Wtf kind of troll are ye?

You sit, I'll play. This new system rewards those who participate. NOT the ones who sit and wait for a huge hand. Sorry loser. U suck.

Again, not that this needs a reply. But you are very very misinformed. People have calculated losses with this system with vpips of 29+.

Curious: What stakes do you play? I've been telling people about the changes at the 1/2 and 2/4 CAP tables, and responses have been 100% positive.

haha it's funny cuz he doesn't understand.

this

cross post

I think players generally have the misunderstanding that their value to a poker room is just entirely related to the rake they pay. Players that never make a deposit, withdraw frequently but pay lots of rake are extremly bad for the poker economy as a whole. So please leave off with the whole "we want whats right for the poker economy" bs, no you dont, you all want whats best for you (not that im saying anythings wrong with that).

Whats good for the poker economy is players that deposit, naturally these players are losers by definition as winning players dont need to deposit. There has been a growing trend over the last few years of new deposits decreasing for poker sites, with them finding it harder and more expensive to recruit new players. Then the quicker these new players go broke the less likely they are to re deposit, this happens partly due to the standard of the games and partly down to rake.

The online poker environment has always been in constant change, it appears to me that these changes by stars, in part are to help maintain the poker economy. They obviously know the value of new and losing players and by re structuring the VIP system to benefit these players is good for the long term health of the economy.

Are stars benefiting financially from these changes? yes sure, but they are a business, making money is their sole goal. Anybody complaining they are making money is just neive.



Obviously there will always be winning players, remove winning players and new players will take their place.

I strongly disagree, winning players are in direct competition with the site over deposits. The rake paid is not actually your money, it is deposits made by other players.

My point is i feel people in this thread are massively over estimating the negotiating power they have as winning players. If you was to look at the amount of deposits over withdrawels made by protesters last year this should be abundently clear.

Stars have reason enough to not just drain the pool in such a fashion and maintain a long term functioning economy beyond keeping winning regs happy.

Stars is not your employer, you are drawing gains from their customers.

From stars point of view, you are removing potential profits from them by removing money from the economy. Money they invest heavily in drawing to the site through advertisment. Sad truth is we are leeches on the economy.

No it just appears i am not using over simplified concepts of rake. You are clearly not able to look at it from a macroeconomic perspective. Stick to your "i pay $x amount of rake per year and stars f***s me over logic" if it keeps you happy.

So somebody with an aposing view to yours on a discussion board is a troll now? If all your looking for is people who agree with your view point please just block my posts or something.

I see the basis of your logic, however it requires the assumption that fish have a bottomless pit of funds available to deposit onto the site, which is obviously not true. Value for money is also very important for losing/casual players, when you cross the thresh hold of fish not seeing poker as good entertainment value for their money it hurts both us and the sites.

^ yeah, i figured this was pretty obvious but obviously I agree. (ricepaw's post)

If there are no changes by the 1st at 12pm EST to the current announcement, the sitout continues as planned.

If they postpone the changes for a discussion, we will engage that discussion and not sit out.

If they make appropriate alterations to their announcement in order to redistribute the lost money in a fair way, we will also support the change and not sit out.

Man, its really tiring explaining the same thing to idiots and trolls.

I'm still thinking about the best way to run the numbers on this but as a general concept I think it's pretty fantastic if they work out. As long as they don't run it like FTP and make it game specific at different times but rather have all Happy Hours run site wide. I'm typing up whatever is below here on the fly so these are first impressions and general thoughts on player situations how this might affect different types of players:

High level SN to SNE

• These players are the hardest hit in terms of number of VPPs reduced and volume required to his their VIP level again.
• Assuming a SNE plays 8 hours a day on Dealt and requires 25% more volume with WC for 10 hours a day, they could essentially play 7 regular hours and 2 "overtime" happy hours for a total of 9 hours. I don't know if 25% is accurate and you'd have to run the HEM script to know for sure and then plug your own numbers in here.
• I think in comparison to Dealt this works out to 7 hours @ 75% VPP rate + 2 hours @ 112% VPP rate. (112% comes from 75%*1.5).
• 7*0.75 + 2*1.12 = 7.49 prorated hours for a recalibrated reduction of 6.25% under WC. So you'd end up putting in a bit more time but less than a straight WC switch and SNE should still be achievable.
  
