hem stat nice....how about hem2 or pt3 which is what people use. Please?

I say that is incorrect. VPIP is relevant but he might table select heavily. If you play with at least one 70% vpip fish at every table I don't care what your style is->you will get less with WC.

Can anyone estimate how big the rake contribution of SN's and SNE's towards the total cash game generated rake before the changes has been (before rakeback)?

I'm currently trying to figure some things out.

Could be right.if you want some guidance on how to ignore something watch stars ignore this protest you guys are working on.

I got this email after complaining to PS support

Hello Fernando,

Thank you for contacting PokerStars Support.

As a direct result of player input, PokerStars is cancelling the planned rake changes that were to be implemented in early January 2012. We will still use the incremental method to calculate rake instead of the announced switch to true percentage rake. Rake caps and percentages will also remain unchanged.

The current rake at PokerStars is the lowest by far among all major poker sites.

We are confident that the planned rake changes would have resulted in a further overall decrease in ring game rake site wide, and a decrease for a majority of players. However, given that players have responded so negatively to this change, which also has a cost to PokerStars due to the reduced rake, we felt that the best course of action is to cancel the change.

Regarding your other comments, we have forwarded your email to the team responsible for handling this issue. You will receive a reply as soon as possible.

Your patience is highly appreciated.

Regards,

Elias
PokerStars Support Team

Krmont22, Noah, Hood

+1

To make query work for another sites you either delete "and a.site_id=2" in the very end of the script (in that case it will calculate dealt and WC rake in all your 2011 hands in all rooms), or replace "2" with another number based on that table (so it will calc rake only for that selected room):

+1

9.7% decrease with WC on NL100 SH playing 22/17.5/7
Only 25k sample, but it must be enough.

So I did some random calculating and to give everyone a rough reference and idea of what a compensation for the change to WC could look like I did an overhaul on the rake changes that Stars previously wanted to do. With this about an equal amount should stay with the players, possibly a bit more but it's hard to accurately figure that out. Given that these changes would definitely be good for the overall health of the games it's probably the way that Stars should want to go.


1. rake caps of .5/1/1.5/2/3 for 2/3/4/5/6+ handed play
2. linear rake, 3.5% at .01/.02; 3.75% at .02/.05; 4% at .05/.1; 4.25% at .1/25 and .25/.5; 4.5% at .5/1 and higher
3. new rake caps, 1$ at .01/.02 up to .05/.1; 1.5$ at .1/.25; 2$ .5/1; 2.5$ 1/2; 3$ at 2/4 and higher
4. something that makes sense for FL


For my calculation I assumed that Stars generates rake approximately like this:
7% at micro stakes (.01/.02 up to .05/.1)
25% at small stakes (.1/.25 and .25/.5)
38% at smallish stakes (.5/1 and 1/2)
17% at mid stakes (2/4 and 3/6)
13% at high stakes (5/10 and higher)

I did consider PLO, I didn't take HU into account. The most raking game and stake is probably 1/2 PLO for Stars at the moment, but I of course could be wrong. To estimate wether these changes would compensate I did take the new distribution of VPP, general overall reduction in rakeback and the VIP level requirements into account, as well as that reducing the rake leads to overall lower rakeback percentages. Given that there is a whole lot of estimation going on here, I can't say how close I got, but I do know that most other suggestions way overcompensate.


Overall this is about a 10.2% rake reduction for cash games, which focuses on soothing out the bb/100 rake curve from micro to high stakes.

While people playing mid stakes and above with high rakeback and a high difference between dealt and WC rake won't be fully compensated immediately, it should be considered that a rake reduction at smaller stakes will benefit them after a while.


If all we could ask for was a redistribution of additional rake that Stars would have pocketed, I think this is a solution that benefits online poker the most. Whether this is everything people want to strike for is a different question.

6max SH Limit mostly 5/10 and 10/20 playing 25/18

Hands: 717k
Dealt: 154k
Weighted: 130k

One thing that confuses me is if I do a simple report in HEM with no filter for this year then HEM says I played 616k hands not 717k. Anyone?

What does everyone think about a compromise arrangement ?
Say half the RB dealt and half as contributed ?

That's not confusing at all.. Imagine those recreational players reading Stars examples of how VPP are awarded. ;P

Dealt is gone and that's fine.

Hands: 404465
Rake Dealt double precis: 45113.77
WC Rake numeric: 45967.090000000000


**** yeah, fu nits

Its unclear from this mail - is WC rake system still on?

