Hi all -

Good to see 2+2 back on the air. Obviously, it's been a pretty buzzy couple of weeks.

The whole of my answer is here. That is all that I (or any PokerStars employee) can say.

I realize that both of these are somewhat non-answers. But big enterprises just don't reveal their inner workings to the public - that's the nature of the beast. If you think about it for a moment, you'll realize that any other approach would be crazy.

Please know that as soon as we have information to share publicly we will do so. Until then, we appreciate your understanding and patience.

We are looking at a few options to proportionally reduce the value of some VIP Reward Bonuses so that some players can convert their points to cash out more frequently. This may not affect all of the reward options and it's unlikely to increase the value per FPP of the rewards. But we definitely understand people's desire to be able to cash out more frequently.

This is a definitely an issue and we're looking at it. As soon as I get an idea of where it is in the development queue, I'll let you know.

Bryan is responding frequently in this thread. He has also contacted over 50 people personally to discuss the situation with them; that's in addition to his already very full plate.

I also realize that in a few cases, our support people got confused, saying that the problem was on the player's end, when in fact the player was legitimately addressing the MTT lag. If we did that to you, I apologize. Our support management has pushed the message about the lag to our worldwide support staff; we think we've eliminated the confusion.

But let's keep this in perspective: our support people receive twelve thousand emails each day. They handle virtually every one of those correctly, a fact we're very proud of. Furthermore, a huge majority of the complaints we get about connection problems are, indeed, issues on the player's end. I'm not saying that we like it when we miss the target like that; I'm saying that it's a rare (but understandable) mistake.

On the technical front, our software folks believe that they've identified and fixed the core problem. Bryan tells me that he's seen a "trickle" of complaints in the past few days. On that subject, as Bryan noted here, we have turned off dynamic pay-table updating; it will stay off until Bryan and the software team are relatively sure it won't cause a lag.

If you feel that you were materially affected by lag, please contact support@pokerstars.com and let them know the date(s), time(s), and Tournament ID(s). Any information you can provide will assist our support in addressing your claim as quickly as possible. They have special tools that can see how much you were disconnected and standards for how to refund based on that.

Finally, if you do get hit with a lag, please follow the instructions in Bryan's post for documenting it and ship it to support@pokerstars.com. Don't hesitate to reference the 2+2 thread about the lag so the support team is sure to know what you're talking about.

We have no plans to change the VPP multipler, or really any aspect of the VIP program this year. That's not to say we couldn't or definitely won't; it's to say that, at this moment, we don't plan to. I realize that my previous answer was more open-ended; the fault for that is 100% mine, nobody else's.

A huge percentage (like 85-90%) of the real money hands dealt on PokerStars are NLHE. I am the first guy in line to wish that there were a greater diversity of games being played on the site, but that's not the fact of the matter. I can promise you that if we held the SuperNova Quarterly Freeroll playing any other game than NLHE, there would be a significant number of people who would be completely and totally lost. I mean as in "don't know the actual rules of the game." We would well and truly piss off a lot of people who would say that we were essentially handing most of the EV in that tournament to a very small subset of people (including Shaun Deeb). Unfortunately, this would be true.

Yes, we're aware of that; it's a bug and we've got a fix in place. That fix will roll out with the new client releases which are currently planned to start the week of May 21st. We specifically didn't want to roll out a new client during SCOOP. I am very sorry for the trouble this has caused and we'll get the fix out as soon as it's safe to do so.

Best regards,
Lee Jones

frist!!!

are you trying to say you're bringing the eff. rakeback % down?

I think he just meant lowering the cash amount for the bonuses so they can be bought more regularly, not reducing their points/$ value. (I hope)

You guys are so greedy. I play FR and get my full 6x and it still isn't enough lol. Yet I make more $1 raked than sngs, 6max, Mtts, in rake back because?

I pay $1 I get 6. They pay $1 they get 5.5. Why does anyone get more rakeback? It should be equal! lower the ****ing FR to 5.5. At least make it even. Who runs your ****ing show? They suck at it.

I know you guys have a reason, we all know the reason. It is greed. You don't want to concede. And that is fine, you guys need money and more money, and just a little bit more.

Capitalism, cannot blame it. But players PRAY for 1% roi in sngs, and 20% roi in mtts, and -1bb/100 in cash games. Something is going to happen. People aren't winning anymore. Something has to happen. Gambling will never die, so poker will never die. But Stars' bottom line might. You can only bleed the game dry for so long.

Just my thoughts. I just hope you guys fall flat soon. I hate what you guys are doing and that you are so shady in the fact that you act like you are trying to do something, when it is all smoke and mirrors.

#MrDurden 3x SNE (600k rake paid in 3 years) - not going to meetings to suck ass and try and get PSpro since 2012

Okay, yeah I can understand that. Does the percentage of Supernovas represent those numbers as well then? I would have thought it was a bit less disproportionate.