  [Edit/MH: See Note 1.]
  
  
• Smaller reduction for <25% WC affect and larger reduction for >25% WC affect.

Low to mid level SN

• In my experience these are people like me that put in between 2-4 hours a day depending on stakes and number of tables played.
• If I were to expect the same 20-25% WC reduction effect but could play 1 out of my regular 3 hours at 1.5 happy hour, using the same formula as above:
• 2*0.75 + 1*1.12 = 2.62 prorated hours for a recalibrated reduction of 13%.

Sub-Supernova 25k-80k Gold / Platinum

• These would be your micro regs and small-mid stakes recreationals.
• The idea of happy hour could actually really help recreationals out and be a draw to get them to show up more regularly -- kind of like the 'appointment poker' term Stars likes to use for Sat/Sun majors and bigs. They would benefit a lot compared to what they were getting under Dealt by receiving way more VPPs/hand than they were plus getting those VPPs/FPPs multiplied by even more if they stick to a schedule. This is a huge plus for everyone site wide.
• ime a lot of the micro regs are actually putting in Supernova level volume at lower stakes where 100k just isn't possible so the affects it would have on them would be similar to Supernovas.

Silver / Bronze

• Basically any kind of multiplier is going to be a massive boost for these recreationals playing fairly low stakes as long as Stars keeps the increased table VPP multipliers for nano stakes.
• Lets say a recreational sees a 25% increase in VPP/hand at 2NL where they currently have a 10x multiplier (iirc the increased multiplier was put in place to offset some rake structure changes they had there, for reference: at some point there was a thread called "hey stars when did you start raking these pots?" so it does need to be kept in place and has no bearing on this calculation). So they get their 25% increase and then play half of their hands during happy hours: 0.5*1.25 + 0.5*1.88 = 1.57 or an increase in VIP value of 57%.

Those are the kinds of big numbers for recreationals that I would hope they would receive given this change, even though they are still relatively small compared to the reduction that SN/SNE would be getting, but it's still better.

To compare all of that now assuming Bronze and Silver are generally recreationals who are going to be on the receiving end of a 25% redistribution, using best value cash bonus:

• Dealt VPP value after multipliers are applied: SNE $0.080 | SN $0.056 | Silver $0.016 | Bronze $0.010
• Straight WC effective value, +/- 25% factor: SNE $0.060 | SN $0.042 | Silver $0.020 | Bronze $0.013
• WC effective with Happy mitigation above: SNE $0.075 | SN $0.049 | Silver $0.025 | Bronze $0.016

* I left out Gold and Platinum here, just wanted to give a general sense of effective value movement. Note that I am not saying that a SNE VPP would be worth $0.075 as it's still obviously worth $0.08. This is only for relative comparison's sake for figuring out your calibrated benefit reduction rate and you were able to schedule a decent portion of your play to Happy Hours.

Sorry for the wall of text. There are obviously so many more variables to consider when you're trying to calculate WC rakeback compared to the relative ease of calculating Dealt, so figure out where on this list you are and how a permanent Happy Hour schedule would fit into your game plan and plug your numbers in to figure out if this would be generally acceptable to you.

* * * * * *
* * * * * *

Note 1.

Miscalculation here, thought 6.25% was way too low. Can a mod change the above to:

_______________

[*]In comparison to Dealt this works out to 6.5 hours @ 75% VPP rate + 2.75 hours @112% VPP rate. (112% comes from 75%*1.5).
[*]6.5*0.75 + 2.75*1.12 = 8 prorated hours for a recalibrated reduction of 15% based on an extra 1.25 hours needing to be played for the same number of VPPs.

