"If it aint broke... Don't fix it" - Not exactly hard to understand

Looking very much forward to FTP 2.0. Or some decent sized network which can offer decent rewards for players like myself.

This is misleading in so many ways. In a nutshell a rake decrease of x% means an overall and direct rakeback increase of x, minus a players previous rakeback percentage times x, e.g 10% rake decrease increases the rakeback of a 10% rakeback player by 9%, of a 30% rakeback player by 7% and so on.

It's a way of making the overall system less top heavy, which of course many people on here will lobby against. That doesn't mean that it's not the best solution though..

I did a lot more math than you did in those 3 examples and the changes that I suggested before would help the vast majority of people immediately, not only recreational player who are not represented in these discussion, but also many, many regulars. Pretty much every single player up to .25/.5 would be better off and many significantly. Most supernovas at the mid-stakes up to 1/2 would be better off and mostly anyone with lower rakeback at those stakes anyway. Of course anyone with a small difference between dealt and WC would be better off. Helping those people will help the games. A rake decrease is a direct rakeback increase, not one reliant that people use their points.


Stop the lobbying for SNEs and don't be misguided by math that suggest as a Supernova you wouldn't be better off with a rake decrease. Some people are going to lose with this change to WC, this is decided. Focus on helping the overall health of the games.

Which a rake reduction would do. The argument against a rake decrease and an increase vpp multiplier, doesn't really consider what a reduction in rake could do to the health of the games. It would surely do much more to make the games better than a vpp multiplier increase would.

Btw not much of a sample size but I checked my HEM database and I played 84970 hands of 50NL 6max last year. 23070 of those were 5 handed (28%)

Of those, 561 would be raked higher under the new rake system. Thats 0.66% of my hands at 50NL that would be above $2 rake.

Of those 279 would be raked $3 under the new rake system. Thats 0.32%
Those 279 hands were raked $111.59. If the cap was $3 that would be $167.39.

That doesn't seem terrible to me, albeit it would go up substantially as you go up the limits. Pots over $44.40 (roughly) would be raked more at 50NL+, 5 handed.

I'd like to ignore the fact that moving to 6.5x seems like an excellent idea. It's a separate issue worth discussing, but I'm not talking about that right now.

There is ZERO reason SH should be 5.5x while FR is 6.0x under a Weighted Contributed. I don't care who negotiated it or why; as of right this moment--it's wrong, it's unfair, it's unjustifiable.

On this specific issue, the first move is to take SH to 6.0x. Once that ridiculous inequality is resolved, then we should talk about whether going to 6.5x is the best solution for both parties.

It's just my opinion, but I think we should focus on winning the easy battles first.

+1

+1

Firstly, your first statement is incorrect. You're assuming that a reduction in rake percentage by x% will actually reduce the rake paid by x%. This is not correct unless the rake cap is reduced by the same percentage, as many pots will reach the rake cap and $3 will be paid whether the rake percentage is 5% or 4%.

(For simplicity I assumed that in my examples too, but in reality the situations would be worse than I detail.)

Secondly, I'm not lobbying for my own self-interests. I'm already taking a ~25% hit with the WC rake and I've no problem with that as long as that lost income ($30k+ for me) goes into the health of the game, and not Stars' pocket. It's true I'd prefer to see a different solution, but I've also been concerned that literally no one had previously brought up the flaws with this solution, including...

Thirdly, the implications of how people will be effected with regards to milestone targets and store item prices will be the same for everyone, regardless of status. This issue on it's own is significant and most people are still blissfully unaware of it, even after it has been highlighted.

Fourthly, I'm not being "misguided by math." I'm more than qualified to speak on mathematical issues.

Fifthly, I use lots of pretty colours in my posts. How many other people can claim that?

1) No, it's not. I said a 'decrease in rake' not a 'decrease in rakeback %'. What I meant becomes more obvious when you read my previous posts on this topic where I suggested changes to rake percentages and caps and outlined to what overall rake decreases that would lead.

2) If you have no problem with taking a hit as long as it's being redistributed you should be fine with the changes that I previously suggested. The numbers were obviously open for discussion, but I did try to consider changes in overall rakeback percentages (e.g milestones) as a direct implication of lower rake. I've been talking about it, feel free to read my posts.

3) Uhm, what? People are obviously influenced to different degrees if VPP/hand are going down. Say a Supernova in his second year would make 180k VPP, but with the rake decrease of 10% he makes 162k VPP. Is his rakeback percentage going down?

4) I didn't say that you specifically were misguided by math, I kinda tried to imply that you used math to misguide people. How many people really get 80% rakeback on Stars? That was a rather irrelevant example to chose, especially considering that dealt is gone. People with high rakeback and a high difference between dealt and WC are going to get less no matter what. I also did examples of how people would be effected by the changes if the rake were to be decreased. I even considered different gaps between dealt and WC rake and accounted for further rakeback changes...

5) I made some colorful posts before. ^_^

Thanks for the response. I'll read through your posts and suggestions on the topic tomorrow.

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

(Regarding point 3 above: ...and another very important point is that everyone would earn VPPs at a 20% slower rate, hence milestones would be far harder to reach, resulting in significant further reduction in the value of VPPs. (Milestone targets and cost of store items would therefore also have to be reduced by 20%.))

Well, first, a 20% slower rate in VPP doesn't lead to a 20% decrease of VPP value. Again, a second year supernova that would be between 100k and 200k VPP either way for example would see virtually no decrease in value in VPP, rather the opposite because he would be closer to the 100k milestone. The overall decrease would have to be estimated, but would be not that significant.

That in itself makes your point to reduce store items by 20% irrelevant, but it would also be not necessarily the best way to look at it anyway.


Again, every change that has to do with either raising VPP multiplier, worth of VPP or anything like that is a virtual (FPP) top heavy redistribution, every rake decrease is a direct (instant cash) bottom heavy redistribution.

Can anyone explain why "the value of each VPP was reduced by 20%"? Right thing to say: "the amount of vpp`s was reduced by 20% for some players", every vpp still cost same amount of rake and (for most part) every vpp will give us same amount of reward.

+1 to krmont22 as a rep, PLO needs a voice. PLO pays a much higher bb/100 in rake and since 9max is a small % of the games, we are basically double screwed with 5.5x multipliers.

STEVE: I think krmont22 now has more votes than anyone, or at least 2nd

Rake reduction at minimum is needed, PLO is murdered especially at microstakes.

That's correct, and that wasn't the connection that was being made.

Some background to the example: Someone was saying that if the rake% was reduced by 20% then that would more than compensate everyone for the estimated 20% decrease in VPP value. I then put the example up to show that this wasn't the case.

Also, I was showing that if that solution was implemented then there would be the further problem of reaching milestones/purchasing store items.

In short, if everyone was on the same %age rackback, say 50%, and everyone also experienced a decrease in VPP worth of 20%, then it would be simple to just reduce the rake paid by some percentage (16.66% in this case) in order for everyone to be in the exact situation as before.

Except, that isn't true because VPPs don't directly relate to a dollar value. Each milestone and each store item would also have to be reduced by that same percentage (16.66%) in order for everything to remain in equilibrium.

Yeah, you're right. That was my error. Sometimes I've used the correct term of "VPP value" in the sense of a group of VPPs earned, but at other times I've incorrectly said "the value of each VPP."

It doesn't change any of the points made, but thanks for pointing it out.

If I`m right, then your calculations is wrong, since value of vpp still $1, not $0.8