As for NLHE guys getting pissed- yeah, probably. But 'Completely lost and wouldn't know the rules of the game' I find hard to believe. I'd think people who have played hundreds of thousands of hands of NLHE could probably at least figure out how to play Limit or Omaha.

Else, maybe you could have a little tutorial ala '..and then three community cards are placed on the board- this is called the flop'. Just add the following for Limit- 'Oh, and you can only minbet'. And perhaps for Omaha- 'Oh, and you get four cards and stuff'.

Guess that still leaves out the stud/draw games though.

I've been fighting for the 6x thing for years. It's pretty ridiculous. Especially given their prior changes to the VIP system that were an attempt to make things more fair.

To be fair, the old VIP system was really out of whack with some crazy sweet spots in some place (1/2 limit...100%+ rakeback anyone?!?!) and some really bad areas such as limit 6-max as well as NL 6-max. So the current way actually IS much closer for everyone involved.

But it's really super-duper simple to make it even in this regard. And they just won't do it. Well, really it's not quite that simple because what really matters is how much rake an individual ends up PAYING in the end...and the amount that you receive back is only part of that equation. And that is still really varied across the different games. But the 6-max people who are paying a helluva lot per hand certainly deserve the 6x VPP thing. If anything, they deserve MORE than 6x...especially limit HE players at 6-max.

Without having looked at it really, I suspect heads-up omaha players get hit even worse by the rake and are deserving of even more rewards than the limit HE 6-max guys.

Stars, there is a perception here that you just aren't very interested in being equally fair to your players of various games. Might want to fix that. But I've made this argument on here and in the old "players panel" forum several times before and it seemed to me that nobody cared (or nobody who could do anything about it anyway).

You don't think the perception is warranted? Stars isn't the stars of old, where they acted in a way that had the complete trust and loyalty of players. While it is great that Lee comes here and answers questions (it is appreciated), we constantly hear Stars reps say how much they value our input and want to have a dialogue.

At the recent player rep meetings (depending which rep you ask) limit either wasn't discussed at all or it was said everything is fine. I started a thread to discuss limit poker and continue the dialogue from the previous meeting....a stars rep hasn't even come aboard to say yeah we are listening...keep on the conversation.

So no we don't think Stars is being fair to players of various games (don't even get me started on the vpp multiplier).

fix the plo @ micros atleast.

played 80k hands, 1600$ in rake, is a bit unreal. how is anyone suppose to beat the games if they are paying 20bb/100 in rake.

Huh?
Of course it is warranted. That is why the perception is there.


The other parts of your post I don't necessarily agree with. "Dialogue" and "we are listening" I'm not even sure I care a whole lot about. You can dialogue for several years and not get anywhere with it. It's all just PR in the end.

If they want to fix this stuff and make things better for their players then just do it already. You don't need to endlessly dialogue about it and pat yourselves on the back for your awesome open-communication with your players.

I would rather have a site that gave awesome value and never talked to anyone on forums like this or had weird "player roundtables" than vice-versa.

The previous supernova freerolls were weekly, 1500 starting stack and normal levels. The quarterley ones are deepstack, long levels. Do you not think you are handing most of the EV to players who play deepstacked long level tourneys?.

i think you're confused. we're not "lobby-ing" for LESS rakeback. in any game.

Lee, what is stopping PokerStars from changing the sit-out button at cash tables with a sitout all tables button? The advantages would be many:

- Players(who multitable) couldn't sitout when a fish sits out
- Players(who multitable) and are sitting HU on a 6m or FR table cannot sitout vs an opponent willing to play, and thus can't deny action
- Players(who multitable) and join a 6m/FR table with 1 player seated cannot sitout if the player is willing to play
- You wouldn't have 6m/FR tables with 4-5 players sitting out waiting for a weaker player to sit

I, for one, can't really see any disadvantages. It stands to reason that any recreational player sitting out (but not leaving a table) is doing so for a reasons that, if he were playing more than 1 cash game table, would force him to sit out on all the tables anyway.

Obv, if you did that you'd have to make it so if a player unchecks post big blind, or manually doesn't post, he'd get a second set of 2 btns/choices: post BB or sitout all tables.

At least it would be fair and make sense. Obv I don't want less rakeback. I was just making a point.

[ ] would be fair to FR players
[x] would be "fair" to 6m/sng/mtt players
[ ] the players negatively affected by this difference in VPP accrual (6m/sng/mtt) would gain anything
[ ] makes sense

It honestly boggles my mind that people can have your train of thought. Hey, you're raping more from 6m/sng/mtt winrates than from FR winrates. Rape more from FR to make it fair.
WTF?

I know you're not some micro stakes busto ****** which is why I'm going out of my way to be nice given what you're saying, but jfc man take 2 minutes to think.


FFS if Isai would be reading this **** he'd be laughing so hard.

