Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012

12-30-2011 , 07:57 PM
i'm going to sit out at 24 tables and type in chat that the rake changes hurt every single player.

unless stars gives SOMETHING back after changing to WC.

WC hurts every single reg, not just nit folders.
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 08:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg777
They have the data to formulate a general rake percentage based on the frequency for each type of pot size.

It is much easier to implement and very stable considering the data size sample.

Is a $2 rake good enough for 200NL? That is why they need the rep in the IoM, to come up with the scenarios then run the data.

.
Note that anyone with Holdem Vision for HEM can quickly and easily figure out a distribution of pot sizes from their db based on stake and number of players so at least we're not completely in the dark here on that.
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 08:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRattler
Im positive pretty much every cash game SNE SN or a vast portion disagree with you. None of them want WC, without visuals of inked out adequate compensations ahead of time.
There are tons of players who have posted they are fine with WC, as you say, so long as the compensation is there.

That is what the suggestions are for, to arrive at that compensation.

I never said anything against postponing WC, a good idea IMO.
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 08:05 PM
I think wanting WC to go away is a fruitless endeavor. We should be focusing on the initial 4.5% rake with tweaks, such as removing the 5 handed incrased rake penalty from 6max/FR and working on rake cap reductions so CAP games, limit and PLO aren't as totally screwed as they are going to be. (Or as in some cases such as 100NL 6max cap already are).

It still strikes me as odd that 50NL cap is the same as 10,000NL. Surely Pokerstars can look at their numbers and consider increase rake at higher limits to offset any reductions. I'm not even suggesting hurting the wallets of high stakes pros. As mentioned above at 200nl a 200bb pot is raked 0.75%, whereas a 50NL 200bb pot is raked 3%

Last edited by WithoutAir; 12-30-2011 at 08:32 PM.
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 08:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JH1
Note that anyone with Holdem Vision for HEM can quickly and easily figure out a distribution of pot sizes from their db based on stake and number of players so at least we're not completely in the dark here on that.
Then you will be able to double check Star's figures when the reps return, but Stars clearly has much more data which is necessary for less frequent scenarios and more accurate results.
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 08:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg777
There are tons of players who have posted they are fine with WC, as you say, so long as the compensation is there.

That is what the suggestions are for, to arrive at that compensation.

I never said anything against postponing WC, a good idea IMO.
yeah the goal is to get compensation out here for WC but lets be real.. they rushed these changes initially and took out rake reduction entirely. History has showed they cant make good choices/decisions rushed. 33 hours left their not communicating what else is their? nothing Postponing WC is their only choice or we'll settle for some beer league changes which we have to endure all year long.
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 08:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtySmokes
I hate to sound like a Pokerstars shill, but I'm pretty sure Pokerstars knows better than you what is in its best interest both in the short and long term.
An argument can be made that the dealt method is what has made the games "unbeatable" (for new players especially). Currently, the sytem means players can grind out a small profit (via VIP "rakeback") while actually breaking even or losing on the tables. Players are literally folding their way to profitability. That's clearly not in anyone's best interest (least of all poker as a pastime) except the nits that do it.
If you look at other sites with WC rake/rewards, winrates can be higher even after higher rake is paid. WC on Pokerstars should eventually mean better players earn more because they win more (and bigger) pots.
In the short term, Stars will save money by not awarding as many VPPs to mass-tabling nits. In the longer term, I believe the games will loosen up, allowing better players to make larger profits than ever before. On the simple matter of fairness, shouldn't it be the case that the players who play the best (not the tightest) earn the most points and make the most money?
folding your way to profitability. lol. how come you haven't folded yourself beyond the NL 5$ tables? Sorry dude, but you just don't know what you are taling about
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 08:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeanchris
I don't care about the change to WC, but the fact that they didn't do any change to the VIP system and increase the rake at 6max is completely ******ed.

