No, but based on 3.2k hands today VPP totals are down 22% for me, so 28% more hands for the same VPP total.

I'm tentatively in for 1M.

whats your vpip and pfr?


I'm in for 2mm if cap games are still running once these darn banks open up so i could make a wire. I'm starting with 378k though.

22/20

Guess we get what we deserve, people actually arguing against rake reduction. Blows my mind.

+1 some of the things I've read in these stars threads the last week or so ............ jeez

I've run pt3 stats for you and other regs on 3/6cap. PM for results. They are scary though
I can post them but I am not sure about screenname stuff. Suggestions ?

People are incredibly stupid which is very bad with poker players because they are also confident in **** they believe and instead of analyzing stuff people 10x wiser than them post they spew their bs.
It is apparent in about every discussion about poker related stuff (like bots, AI, rake, hell even poker strategy itself).
I completely lost faith in poker players ability to organize or do anything intelligent as a group
Anyway, if you want resutls from 3/6 cap PM me or tell me what should I do with posting sn's (blank them ? just post them ?).
I will do 2/4 and 1/2 later when I have time.

So stupid how they announce these changes so late. Im away on vacation for the first 8 days of january and missing HAPPY HOUR!!!

Not sure if I'm chasing SNE this year, I may be in...will prob just play stars the first month to see if they reverse their moneygrab to an extent, then multi-site. GL to all the SNE grinders.

Can you post them here without the screennames?

Rom and I have posted analysis of why a rake reduction won't benefit many players. Most of those who consider it obvious that a rake reduction would be beneficial have made no argument at all.

I made two points in my post, I probably overplayed the first and underplayed the second. Perhaps I can do better.

SNE currently requires $183k rake paid and is worth $130k rakeback, net $53k earned by Pokerstars. The fish and low volume/low stake regs also pay a fair bit of rake, and Stars have money for promotions that bring in fish.

This is much, much better than the same player in the above example paying $120k rake and getting $67k rakeback. Stars take the same $53k from him, but much less out of the games in total, therefore have less money to spend on promos. The only high volume grinders who should prefer this are those with egos too fragile to cope with the status of "rakeback pro".

You are little confused, and example u make is not proper.
We are (I hope so) not about getting pump, we are about our income.
Simple math: U play X hand (does not matter how much) and win $1000 before rake taken. Lets say you pays $800 rake to the room (under 5% system) (exact number not matters too). If u get 60% RB it will be $480 back. Lets sum income: $1000 - $800 + $480 = $680

Moving on. Imagine rake is 4.5%. U pay from net winnings only ($800*4.5/5)=$720. 60% RB will be $720*0.6=432. Calculating income: $1000 - $720 + $432 = $712



Not focus only on RB, we are playng to win!

I played 20k hands today and earned 14,965 VPP's. HEM says I would have had 15,854 from dealt so that's <6% decrease. I played 22/19.

It seems there's huge variance in the numbers. Halfway through my session at 10k hands there was a 15% difference.

Ok, some stats, it's not huge DB but still. First stat is no of hands, 2nd is VPIP/PFR, 3rd is dealt, 4th is WTA, 5th is WC. All of the players are known grinders:

1)25578 19.5/18.3 3295 2225 2303
2)34269 22.3/21.6 4726 4316 4104
3)65759 31.9/25.5 9585 11116 11038
4)81729 21.6/20.0 10383 8906 8874
5)79943 22.4/20.3 9934 8197 8378 (this player lost a lot during the sample)
6)55943 23.1/19.0 7567 6579 6721
7)48668 21.5/19.1 6575 5242 5262
8)28592 20.1/18.5 4127 2729 2900

I don't guarantee this is correct. I just copy default PT3 stats and posted custom WC one.
Sorry for not doing more, my PT3 is ultra slow and I am typing it by hand. If someone playing 3/6 wants their stats PM me.

Btw poker must be the most expensive game ever invented. You can play 65k hands in a week or two and they charge you 11k usd for that. WOW.

I pray some day Zynga/Facebook/Yahoo or who ever breaks the rake model and goes to a monthly fee or even time charge.

It is not ******ed at all. I do understand though how it could well appear to someone at first glance who doesn't think it through properly. Anyway, all the evidence is there for anyone who cares to read it thoroughly. In conclusion, there are far better, fairer, and simpler solutions.

The status quo for a long time was "high rake, but high rewards/rb". Once all of these sites started cutting the high rewards without also lowering the rake we were screwed.

Time to stop obsessing about the rewards side and get the rake reduced big time.

ROM Amnesty, is there some mistake, please correct me.

Yes, of course your example is correct. It is obvious that if the rake is reduced and nothing else changes then that is better for everyone. You don't need a detailed example and an excel picture to prove that.

But that isn't what we're talking about.

We are talking about a solution to compensate for the new WC rake (which on average looks like it reduces VPP value by 20%.) So we are comparing a hypothetical solution which involves reducing the rake by 20% and reducing VPP value by 20% with the old 2011 situation.

So, using your numbers (and factoring in the estimated 20% drop in VPP value for 2012) and comparing with 2011 numbers we get:



A loss of $54.40

---------------------------

So, whereas a reduction in rakeback is still better than a kick in the balls, it is not the best, fairest, or simplest solution.

(Also, and it's been mentioned before, a reduction in rake by x% wouldn't actual save you x% in rake paid unless the cap was reduced by the same percentage. In reality, in the example above where rake is reduced by 10% you wouldn't go from $800 in rake paid to $720, because the cap will have been reached in many of the pots. You would actually pay more than $720.)

ROM, your example could also be used to prove that a reduction to 4.5% rake still isn't enough. I'm talking solely about rake.

This just shows how disingenuous Pokerstars' "rake reduction offer" truly was. ROM's example shows 4.5% isn't enough. BUT Pokers didn't offer 4.5% they threw in shadow increases.

"Hi folks, It's Pokerstars here. We have decided to compensate you for the WC change with a 4.5% rake reduction. BUT it will cap at 5 players now. BUT the increment is gone."

"OH what? You caught our shadow increases in the rake reduction? Okay screw you, we will still implement the WC change, but with no compensation."

Pokerstars, there use to be a lot of fanboys in the SNE threads. They are all silent right now in total disbelief at your actions.

I am begging for people to stop fighting amongst themselves and work together to try to produce a solution. Input on the topics I've presented in the Negotiation thread can actually put something into motion.

Is steve gonna be doing a VPP leaderboard thing for the people ITT?

ROM Amnesty, Yes, you right in both remarks. You talking about players who will receive less VPP, but! Let say group of players who constantly and preferably plays 5/10. Spread of VPP will be different, but overall value of VPP will be the same for that group. Since they all on a same vip level and so on.. This group will receive same amount of rewards.
About rakecap - it harms mid+ stakes alot more then guys on small/micro. It clearly will be way more over $720 on 5/10. But rake reduction to 4.5 actually will help on lower stakes, for that (I belive) this changes is made for.
/sorry for bad english/

Edit: there is no such thing as "drop in VPP value". At least for that group. For the same amount of rake paid some players will get more VPP, some less - thats all.

krmont. I'm bringing to the attention of others the very important implications of one particular change which no one had previously posted about. If someone responds with an incorrect assumption, I'll attempt to point out why it's wrong. If I post something that's incorrect (unlikely ) then hopefully someone will pick up on that. In the end, more people will be better educated on the issue. It's not fighting.

Yes, that's right. players at 25NL and below will be the ones that benefit the most.

Of course.

Email vipclub@pokerstars.com to be added to the list.