument of "fairness" to justify all sorts of things "when it suits them".

Is WC system fairer than dealt? I suppose probably, Stars says it is.

Is charging a micro low limit player 8bb/100 in rake fairer than charging a high stakes player 1bb/100? Imho , no it's not.

What I'm saying is that this argument of fairness just doesn't cut it from me. Stars will argue that WC is a fairer system and I can understand that, however they wont comment on the gross unfairness of rake at the lower levels.

I think the reps made some progress in the meetings and that is good but there are some glaring errors which just never get addressed so I will ask the question yet again.

In relation to Limit Holdem how come even though Limit got such a good deal out of the talks that rake has increased at the 1/2 and 2/4 limits (undeniable). 1/2 was a rake trap before these meetings, this really needs to be addressed.

Finally I will just say that the loyalist and most valuable players to Stars have lost out considerably since January. I believe you should always go the extra mile when it comes to relations with the people who make you the most money.

[TheMetetrown]

Originally Posted by TheMetetrown

Steve,

Why is the 6max reduction/increase difference ~5% worse when compared to FR at many stakes?

Still waiting for an answer on this.

I realize you might've missed this Steve. So here, I'll quote it for you.

[sputum]

Originally Posted by LunaEqualsLuna

Stars know what to do, they choose not to.

Yes they decide to keep a bundle of cash instead of giving it away.
Shows just what kind of people they are

Originally Posted by DiggertheDog

Pokerstars Steve probably has me on ignore but I will try and make an achievable suggestion.

If he's got as far as ignoring you he might as well not read the thread at all

[svj888]

Originally Posted by sputum

Yes they decide to keep a bundle of cash instead of giving it away.
Shows just what kind of people they are

Yup. Just like the rest of us.

[happyeaster]

just a quickie - xperu ur son looks like isildur1!!!!

[CocteauTwin]

Originally Posted by Admania

Is charging a micro low limit player 8bb/100 in rake fairer than charging a high stakes player 1bb/100? Imho , no it's not.

What I'm saying is that this argument of fairness just doesn't cut it from me.

No way is it fair, at micro stakes you are punished for being a winning player, esp in PLO. If you are winning what stars deems to be "too much" they take it away from you in higher rake which also rapes out losing players faster in the process. At high stakes you are helped out if you are a winning or losing player by having your rake reduced.

[HiLo66]

Originally Posted by CocteauTwin

No way is it fair, at micro stakes you are punished for being a winning player, esp in PLO. If you are winning what stars deems to be "too much" they take it away from you in higher rake which also rapes out losing players faster in the process. At high stakes you are helped out if you are a winning or losing player by having your rake reduced.

The rake should go higher in bb/100 as you climb limits not lower. To have it set up this way is crazy. We all end up like a dog chasing it's tail and getting nowhere.

[LunaEqualsLuna]

Originally Posted by sputum

Yes they decide to keep a bundle of cash instead of giving it away.
Shows just what kind of people they are

Yup, the kind of people that are short-sighted who can't see further than their own nose, and screwing over their best customers for a quick gain during a monopoly.

The sooner the monopoly ends the sooner they get brought down to earth and they are doing a good job of opening the door for competitors. Just that all their current competitors aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the box.

[LazyAce]

Originally Posted by HiLo66

The rake should go higher in bb/100 as you climb limits not lower. To have it set up this way is crazy. We all end up like a dog chasing it's tail and getting nowhere.

What? I'm a micro stakes player myself, but suggesting that HS rake in bb/100 should be higher is ridiculous and will only generate further dissension within this
community.

Edges are certainly smaller as you move up, so they definitely shouldn't be paying more in bb/100.

I would like to see a 10bb per hand cap at 10nl and less. Maybe 8bb @ 25nl, and progressively smaller caps expressed in bb's as you move up.

It is no secret that the current system is horrible for micro players in terms of bb/100 in rake but we can only go so far in increasing rake at HS. I can't imagine charging somebody at 600nl $60 to play a 200bb pot. That would be rake rape and would certainly kill online poker.

Edges are insanely bigger at the micros, so I have no problem with paying more than mid-high stakes. I just have a problem with paying 100x more.

Edit: Somebody, or a some group here in this community, needs to step up and take some charge with these matters. We need leadership. The 50 pages of this thread contain some good ideas and a whole lot of bickering and flaming. We need a google doc system where a respected few with the power to edit it containing all the changes deemed necessary by this community. We need software and stats guys - that can run simulations and do some research to show or rather prove to Stars that lower rake is in all our best interests. We need to be more willing to work with Stars. I know a lot of us are bitter, myself included but fighting will get us nowhere.

I would like to make a pledge right now to Stars.

If you guys make some changes to the rake in this industry ( and yes you guys are pretty much the industry at this point ), I will:

1) Be very happy, no ecstatic and Stars will be back in good graces.
2) I will no longer call the new Stars greedy bastards at my weekly home games - none of my friends play on Stars currently because I've advised them that it is far more + EV to risk their lol $100 bankroll on a shady euro site and get 50% rakeback and play in softer games.
3) I will promote Stars with all my heart through word of mouth. I know a lot of recreational players who lose online at other sites. They know that I win consistently and I strongly believe that if I wanted to convince them to move their action to Stars they would.
4) I would call out every 2p2er in this thread to do the same. Sing your praises via the internet and in day to day life.

Basically Stars, the current system not only runs the risk of forever pissing off the smartest, closest to being organized, active part of your customer base, and biggest rake machines, but it also causes you to miss out on capitalizing on the many benefits of pleasing this same group. All people that I meet who play poker, look up to me. On 2p2 I may just be a lowly micro stakes grinder, but in the real world friends and friends of friends are in awe of me when they hear that I've made tens of thousands consistently off of an original $50 deposit. When the conversations lead to "Hey that's cool, maybe I should give it a try". I warn them not to bother, and advise them that I've put a lot of work into learning the game and 25NL is still not an easy level to beat.

Lets get organized, lets get some leadership happening. Don't look to me I'm not a leader in this community, but I just hope that I can get the ball rolling. I'm not sure who those people should necessarily be, but I definitely want to see JH1 on that list because the work he has done in the past several weeks has been top notch.

Note- Our 'leaders' do not necessarily need to be future player reps that go to IOM.

[mme]

Originally Posted by TheMetetrown

I realize you might've missed this Steve. So here, I'll quote it for you.

i thought bolding and underlining was en vogue here not self-quoting. oh my, what happend to the good old capslock?

btw, self-quote for everyone who missed it: xperus desktop needs cleanup