The situation as I see it:
PS wants WC rake system. As an idea its fair and nobody can really disagry on this. But the consicvences of that move in present PS games more negative than possitive. From one side, loose players (lets be honest - loosers in game) will get more, but from the other side - great number of most valueable players for PS, who generates kilotonns of profit will suffer from lowered RB. Thats no that big deal, bc every reg will be playing while fishes has money, and eventually all money ends up in shark hand`s - just a matter of time. So reg`s will be pushed to play more, loosers will bleed longer (for they pleasure) and even maybe deposit more. But the problem is - only unsignificant part of money taken from winning players will be donated to loosers, est 1/5 - 1/3 at best. And this is serios problem for regs - they cant win money doesnt exist.
The greatest problem of modern games that they become more difficult day by day even on low limits. In these circumstances the general profit of players decreases (or it is necessary to play much more to receive the demanded sum). I am assured, winning regs are ready to offer a part of the profit for the game proceeded. Possibly, the same can be expected from PS.
OK decision would be to give all money taken away from regs to loosers, but it is impossible at the existing PS VIP program. And, it is possibly undesirable to change the program called to encourage people to play more. So, that not an option.
Therefore, let's look as it is possible to improve a condition of game, having in a stock decent enough sum. So that both sheep were whole also wolves are full. Most suffering part of players right now - on micro and small stakes, where rake is very hard thing to compite. The majority of players there are eaten by rake. They can't win, can't pass above and play on those limits, where rake not such high. They quite reasonably assume: if I can't win on 0.05-0.1 and 0,25-0,50 so why I`m be playing on 2-4 and above where players presumably stronger? And I don't have money to play on highier limits anyway.
Priority number one - to lower rake for these players, to allow them to rise on limits. It will be good both for them and for players (above more feasibly), and, finally for PS as in absolute expression rake on 2-4 it is much more than on 0,25-0,50. First of all it is necessary to correct this situation, and take this from there.
Particular methods to achive this may be different. But only thing is for shure - PS must lower the rake as in persentage, so as in net amount. It would be great to have rake on 4.5% rate. Notice, decrease in percentage will slightly reflect in game mid+ stakes, but first of all will lower effective rake for small stakes. And losses PS on mid+ will be not such and essential, there all the same is often enough reached rake-cap.
Second thing - lower the rake caps for micro and small stakes, bc reduction of rake %% is not enough. Just deliver such system wich allow effective rake not greater then 10-13%.
I do belive, thereis no need to change smsng in VIP program, even FPP multiplier, but I think, it should be equal for all, with no preferenses for FR.

I hope, you will understand sense of my post, despite my bad English for which I`m terribly sorry.

Those caps are still high if you run the numbers for x/BB/100.

My suggestion earlier for 6max NL was:

.01-.02, .02-.05, .05-.10 --- 1.00 cap
.10-.25, .25-.50, .50-1 --- 1.50 cap
1-2 --- 2.00 cap
2-4 --- 2.50 cap
3-6, 5-10 --- 3.00 cap

The reason I chose the caps like I did was to sooth out the bb rake/curve from micro stakes up. If you have 4.5% linear rake from .1/.25 to .5/1 and all with a 1.5$ rake cap, you're increasing the rake for .5/1 more than for .1/.25. I also thought jumping down from 3$ to 1.5$ would maybe be more than Stars would be willing to do.

To give a rough estimation of what my numbers would equate to:
.01/.02 ~27% rake reduction
.02/.05 ~23% rake reduction
.05/.1 ~19% rake reduction
.1/.25 ~16% rake reduction
.25/.5 ~16% rake reduction
.5/1 ~12% rake reduction
1/2 ~11% rake reduction
2/4, 3/6, 5/10 under 10% depending on avg pot size


Edit; for your rake caps with my rake percentages:
.1/.25 ~16% rake reduction
.25/.5 ~17% rake reduction
.5/1 ~13% rake reduction
1/2 ~13% rake reduction
2/4 ~11% rake reduction

It depends a lot on avg pot size. It'd be a further rake reduction of about 1.5% for all cash games, increasing the decrease from about 10.5% to 12%. That's probably overcompensating the change a little. I'd like it obviously, if there would be any chance for your rake caps then I'd prefer them, but I wouldn't sacrifice the 0.25% rake decrease at .1/.25 and .25/.5 for it.

Sorry but what does this mean?



playing nl100 and nl200 6max

~23/20

^ means u are a massive nit, and lose about 22% rb!

hmm interesting

first time someone calls me a nit

Well someone had to do it right?

What is incremental method? Does it mean everything stays the same?

maybe i should watch some Krantz vids from 2008?

I did it for Nov+Dec and it was accurate.
I think the only problem is with split pots, but they are not skewing the whole picture much.

Here are my stats:
~67000 hands at 1/2, 2/4 and 3/6 SH.
Dealt: 6256$ rake
WC: 5564$!
Playing 31/24 style.


VPP distribution changes from dealt to WC. Rake changes (linear) are cancelled, so they stay the same (incremental).

Anyone mind telling me what stupid mistake I'm making?



Query result with 1 row discarded.



ERROR: CREATE DATABASE cannot be executed from a function or multi-command string

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

ERROR: CREATE DATABASE cannot be executed from a function or multi-command string
SQL state: 25001