________________

Which would change the VPP value for SNE with mitigation factor at the bottom of the post to $0.068 instead of $0.075.

Sorry for the mix up.

Over 82k hands...

DEALT: 7029
WC: 7148

85% 200cap 6max
the rest 400cap 6max

I play around 25/22

This is a really interesting new way to take it Starving/JH1. Nice detailed post.

I have posted this as a possible alternate method of compensation in the cliffs/details thread.

Again, you may view that thread here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...hread-1145908/

Over 71399 hands at 200PLO 6 max

Dealt: 12348.39
WC: 10069.7

I am one of the looser regs at the limit

Fwiw: I also ran mine from midstakes 6m nl but only on the hands on my laptop (my desktop is not in the USA) and the changes were around a 16.5% decrease.

I run ~26/22

Hands: 201037
Dealt: 23096.9
WC: 19281.86

80% FR running 18/16, 20% 6max running 25/22

731k raked hands
Dealt --> WC = 12.7% reduction in VPPs

So Stars announces a significant profit drop for most players. I hope they're not surprised at the reaction.

Complicated IMO and it doesn't address rake caps, unless I missed it.

However, as long as there are rake caps for lower limits, I don't really care what else is done so long as most people agree to it.

cliffs: only the +80 vpip droolers will benefit from the change. big sales on hats and chipsets in the upcoming months.

+1

few questions about the strike:

1 - how long will it go on for at first? i.e does it last for 1 hour and then we wait for concessions from stars before striking again? or is it for as long as you can?

2 - i believe the limit is 3 rounds before you are booted off your seat for sitting out. should i be sitting back in every 2.5 rounds to play 1 hand? or just switch to another table?

3 - which will be more effective - sitting out at 6max or full ring tables?

also if someone can come up with a short message explaining the strike then we can all paste it into the chat box to have a consistent message to the players who are unaware. someone plz do this?

The idea is no hands are played at the table because everybody is sat out, so nobody gets booted

Are you absurd? This posts too heavily resembles the vagueness technique chosen by liars, just like those nurses in California who were striking "for the patients" by walking off the job: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-22/u...es-association

You don't care about fairness--you care about greed, and I find this very off-putting. We poker players are not the most trustworthy profession, but this is starting to turn into propaganda which is easily refutable.

Quinn132 is entirely right on this issue, and you should listen to him rather than argue against him. We must all see eye to eye on this issue if the community is going to coalesce and speak with a united voice.

Why or how anybody can wholeheartedly ignore/deny the simple truth of Quinn132's argument is beyond my understanding. He's not out of line or trying to cause unnecessary debate, but just helping inform others.

To minimize/obfuscate/bury this information is equally bad as misinformation. Re-linking to his post as a public service announcement.



No, you clearly just don't get it. The rake paid is not actually "your money" it is just deducted from an arbitrary number on your cashier screen. Your "balance" is only real money if there is actual customers' deposits behind the account. If there is no fish deposits to bring in new cash to the site, then rake cannot meaningfully exist unless there is approximately enough cash inflow to equal the rake outflow + players withdrawals.

I'd be happy to answer any pm from someone who needs help understanding this. Most people take for granted that the number on their cashier screen is infallible & just the same as if at a B&M casino. With an online poker website, rake simply reduces a liability--it does not actually take place in the same way as a live casino. My best guess is that Quinn132 has taken an accounting class before, and understands things better than those of you disagreeing with him.



+1

Winning poker players put nothing in (except for providing tables & fewer wait times?) and take, take, take. They make the games harder and more dry--making poker less appealing to fish as compared during the poker boom when even fish could make a little money just by taking an adderall (or at least that's all it took my non-poker friends to becoming breakeven players in 2005)

The only way to make fish & regs happy both short-term and long-term is healthy competition, rather than a stars virtual monopoly.

From Stars' point of view, they have "cash & cash equivalents" which gets increased daily by deposits, and depleted daily by withdrawals, expenses, cash-outs, etc...