We are paying WAY TOO MUCH rake already, the rake has to go down.
This. The Rake Is Too Damn High!
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 08:21 PM
Anyone from Team Pro or Team Online ballsy enough to join the strike and support the community?
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmiko
Anyone from Team Pro or Team Online ballsy enough to join the strike and support the community?
do team pro/online not get RB above their level anyway? like extra percents on SN/SNE

bit risky for them
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 08:26 PM
I complained to stars and got an email saying they suspended all the changes to rake and calculations. Has anyone gotten this too
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanDyer
i'm going to sit out at 24 tables and type in chat that the rake changes hurt every single player.

unless stars gives SOMETHING back after changing to WC.

WC hurts every single reg, not just nit folders.
Of course it hurts everyone but the 24tabling nits the most. If i would have to pay more rake to get rid of all the 24 tabling nits i would happily pay more rake. But i doubt this rake change changes much. Also i dont really have a problem with them as a player, but its unknown for me how bad they are for the poker economy.
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 08:31 PM
i am concerned. will there be any representatives for micro stakes players? i want someone who plays micro stakes to be there. the games at these levels are raked insanely high in terms of BB/100.

but if the representatives have to pay their own travel costs how will a $0.01/$0.02 grinder be able to afford it?

we want a seat at the table too!
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 08:32 PM
+1 for Hood.
Need FL representative there too
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 08:41 PM
I am an American that has been playing poker for 8 years.

First three years I helped run and operate a 15 table card room, either dealing, being the floor manager, or playing for ~100 hrs/week. I have a strong idea of what keeps both players and the house happy.

My fourth year but my first time online, I played MTTs professionally on Stars.

The last four years, I played a mixture of NLH, SNGs, and PLO. I got SNE 3 out of the last 4 years and plan on getting it in 2012 assuming I can afford to based on the changes. My main games are 1/2-10/20 6m PLO.

I have been an active member of 2p2 and have been following all the threads on the changes very carefully.

In addition to playing poker, I staked and coached a group of 12 players from 2p2 over two years, and I have had an unblemished record of transfers, trades, and stakes. I also feel like I am one of the most honest and fair players at the tables when it comes to bumhunting, blindstealing, or any other angle shooting.

My viewpoint is that dealt method can not be kept, but the relocation of the funds should go directly to the player pool and not to Stars directly.

I don't want to fly to the Isle of Man either, but I would if that is what it takes to get this situation handled. Poker and Pokerstars has been my life and career for my entire adult life, and I have no desire to see it become unplayable.
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 08:44 PM
+1 vote for Krmont22
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 09:00 PM
Someone should PM NoahSD and ask him if he has the time inclination to do this.
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiggertheDog
Someone should PM NoahSD and ask him if he has the time inclination to do this.
I PMed Noah once but he didn't reply
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 09:14 PM
For users of Hold'em Manager, the below procedure will show you the difference in VPP earnings between weighed contributed and dealt. It should take about five minutes.


1. Open PGAdmin III from your Postgres folder.


2. Connect to your local PostgreSQL server by right clicking and selecting Connect.'

If you are prompted for a Username and Password, the default username is usually 'postgres'. The default password will either be 'postgrespass' or dbpass'.


3. Once connected, click on your HoldemManager database. This is usually 'HoldemManager'. Then, with this database highlighted, click on the icon that shows a piece of paper with 'SQL' written on it. This will open a new window with some text.


4. Highlight all of the text in this window, and paste the following code into the window.

Code:
create or replace function amountPreflopInvested(tn playerhandscashmisc, pkh_id integer) returns integer AS $$
DECLARE
	amount integer := 0;
	other integer := 0;
BEGIN
	amount := tn.postamountpreflop + tn.betamountpreflop + tn.callamountpreflop;
	select max(pre.postamountpreflop + pre.betamountpreflop + pre.callamountpreflop) into other from pokerhands join 

playerhandscashkeycolumns using (pokerhand_id) join playerhandscashmisc pre using (playerhand_id) where pokerhand_id=pkh_id and not ishero;
	return least(amount, other);
END;
$$ language plpgsql;

create or replace function amountFlopInvested(tn playerhandsflop, pkh_id integer) returns integer AS $$
DECLARE
	amount integer := 0;
	other integer := 0;
BEGIN
	amount := tn.betamount + tn.callamount;
	select max(flop.betamount+flop.callamount) into other from pokerhands join playerhandscashkeycolumns using (pokerhand_id) join 

