[QUOTE=TrickyTree;31327260]But there is a difference in the small pots. Rake is paid 7% faster under this system. Stars gets the rake 7% faster. Bad players bust 7% faster.

Not only that this system assumes you win every pot that is 7% bigger. If you win 51% of them and lose the other 49% then you are paying an awful lot more rake to win what would be in effect quite a small amount more.

Really is this whole argument anything other than small beer? QUOTE]

Good players win money from bad players.
The longer it takes Pokerstars makes money.
Its something called rake.

Tricky: My example was assuming the rake cap was not being met. As for moving up in limits, that requires a much larger bankroll than simply increasing the largest of pots by 10-20xBB. That's just not gonna happen for those of us that aren't rolled for the next limits.

Player 1 bets $1, Player B calls the $1. Assuming no other action, at 5% rake, the pot is $1.90. If Player A wins the pot, he gains 90 cents of the $1 called by Player B. On the other hand, Player B, whom lost the pot, loses his entire $1. So while B's $1 contributed to the rake taken, they are not actually affected as they lost no money besides the $1 to call the bet, whereas Player A was forced to forfeit 5% of the pot.

In that case it seems a little weird to send a bunch of winners to the Isle of Man and pretend that they represent 'all players'
Unless the losers like losing as quickly as possible also

Interesting that in Cakes PLO you are allowed to bet the size of the pot + the rake and the pot button does just that.

Which would you rather play: A game you are currently losing that you could get good enough at to win, or a game you are currently losing that only the house wins?

The situation should self-correct of course. Some players feel it's not worth their time anymore, the games improve for the rest.
The more winning regs leave Stars the better the games get. If the leavers are finding greener pastures elsewhere then everybody wins

This is a band-aid for the real problems. Fish are already losing too fast at NLHE/PLO. Your winrate will increase, Stars will gather rake faster, and the fish will lose even FASTER.

The suggestion is the exact OPPOSITE of everything you guys (rake kills) have been fighting for. Focus on the fish and the rake, not yourselves.

losers are just going to lose whatever they deposited , but with this change a bit more goes to the winners and a bit less to the rake.

The skill/luck ratio moves a bit towards skill and even losers will want that since they often complain about bad luck

I think most fish will like being able to bet a bit more (in PL games)

Umm, 'Self-correcting' doesn't necessarily imply a good thing for the ecosystem just like something being natural doesn't imply its good for you.

Player numbers are dwindling, more and more players are losing interest players are now beginning to realising the sites are just taking all the money as winrates plummet due to the natural progression of skill level increasing and the backlash has started. Nothing the sites do except decreasing the rake will stave off the inevitable, and stars clearly want to hang on to their huge profit margins as long as possible, but that cash cow is coming to an end. Either they make huge margins off an every decreasing number of players, or they take smaller margins from a large number of players. Stars are trying to have their cake and eat it for as long as possible taking huge margins and calling the players bluff that they won't leave, and they are right, most 2+2'ers just fold and jump right back on the SNE treadmill.

In a game where huge rake means you need to have a massive skill advantage over your opponents to win, do the games really get better if a handful of average players stop playing? Think about it...

If stars jacked the rake up to 20% the system would self-correct to an ecosystem of a few completely clueless fish with deep pockets, and extremely good regs who bumhunt exclusively and can beat that rake.

Is this better for the few regs who can still exist? Complaints in the high stakes threads suggest no and rake there is already low, yet the regs won't play each other and bumhunt/sitout wars are rife.
This is coming soon to MSNL

I'm pretty sure this idea would do nothing but hurt 100% of the players. Just becasue the overall pot sizes are bigger doesnt mean winrates will be bigger. You have to remember that the pots you lose will now also be bigger. Even if you somehow argued that you win more pots than you lose blah blah blah, it would make no difference. at the end of the day, the sites taking more rake off the tbales is gonna kill everyone.

strongly oppose

Oh yes, the ecosystem. Every cent of which depends on a torrent of freshly deposited money without which winners loyalty may be a little suspect.
Of course they don't get to be in on the meeting between Stars and 2+2ers about how to divide their mug money. They only pay for the whole thing.
This moving up and down stuff I've been reading seems a little overblown also. Winners seem to stick at micro and small stakes for hundreds of thousands of hands, making waaaay more than they need to move up. Stars would mainly be giving them more money to cash out.

I can't see why a rake decrease wouldn't also be self-correcting. These games are widely accessible and there is information aplenty on how to play.

It must be nice to have the choice at least the best of luck to them.