+ bloody 1

QF WTF Graph

OK. Jesus...I think this says more than enough. Hegemonic market share ftl. Stars you can make it right for everyone and still be insanely profitable. Come onnnnnnn....

Can I ask where the chart is sourced from DIR?

It was generated from data provided by PTR on the top 50 largest winners at each stake.

That's a pretty sick graph and not in a shaundeeb scoop graph way.

I think u should implement some zoom only promotions , to attract more players. Not neccesarily reload bonuses , but some other promos like zoom week (like ftp did) would significantly increase zoom player pool IMO.

It is even worse for sngs, as they have NO rakecap.

people pay 68$ to play a 3400$ hyperturbo sng that lasts on average 2.5 minutes. i think there is no more extreme example of pokerstars greed then that.

I believe I made the same points in March that I assume Alex would have made in April and it would be a really good idea especially for players farther down the VIP ladder. A 6max, one tabling Bronze with a 0.10 VPP rate is going to be playing 333 hours before seeing a $25 reward. That's going to be maybe once a year at best for most of them.

Something I didn't think of at the time that should help to push you guys in favor of doing this for all cash bonuses is that you have a ton of players like myself, Supernovas and Platinums, with a ton of FPPs who are converting them to T$-->cash in sats which has two big consequences:

1) We're not playing cash games while we're doing this.
2) We're lowering the value of lower tiered players FPPs by infesting those sats.

As a low level Supernova, the $1500/100k is a bit of a stretch for me and I'd much rather spend the time on sats when I have 5 minutes here or there. I'd be much less likely to do this, and spend my odd 5 minutes on Zoom, if you proportionally cut the $4k/250k and the $1500/100k by 25%-50% to something like $2400/150k and $1200/80k.

An added benefit to doing this from the players point of view is it goes a long way towards bumping the frequency of cash bonuses back up for the higher tiered players, most of whom have experienced a VPP rate loss due to WC making those cash bonuses less frequent.

I love this idea. Focusing on ZOOM is helping with the rewards now, but last year it was August before I reached my first STELLAR reward. A combination of only playing micro MTTs and SNGs, and no more than 4-tabling $10NL on occasion.

I know tournaments, especially the micros, do almost nothing to gain VPPs, but it can be really frustrating to play that many hours and not be rewarded by the site for the amount of time spent playing.

you are basically complaining that u pay little rake/hour

lol @ "rake/hour"

The chart speaks volumes doesn't it, Stars did press the introduction of WC over the dealt method because it was fairer. However I can't imagine a better graph to illustrate how unfair rake is especially to the vast majority of players who frequent the micro/lower limits.

I am very disappointed that Stars still hasn't managed to make any adjustments to the rake increases they introduced to micro / low limit holdem players back in January, maybe you would care to comment on this Lee?

I would much prefer Stars to be concentrating on rake rebalancing / reductions for those lower limits instead of forking out $80 million in buying out Full Tilt. Times must be difficult

You do realize that what you are saying is exactly the opposite of the point Do It Right is trying to make, right?

not at all! Sngs get raped all around from low to high! That is what my post is saying

Well what Do It Right is saying is that rake at high stakes SNGs should be increased.

Agree they've been over-raked since about 2007 when people started getting a lot better and the vast majority of winrates tumbled (with a few exceptions). And it still makes little sense to charge the same amount for a Turbo SNG as a MTT (except for the fact that some people will pay it).

I'd love to see pre-RB profit/rake breakdowns for SNGs - obviously they'd be reversed (less profit vs. rake the higher the stakes), but it's probably pretty gross at all but the lowest stakes.

At least the RB %'s for grinders are higher than pre-2007, so kudos to Stars on helping that along.

As soon as the games become effectively unbeatable, stars loses its reason to exist as the players who become increasingly aware of this fact will see no more point in giving you business. Greed is a nice way to kill your bottom line.

Charging lower rake has the benefit of more people being able to beat the games and people around them hearing that money can be made, traffic being drawn etc...

Especially in the harsh global economic times we are experiencing and the legislative blurr Online Poker faces, recreational players need no incremental incentive not to deposit.


Side note,
Could it be possible to upgrade the tagging system so it can allow for dual colors? I'd like the circle around avatars to give me the option of coloring one half green and one half orange for example. This would allow for a quick visual indication of two seperate characteristics particularly usefool in zoom. Quarters would be the nuts, but I guess its better not to ask for too much.

Maybe increase rake above the $3 cap for mid/high stake players, and lower the rake for micros.

There is no reason 10/20+ players shouldn't be paying at least $10 rake per pot. An all-in with two full stacks at 10/20 is going to be 4K, taking $10 off them is still less than 1% of the pot. Make the rake fair

Please do not put words in my mouth. That is not at all what I'm saying.

The issue I've been pressing is a very high rake paired against the increasingly high average level of skill. At a glance $68 rake on a $3400 entry or 2% seems ostensibly favorable, but it's a $3400 hyper-turbo - a game format where edges are inherently razor thin played at very high stakes. While I'm not entirely familiar with the state of those games, I'd be incredibly surprised if sustainable edges meaningfully larger than 2% were realistically possible.

My only interest here is that poker is supposed to be a game of skill. It's not complex. We play against our peers and those who play the best come out on top at the end of the day, or perhaps month at least in poker. But with the current very high levels of rake being charged by the sites paired with the increasingly high average level of player skill it's perverting the game into some battle against the house instead of just against the other players.

The player meetings are an absolute ****ing joke, no player improvements were accomplished. It is pathetic Stars doesn't release an official statement of the meeting, instead they remain silent, and all the representatives come back with a NDA and can't talk. Thanks for nothing. Why even have these meetings if they are bull**** and just piss off players with false hope?

Since FTP collapsed Stars has become ****, they realize they have a monopoly and no longer care about the player. I'm counting the days Till Party releases their fast moving poker.

If we're talking "fairness", No Limit Holdem cash has the lowest rake by far of the major cash games. The rake at PLO is twice as high, LHE and HUSNG rake are very high as well compared to NL Cash.

glad to see PokerStars responding to the player feedback they say they value so much.

deleted

The paid rake for hypers is also around 60-70%.

Odd question : I actually already asked customer support about this already and received a round about reply without answering the question. Maybe someone or Lee can fill me in on this.

Most of the games are in usd. When bank wired out, it is in euro. Im concerned because of the whole Greece crisis and the euro losing value. Greece is going to go BK in a month if they don't get a 3rd bailout.

I guess my question is, I assume the money we have in our PS account is in usd so if the euro drops, our money is still usd and not directly affected?