playerhandscashmisc using (playerhand_id) join playerhandsflop flop using(playerhand_id) where pokerhand_id=pkh_id and not ishero;
	return least(amount, other);
END;
$$ language plpgsql;

create or replace function amountTurnInvested(tn playerhandsturn, pkh_id integer) returns integer AS $$
DECLARE
	amount integer := 0;
	other integer := 0;
BEGIN
	amount := tn.betamount + tn.callamount;
	select max(turn.betamount+turn.callamount) into other from pokerhands join playerhandscashkeycolumns using (pokerhand_id) join 

playerhandscashmisc using (playerhand_id) join playerhandsturn turn using(playerhand_id) where pokerhand_id=pkh_id and not ishero;
	return least(amount, other);
END;
$$ language plpgsql;

create or replace function amountRiverInvested(tn playerhandsriver, pkh_id integer) returns integer AS $$
DECLARE
	amount integer := 0;
	other integer := 0;
BEGIN
	amount := tn.betamount + tn.callamount;
	select max(river.betamount+river.callamount) into other from pokerhands join playerhandscashkeycolumns using (pokerhand_id) join 

playerhandscashmisc using (playerhand_id) join playerhandsriver river using(playerhand_id) where pokerhand_id=pkh_id and not ishero;
	return least(amount, other);
END;
$$ language plpgsql;
	

select count(*) as "Hands", round(sum(a.rakeamount/a.numberofplayers))/100.0 as "Rake dealt",
round ( sum(a.rakeamount * 1.* (
		case when (b.maxstreetseen=0 or b.streetwentallin=1) then (amountPreflopInvested(c, a.pokerhand_id))
		when (b.maxstreetseen=1 or b.streetwentallin=2) then (c.postamountpreflop + c.betamountpreflop + c.callamountpreflop + 

amountFlopInvested(f, a.pokerhand_id))
		when (b.maxstreetseen=2 or b.streetwentallin=3) then (c.postamountpreflop + c.betamountpreflop + c.callamountpreflop + 

f.betamount + f.callamount + amountTurnInvested(t, a.pokerhand_id))
		else (c.postamountpreflop + c.betamountpreflop + c.callamountpreflop + f.betamount + f.callamount + t.betamount + 

t.callamount + amountRiverInvested(r, a.pokerhand_id)) end
	) / (a.potsize))
) / 100.0 as "WC Rake"
from pokerhands a join playerhandscashkeycolumns b using (pokerhand_id) join playerhandscashmisc c using (playerhand_id)
left join playerhandsflop f using(playerhand_id) left join playerhandsturn t using(playerhand_id) left join playerhandsriver r using

(playerhand_id)
where ishero and potsize>0 and a.handtimestamp>'2011-01-01 00:00:00' and a.site_id=2;
5. Once you have done this, press 'F5'. PostgreSQL will run for a short period of time and then display your rake under the Dealt method and the Weighted Contributed method in the screen below.



This code was kindly provided by 2p2 member GobletTamer.
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 09:26 PM
I am using HoldemManager 2 and I get following error:

Quote:
ERROR: type playerhandscashmisc does not exist

********** Error **********

ERROR: type playerhandscashmisc does not exist
SQL state: 42704
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 09:28 PM
This only works for HM1.
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 09:28 PM
Using HEM1 it works with no problems. I'm taking a 15% rakeback hit, running at 20/16 with a table average of 7.4 players (90% 200nl, 10% 100nl) - some SH and HU play but mostly FR.

Last edited by badgers_uk; 12-30-2011 at 09:34 PM.
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 09:29 PM
Steve, after loosing faith in you after the last couple of posts, I just wanted to say that I appreciate you last comment!

It shows that you are willing to be transparent about the upcoming changes and I really am gratefull for that!

That being said, the strike is still on, because I have done the calculations beforehand and I have a pretty good idea how much the change is going to cost me... .
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 09:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budhud
I am using HoldemManager 2 and I get following error:
That's because it's a script for HM1.
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote
12-30-2011 , 09:42 PM
I'm not convinced that it is necessary to fly people to the isle of man to find a solution. Pokerstars did show willingness to touch the 5% and lower it, if we can find reasonable suggestions towards lower rake and rake caps I'm somewhat optimistic that they would listen and change things in a reasonable time frame.

