Ongame going to change their reward system: "Essence" - Page 18 - Internet Poker

TuckFard · 07-20-2010, 06:23 AM

I Think for now we should asume that the amount of shares will stay the same and will only be distributed differently. They allready make more (lose less) $ because of that. They should at least be more transparent about this though.

I am going to wait to see how much my rb payout will differ from what it should be according to HEM.

btw, im pretty fedup with the fact that I didnt get any answers to questions I asked earlier in this thread. Would be nice if ongame showed at least some willingness to communicate with the community.

OodaThunkett · 07-20-2010, 06:28 AM

Seven of poster Swex's total of seven posts on 2+2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swex

Betfair joining Ongame network confirmed today

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swex

This thread is a good read, seems to be a similar concept.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/17...player-778378/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swex

From what I've read, I'm almost certain that this is incorrect. Everything else in your posts seem to hit the nail on the head though.

'From what I've read'

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swex

Don't forget that this affects Ongame's skins / affiliates too. They now have more financial incentive to bring in fish and other recreational or casual players, as far as I understand it?

'as far as I understand it'

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swex

Just gonna play devil's advocate a bit here - I pointed this out earlier in the thread and people seem to be leaving it our of their calculations or predictions; the effect is not only that recreational players earn more loyalty points etc. When you look at it from a higher level, it must surely also effect the skins and affiliates on Ongame, who will now earn (proportionally) more money for bringing in "recreational" players as opposed to high volume grinders. This incentive will surely lead the skins to change or adapt their marketing plans to try and encourage more fish to the network.

Of course we can talk through every detail of this change forever - the fact remains that its impossible to tell exactly how this will work out!

'Just gonna play devil's advocate'

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swex

My skin told me that tables are changing from 20bb min to 35bb min in August.

'My skin told me'

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swex

Obviously you have made your mind up on the new system and thats fine (though seemingly hasty considering theres no real figures demonstrating the effect of the change yet) but for the sake of those trying to have a decent discussion in this thread, please lose the hyperbole.

My point was simply that affiliates and skins at Ongame will now earn proportionately more from players who contribute to the game by bringing in more money (fish or recreational players) and proportionately less from those winning a lot and taking money off the network. That means that they now have less incentive to offer huge under-the-table rakeback deals which damage the industry, and more incentive to try and lure in new fish.

I'm not sure which side of the fence I come down on yet, but I'm not going to jump to any conclusions or start screaming bloody murder just yet. Of course if this negatively affects my winnings in the long run then I'll go somewhere else just like everyone else - I'm just waiting to see how this pans out before jumping ship.

'I'm not sure which side of the fence I come down on yet'

Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe the writer of these posts. The repeated attempts to distance himself from direct involvement and certain knowledge scream 'shill', imo.

The link he gives in the second quote is interesting to him, and he agrees with it; but he never posts in that thread: at least not with this account. He just posts here. Doesn't that seem odd?

The algorithm should be on the sites. The reason it isn't is probably because this would clearly show that Ongame are reneging on business deals made with their affiliates, and through them with their players. The biggest new decider in what points and effective rakeback a player gets is probably not whether they are a winning player or not, or their playing style, but rather what deal they are on. The better the deal, the harder the algorithm will hit them. Otherwise, why not publish the algorithm? Ongame are going back on business deals here.

Oh, and now there is an eighth post, I see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swex, a few posts above this one.

Valid points for sure.

-With regards to chip dumping and multi-accounting etc, it is up to the security team to ensure that this doesn't become a problem. Without more details its hard to see how well creating new accounts etc. would work. I refuse to believe that nobody at Ongame thought of this though, and I'd imagine there is some kind of measure in place... I guess we'll find out.

-While that may be the initial implied message, if this really does manage to soften the games and bring in more "easy" money onto the tables, who really cares?

With regards to rolling it out on a skin/affiliate basis only, its definitely an interesting idea. I wasn't aware that other networks were doing this. All I know (I use "know" loosely, this is anecdotal) is that some networks (read: Ipoker) are fining the skins who bring in too many winning players, and even blocking players who win too much. If you ask me this is even less transparent, and a much more shady way of operating than the system Ongame are trying. But that's just my opinion

The same pattern. He doesn't know, because he is not in the industry, honest. It's just anecdotal, and this is just his opinion. Surely this is a shill? Is his IP address close to the one used by the poster he quotes in that second quote, please? This poster here.

Punching Bag · 07-20-2010, 08:47 AM

We would like to restate that the total amount of points given in each pot (as well as the total amount of rake taken from each pot) will be identical to what it was prior to the launch of Essence. The only difference will be how these same number of points is distributed amongst the players involved.

Of course this will mean that some players will be receiving less points and some players will be receiving more points then what they previously did.

We understand your concern regarding the lack of transparency, but this is an effect of the complexity of Essence, since as we previously stated every hand is a unique situation and the distribution of points will vary hand by hand and player by player

Soulman · 07-20-2010, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apefish

I can't see how they can do that with this program. have fun telling the fish they suck.

"With our new Essence program, you'll win even when you lose!"

TheRaiderr · 07-20-2010, 08:57 AM

what are you going to do to address the lack of transparency?

OodaThunkett · 07-20-2010, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punching Bag

We would like to restate that the total amount of points given in each pot (as well as the total amount of rake taken from each pot) will be identical to what it was prior to the launch of Essence. The only difference will be how these same number of points is distributed amongst the players involved.