LE:

But that's exactly what you're asking for
No, you were asking Stars, quite vehemently, to lower FR rewards, as per above quote

+1

If there is a legitimate reason for specifically sitting out at one table that doesn't involve the kind of bumhunting that is patently bad for the game I haven't heard it yet.

+1 Great idea.

Because they won't ****ing lower it. They won't take a ****ty problem and make it worse ffs. Because mrdurden says so? I was being facetious for lack of a better word.

Make it even!!! If they take a step back and make it all 5.5 then whatever, they do whatever they want, but surely me ****ing jokingly saying 5.5 for all isn't ending the world

The reason FR and 6 max VPP rate is different is due to conceivable winrates. Good 6 max players have a higher bb/100hds rate then FR players therefore 6 max players make more money and pay less rake. On the flip side bad players lose quicker at 6 max and therefore don't pay as much rake for the experience of being raped at the tables.

Stars offering FR at a higher VPP rate is their way of pushing good and bad players to a game where before the bad players go bust they will pay more rake.... and winning players will have to pay more rake to earn their usual income.

Obviously this argument doesn't explain why Stars even offers HU tables.. since those are without a doubt the least profitable tables for Pokerstars.... perhaps they offer them because the game is such a niche that players who enjoy HU action would just leave to another site and they'd collect nothing.

Sure this is not right but... it's the same explanation for why there are so many more turbo MTT's now. ROI's are lower in turbos then Regular or deepstacks

No youre def onto something here. They should raise rake but lower the multiplier. Not sure exactly what that would do but all change is good change i think.

They do need to drop FR to 5.5x. It makes no ****ing sense. Actually, i think FR is a dying game but stars wants to keep it viable so they basically pay players to grind it. Intervention like that cant be good for the ecosystem. The same with this bull**** of not adding more hyper sng buyins to protect the turbos. Give players the options they want and let unpopular formats die.

I will give a HUGe +1 to this. The ecosystem runs its course. Trying to fight it or adjust it manually is absurd. Let players play where they want. That isn't to say open up 1cent, 2cent, 3cent 4 cent tables etc. But to a point. If there is demand, you should oblige. Not fight it and try and keep dying games going.

While you're at it, can you buy Minted poker and get me my money back from there as well?

This isn't actually correct at lower stakes. Outside of higher stakes, the top tier of full ring players tend to have substantially higher earn rates than the top tier of 6-max players. You could verify this on PTR before they stopped providing Stars data. I'm not sure for the exact reason of this but I assume it is due to the fact that 6-max results in much higher rake than full ring due to the increased looseness of the games. There is the commonly mentioned rake of 20+bb/100 at low stakes PLO, but even NLH has several games which reach greater than 10bb/100 at 6-max. At 9-max the rake tends to be substantially lower since the play is substantially tighter.

This doesn't make a difference at higher stakes since the rake becomes a small fraction of a BB per 100. But at games where Stars takes the vast majority of people's earnings away in rake, 6-max becomes less profitable than 9-max. The increased skill edge possible is overcome by Stars' increased rake at those games.

Anyhow Lee as is evident from this thread as well as your previous "Roundtable" thread as well (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...-12-a-1180247/) the issue that is most on players' minds is a modification to the rake levels. It is coming close to unbeatable as the average skill level increases just as rapidly as the number of casual players plummets.

A chart I've shared previously is:



That chart represents how the earn rate between the top players at each stake is broken down. So at $10NL Stars' takes 67% of the top players' profits and leaves them 33% of what they earned. At $200NL players finally become fortunate enough to keep just about 50% of what they earn. However that was based on data prior to your rake changes which resulted in a substantial effective rake increase for many of your regular players. And keep in mind this was data based on the top earners at each stake. For the players who aren't the top of their stake, Stars charges a much greater fee on their effective earnings.

Does it seem reasonable for Stars to be charging a fee equal to 50-70% of all players' profits? And again that fee is almost certainly substantially increased now. Can you please share what progress has been made on this front? Progress that is, I don't really care about Stars promises anymore. Your company is very quick to make them but very slow to make good on them. Actions speak much louder.

if you were jokingly saying it, why did you then defend it by saying "at least it would be fair and make sense".

Either you're joking about it and just say so, or you start by defending your statement saying it would make sense. you can't have both.

Alternatively, you could realize that as a community of poker players, we're facing an up-hill battle vs what is now a changed company, a company that seems to have dug it's heels into "we're looking into it" mode and either come up with some constructive **** or possibly, just maybe refrain from turning this thread into "joking" about lowering rewards yeah?

I do apologize if I was wrong. I was going by PTR stats from a year or so back for small stakes LHE and just assumed it also applied to NL. For Limit at the 2-4 to 3-6 level the winrates of the most profitable players was nearly double at 6 max. From a whopping 1.5bb/100hds at FR to 3bb/100 hds for 6 max.

Do it Right, I'd like to thank you for all the fine work, dedication and research that you've put into this debate.