Discussion Thread re PokerStars Player Reps Report. Feb 2012

[epicsaxguy]

In the end PS will have all the money. $1.5mil a day...

[TheJacob]

Originally Posted by xPeru

If 2011 play is exactly repeated in 2012, PokerStars will make less money.

This simply doesn't cut it.

The 2011 data is based on the rake/rewards model from 2011.

Did pokerstars completely ignore the effect the changes have on play?

Imagine this scenario:

Pokerstars switches to a rakeback system where X% of the previous days rake is evenly divided amongst every real money player at midnight. They also make rake changes to help those hurt by the changes.

They tell you they aren't making more money and show you if you run last years hands they aren't making more.

It would be obvious that because they are spreading the money out more play will occur and they will make more.

[NoahSD]

Just to clarify because my name's been brought up a few times: I have no interest in participating in this.

[synth_floyd]

With all the complaints about rake, what do people think is a fair rake?

If you could theoretically set up a rake amount or schedule that you thought was most fair to the sites and the players, what would it be?

[HonteleJ]

Originally Posted by HonteleJ

@ the reps:

Have you seen rake calculations on the uncapped micro's (25NL and below) that compare 5% incremental with 4.5% linear?

If so, what is the effective rake decrease (if any) on these uncapped micro's?

bump

[Do it Right]

Originally Posted by synth_floyd

With all the complaints about rake, what do people think is a fair rake?

If you could theoretically set up a rake amount or schedule that you thought was most fair to the sites and the players, what would it be?

4bb/hour/table prepaid for as long as you want. Simple, undeniably fair and still vastly overpricing the service the sites provide so they certainly couldn't complain either. As for the knee jerk: "OMG fish would never pay that!!!?!?!?" go to Vegas sometime. There are countless fish at tables that have table fees instead of rake. And recreationals are not exactly stingy. They deposit their $50 with all expectations of losing it. For them to then put down a few bucks for hours of play is not going to deter them. Or similarly for the high stakes rec player who deposits $50,000 - he's not going to even blink at shedding a few hundred for table fee. An alternative rake is 20% of withdrawals in excess of deposits. Again: simple, undeniably fair and still overpriced.

[mrdurdenptp]

Originally Posted by synth_floyd

With all the complaints about rake, what do people think is a fair rake?

If you could theoretically set up a rake amount or schedule that you thought was most fair to the sites and the players, what would it be?

I can't really say and exact number as I do not know all of the numbers. But a flat bb/100 per player per table would be the fairest way imo. There would be no need to worry about pot sizes or disaparity across limits etc. But let's say 4bb/100 per player per table.

Similar to how mtts and sngs are/should be. On that note a flat rate of 5-7%~ at sngs and mtts seems fair. 10%+ is too high.

The reason it is so disgusting is that a person winning 1bb/100 is pretty badass these days. While paying 5-20bb/100 in rake. And tighter players pay less rake and looser players pay more etc etc.

[mrdurdenptp]

Originally Posted by Do it Right

4bb/hour/table prepaid for as long as you want. Simple, undeniably fair and still vastly overpricing the service the sites provide so they certainly couldn't complain either. As for the knee jerk: "OMG fish would never pay that!!!?!?!?" go to Vegas sometime. There are countless fish at tables that have table fees instead of rake. And recreationals are not exactly stingy. They deposit their $50 with all expectations of losing it. For them to then put down a few bucks for hours of play is not going to deter them. Or similarly for the high stakes rec player who deposits $50,000 - he's not going to even blink at shedding a few hundred for table fee. An alternative rake is 20% of withdrawals in excess of deposits. Again: simple, undeniably fair and still overpriced.

you could simply prorate everything before the hand is dealt. Say at 100nl before the hand is dealt, each player would pay $.04. It would be taken directly from their stack.

[synth_floyd]

4 big blinds per hundred hands per table? So for a .25/.50 table that'd be $2 for every 100 hands (2 cents per hand). Some people are paying 5-20 bb/100 in rake? That is high.

It would be nice instead of having high rake and high rewards they would just have lower rake. I know they need a VIP system to help bring in players and reward volume but there should be a middle ground where we just get to keep more of our own money instead of paying it to them and then getting it back as "rewards."

[freo]

The argument that there is no need to change PLO rake because the average win rate for PLO is bigger than NLHE is bogus to me. Why should NLHE profitability be the measuring stick of all other games?

By this theory, LHE should be due a huge rake reduction to bring their win rates up to match NLHE.

PLO is a less solved game, of course the winrates will be higher. Doesnt mean PLO players should be slugged double rake per BB.

What happens when PLO becomes solved? Bye Bye PLO because nobody will be able to beat the rake.

[Gregg777]

Originally Posted by synth_floyd

With all the complaints about rake, what do people think is a fair rake?

If you could theoretically set up a rake amount or schedule that you thought was most fair to the sites and the players, what would it be?

2-3bb per 100 is more than enough for a site with as much traffic as Stars.

Actually, if they did this they would crush all other sites, at least for micro and low stakes.

Which is where a lot of the money gets fed into the system...

[Hood]

Originally Posted by ant___z

It is expected that playing patterns to change too (affecting thinks like distribution of average pot size and etc) which in turn affects rake rate per hand.

...

There is not really a way to check it out or know it for sure, specially when you are talking of something as marginal as 0.5% gross rake of a difference.

Thats why it was agreed that the figures would be revisited later this year once more observable data is collected.

PokerStars does not currently have the facilities to run sophisticated projections of changes to playing style for their customer base. We did some estimations of players moving between VIP bands, but to actually project, you would have to model individual playing styles, and make some huge assumptions on changes in volume and patterns in what amounts to a chaotic system.

So I'm not sure what else you are asking Stars to do, I think an agreement to revisit the numbers with the next player panel is the best practical agreement we could reach.

[mme]

Originally Posted by synth_floyd

With all the complaints about rake, what do people think is a fair rake?

a fair rake is one 2+2 would screem so loud it could be heard at the end of the universe: flat rake

funny thing is we may get it sooner as expected :-)

[TheBeer]

Originally Posted by Hood

Thats why it was agreed that the figures would be revisited later this year once more observable data is collected.

PokerStars does not currently have the facilities to run sophisticated projections of changes to playing style for their customer base. We did some estimations of players moving between VIP bands, but to actually project, you would have to model individual playing styles, and make some huge assumptions on changes in volume and patterns in what amounts to a chaotic system.

So I'm not sure what else you are asking Stars to do, I think an agreement to revisit the numbers with the next player panel is the best practical agreement we could reach.

Revisiting the numbers is a bad idea.
Ofcourse you need some start point to project numbers on, but you can't just adjust them along the way without some thorough thought:
Seasonal effects are way more than a few percent and become important.
Zoom poker will have a dramatic impact on all stakes:
Volume on normal games will go down and most likely tighten up which will decrease net rake and bb/100 there.
So it's very likely this rake reduction will be reversed soon.

[DeNutza]

If poker stars agenda is to attract more recreational players, then they need to
lower the rake in the less skilled games....The less skilled games are more similiar to flipping a
coin for rake.

Comparing LHE to PLO (near solved game vs complex game), its easy to see how the narrow
edges in LHE effect both winners and losers, creating a lower % of winning players.

In PLO there certainly is more skill and more room for even more winning players, but lowering
the rake here simply will not help losing players near as much, because they will likely lose anyways.

When Party Poker first opened 6 max games, they had a $2 max rake! Their games thrived.
If Stars wants more recreational players to stick around, they should plan on drastic rake cuts across the board.