Of course this will mean that some players will be receiving less points and some players will be receiving more points then what they previously did.

We understand your concern regarding the lack of transparency, but this is an effect of the complexity of Essence, since as we previously stated every hand is a unique situation and the distribution of points will vary hand by hand and player by player

What you are saying here is that Ongame is now rigged: not the hands themselves, but the payouts from those hands. It is no longer a fair game, because you are redistributing some of the money as you see fit. How is this different to admitting that you run a rigged network?

If you are not willing to give us the algorithm, at least list the variables, in full, and get an official body that is not headed by the same people who run Ongame to endorse that the list of variables is complete and accurate.

If you start taking money off some players and giving it to another set of players and you won't even fully say on what basis, you are not running a straight game, imo.

TuckFard · 07-20-2010, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punching Bag

We would like to restate that the total amount of points given in each pot (as well as the total amount of rake taken from each pot) will be identical to what it was prior to the launch of Essence. The only difference will be how these same number of points is distributed amongst the players involved.

Of course this will mean that some players will be receiving less points and some players will be receiving more points then what they previously did.

We understand your concern regarding the lack of transparency, but this is an effect of the complexity of Essence, since as we previously stated every hand is a unique situation and the distribution of points will vary hand by hand and player by player

Ok, so there is nothing new to say? Why bother? You could have answered the questions people have instead of repeating everything we already knew. I'm getting pretty sick of the incompetence with which you are handeling this.

Adrian.Alex · 07-20-2010, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBR

A massive percentage of online players are 'break-even' at best.

If this change means that these players end up with less money coming back to them they will move to a different Network.

Guaranteed.

The ONLY reason players use sites like Stars with little or no 'rakeback' is because of superior software, player numbers and customer Service (Not you FT!!)

I don't think Ongame scores very well on any of these points and so has to rely on player rewards to keep players interested.

If, as seems to be the general concensus, players are generally worse off with this change then Ongame had better be ready to lose a LOT of players.

stars has rakeback. 26% after a month and 40% if you become supernova in 2,3 months of play. but you need to play 100nl at least.

Ypsi · 07-20-2010, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punching Bag

We would like to restate that the total amount of points given in each pot (as well as the total amount of rake taken from each pot) will be identical to what it was prior to the launch of Essence. The only difference will be how these same number of points is distributed amongst the players involved.

Of course this will mean that some players will be receiving less points and some players will be receiving more points then what they previously did.

We understand your concern regarding the lack of transparency, but this is an effect of the complexity of Essence, since as we previously stated every hand is a unique situation and the distribution of points will vary hand by hand and player by player

You can improve you system, if player makes cashout, transfer some player more and some player less money. Make cashout formula very complex, so nobody can know how much money he will receive.

Kejsper · 07-20-2010, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punching Bag

We would like to restate that the total amount of points given in each pot (as well as the total amount of rake taken from each pot) will be identical to what it was prior to the launch of Essence.

prove it. everybody's saying that they got less money now than before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punching Bag

We understand your concern regarding the lack of transparency, but this is an effect of the complexity of Essence

lol

and the other thing is - many skins offer valueback up to 40% so now someone can have valueback up to 60% and the other one can have valueback up to 20%?

TuckFard · 07-20-2010, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kejsper

prove it. everybody's saying that they got less money now than before.

ldo, as it will be distributed differently. Thats no rocket science... The problem is that they have no way of proving the amount of share (points, rakeback, whatever comes from that share) thats being divided in that way will still be the same as it was before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kejsper

and the other thing is - many skins offer valueback up to 40% so now someone can have valueback up to 60% and the other one can have valueback up to 20%?

yes

Kejsper · 07-20-2010, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TuckFard

The problem is that they have no way of proving the amount of share (points, rakeback, whatever comes from that share) thats being divided in that way will still be the same as it was before.

so what's the point telling us that it will be the same amount?

People still remember disapearing cash from their accounts when P5 was released...

TuckFard · 07-20-2010, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kejsper

so what's the point telling us that it will be the same amount?

They just want us to trust them I guess. Which is pretty ****ing LOL.

OMGKaraScott · 07-20-2010, 10:28 AM

You guys are confusing two different things: points given to players/raked amount and the value of those points. They are still giving same amount of points (or that's what they say, because of that complex system we cannot be sure that those missing points are actually going to some random fish).

BUT value of those points are different to regulars with big rb and donk who just wants to put his money ALLL IIIIIN. And that difference is what ongame/sites are getting all of this.

I've said this before in somewhere, but i wouldn't have any problem if they would just cut our deals or take more rake and say that they just want more money. Like, this is business and not charity, right? In that way i could actually compare ongame to other sites, but this omg-so-complex-system makes it impossible.

I sure hope that you use the extra money to fix that "new" software.

TuckFard · 07-20-2010, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OMGKaraScott

You guys are confusing two different things: points given to players/raked amount and the value of those points. They are still giving same amount of points (or that's what they say, because of that complex system we cannot be sure that those missing points are actually going to some random fish).

We are not confusing anything, they wont decide what your points are worth when paying out (the amount of variables they seem to use for this should make that impossible).

The points will be divided the moment you play a pot, for instance 30% to you, 70% to the fish. The problem is that it might as well be 30% to you 50% to the fish, there is no way for players to check this. Like there is no way for players to know in what ''catagory'' they fall but thats also why you cannot check how it will be divided.

What it comes down to is a lack of transparency.