The only way to fund the cash outflows is to have cash-inflows which currently comes only from deposits. If poker websites had pop-ups and advertising and spamming your email, then that's one way to re-balance the equation more healthily, but from a site's point of view--they must have fresh streams of cash in-flow if they want to fund cashouts, expenses, etc...

The funds are segregated the same way an insurance company segregates funds (and have regulatory oversight, etc...) but the overall health of a website such as stars depends entirely on preserving/nurturing/building their cash inflows, which a "reg" is entirely a leech to.

I'll pm you right now to answer your specific question, but I don't want to open this can of worms as I have to sleep in 30 minutes, and won't be posting on this thread anymore tonight. The short answer is "no, not dependent" but long-term viability of a poker site is maximizing the "spread" between net deposits & net cashouts. (a couple accounting classes background very helpful)

I meant in comparison to B&M casino which people still think is how it happens online. To pokerstars, it is all credits & debits only--nothing as easy to comprehend as uneducated people can grasp. I bet you have a relevant degree for this discussion? You belong in NVG, so you picked the wrong subforum. You have no knowledge on this subject to provide value to readers, other than opinion or trolling.

And in your over-simplified view, I guess deposits come out of thin air? If you're a reg, you only have to use the deposit button once or twice ever, but you're incredibly naive if you think deposits are simply a given. Deposits are their lifeblood, which is the highest rung of the whole poker economy.

Luckproof, you are the troll. Quinn132 is right, and you are wrong--but there's no way you'll come off your soapbox and insult people who do not agree with you. You are being hostile trying to obfuscate/misinform/dominate the discussion because you're whiny & can't allow a peaceful discussion where others can disagree with you, so you drive them off with your trolling. I'm not posting anymore in this thread tonight, and I tip my hat off to your fine trolling which has made me lose interest in sharing my knowledge of business background.

Poker sites make money in one way only: by converting player deposits into rake. Some people then take this information and extrapolate that if you are not a depositing player, you have no value to the poker site.

What the posters above fail to realize is that regs are an integral part of converting deposits to rake.

If you have a hypothetical poker site with one table, and six fish at it, none of whom ever withdraw, it's true - over time, all the money will end up with the poker site.

However, if you took that same poker site and introduced five regs, and the games then became: five regs at six tables, and one fish at each, you end up with a new scenario.

Yes, it's true, the poker site has to give a very small portion of the fish deposits to the regular, but in exchange, the deposits are now being converted into rake six times faster than before. This also means fish need to deposit more often, which is good for the poker site.

It gets even better if the poker site introduces a sixth regular - now there's still one fish at each of six tables, but there may also be more tables running consisting of only regulars - the regulars then play the fish (generating rake for the site and profit for themselves) but also play each other on tables without fish while waiting for a seat to open (generating rake for the site and losing some of their profit in the process).


Fish may be the source of income for a poker site, but it's the regulars filling tons of tables that grinds those deposits into rake.

The average grinder gives 75% of his gross profits back in rake. Would you rather have a fish deposit $100 and spend a year playing breakeven and lose all that $100 in rake, or would you rather have him have to deposit $100 a month, knowing you're going to end up with 75% of it each time anyway?

I would recommend not responding to off topic, dissenting posts in this thread. If someone has a valid point of dissent, respond to it in a clear, well thought out way and let it be done.

I've probably censored myself from 10-15 posts in this thread that were just firing back at trolls and naysayers, and I think the thread is better for it.

In other words,



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Deposits come when a losing player runs out of money. Losing players run out of money faster when they play regulars. Regulars only keep 25%, or sometimes even less, of losing players money in the long run.

75% often > 100% rarely.

In any case, this thread isn't about this topic at all. If you're still confused you can feel free to PM me to continue the discussion.

A lot of funky ways to use the + and - keys on my calculator to decipher a balance sheet itt.

I'm not qualified so I'll just get on my bike.