I did some examples to show how much people would really be affected by the change to WC if we got 4.5% linear rake and lower rake caps at limits who do need it.


Assuming mid stakes with an 11% rake reduction through lower rake and rake caps:

1) 400k Supernova in 2011 w/ 45% rakeback, 67k MGR, 58k WC (down by ~15%)
58k-(67k*0.45)=27,850$ in rake paid
vs 11% lower rake and 2% less rakeback
58k*0.89*0.57=29.423$ in rake paid

=5.6% rake increase


2) 150k Supernova in 2011 w/ 37% rakeback, 27k MGR, 23.5k WC (down by ~15%)
23.5k-(27k*0.37)=13,510$ in rake paid
vs 11% lower rake
23.5k*0.89*0.63=13,176$ in rake paid

=2.5% rake decrease


3) Platinum Star in 2011 w/ 24% rakeback, 10k MGR, 8.7k WC (down by ~15%)
8.7k-(10k*0.24)=6,300$ in rake paid
vs 11% lower rake and 2% less rakeback (idk, stellar rewards?)
8.7k*0.89*0.78=6,040$ in rake paid

=4.2% rake decrease


Assuming small stakes with a 13% rake reduction through lower rake and rake caps:

4) Supernova in 2011 w/ 35% rakeback, 25k MGR, 20k WC (down by 20%)
20k-(25k*0.35)=11,250$ in rake paid
vs 13% lower rake and 2% less rakeback
20k*0.87*0.67=11,658$ in rake paid

=3.5% rake increase

5) Platinum Star in 2011 w/ 20% rakeback, 10k MGR, 9.5k WC (down by ~5%)
9.5k-(10k*0.2)=7,500$ in rake paid
vs 13% lower rake and 1% less rakeback
9.5k*0.87*0.81=6,850$ in rake paid

=9.5% rake decrease


6) Gold Star in 2011 w/ 20% rakeback, 5k MGR, 4k WC (down by 25%)
4k-(5k*0.2)=3,000$ rake paid
vs 13% less rake and 3% less rakeback
4k*0.87*0.83=2,888$ rake paid

=3.9% rake decrease


7) Gold Star in 2011 w/ 15% rakeback, 5k MGR, 5.75k WC (up by 15%)
5.75k-(5k*0.15)=5,000$ rake paid
vs 13% lower rake and 2% more rakeback
5.75k*0.87*0.83=4,152$ rake paid

=20.4% rake decrease


I think that shows the general direction this is taking quite well. While some people with high rakeback and a high difference in MGR and WC pay a little bit more (but still far less then they might would think), this money would actually still be within the poker community, and at good places for that (lower stakes).

I do think that we should fight for those things instead of a pure compensation for high volume player as it will benefit more people immediately and everyone of us the most in the long run.


This is what I suggested before and should be the minimum of what we should demand:

1. linear rake, 3.5% at .01/.02 and .02/.05, 4% at .05/1 and .1/.25, 4.5% at .25/.5 and higher
2. lower rake caps, 1$ at .01/.02 up to .05/.1, 1.5$ at .1/.25, 2$ at .25/.5 and .5/1, 2.5$ at 1/2 and 2/4
3. something that makes sense for FL

I rather would people see to work on those numbers than to build a team that they might send to the isle of man to maybe achieve something that possibly would work out better than straight up reducing the rake in a reasonable fashion.


(I do realize that with those numbers 3/6+ would get very little compensation for the change to WC but I do think that's fine, given that the rake is far less significant at higher stakes. 3/6 might benefit from a 2.5$ rake cap though.

I also realize that I used WC basically as WTA in all my calculations. I still would prefer WTA but the difference is probably not big enough to overly worry about it. If it should turn out to actually make a difference, further adjusting the rake would be an option)
PokerStars.com VIP Program and Ring Game Rake Changes effective January 1, 2012 Quote

      
m