I’m one of the players that’s been selected by players and PokerStars to represent the players in discussions about the changes to the VIP and rake. I currently play 24 tables of full ring 1/2nl. I took a lot of time off this year, and before that, I played 2/4 to 5/10nl.

Here’s my take on the problem, and what we need to do about it. PokerStars is making a major change to how VPPs are awarded, and a lot of people are angry that it’s hurting their bottom line. I think that their intent here is to improve the games, and for VPPs to be awarded in a way that’s more fair than the previous “Dealt” method. Having said that, many people are attacking Stars’ motives here and accusing them of just doing it as a money grab. There are many players that won’t be happy with any solution that’s offered, but that’s going to be a necessary consequence. The dealt method is not coming back, but we as a community have the opportunity to help pick what we think is most fair in this situation.

So, what are the possible solutions? So far, the ideas I’ve heard include an increase of the VPP multiplier, reduced rake, increased VIP benefits, and a different method for awarding VPPs (such as “Winner Take All”). If there are other ideas to be considered, this thread would be a good place to talk about them.

After we have the possible solutions, we need players to give us numbers on how the possible changes would affect them. We will need some kind of script, or program that people can run to see how different changes will impact different types of players. Once we get that data, we can start discussing the merits of which solutions seem best.

At that point, we will have the data, and the solutions that everyone helps to create. That’s when the players chosen to go to Stars HQ can really understand the numbers better. Stars can tell us the impact various changes would have on them, and we would be able to understand what they’re willing to do and why.

I firmly believe that the best way to get a solution that’s best for the most people will be to include the in person talks. The entire community should help get the information ready to present to Stars, but the idea of open negotiations will lead to them making decisions that the players won’t understand.

At this point, 4 of the other players selected have posted an open letter in the sit out thread that they want all negotiations to happen online. I think this is the wrong choice because it would seriously limit the players’ capability to negotiate.

In the end, it’s up to you guys what happens here. Post your thoughts on what you think of my plan, and we should all get started on this right away.

Mike

I think players who went for SNE in 2011 and made it have every right to be angry at stars for this. They have had to play an incredible amount (and pay a huge amount of rake) to get into a program that did not reward them fully until they completed their half of the bargain. Now they have done that Stars has moved the goalposts so their reward for putting in all that work is inferior than the one they were promised last year.

Good post, I like the idea of in person negotiations as well. I've earned over 4m VPPs in the last 3 years from 6max NLHE/cap and and would also like to volunteer to go to the meetings to be part of the discussion.

You have my support sir.

This time Stars seems to want to follow the road of negotiations involving a private meeting with a few players, at least as big part of the process.

The main problem I see with that is that the proposed dates are way to far away, being the meeting marked for the end of january would delay everything for several weeks and then even more a couple more weeks or so maybe. Way too much time for something that is creating so much disruption and affecting many players in perversed ways...

+1 to Chisness CAP rep

Chisness should go.

Yes, the final negotiations would be done by just a few players. However, everyone who wants to will be able to help us get the proper data and numbers to negotiate with.

Even if we wanted to go to Stars HQ tomorrow, we wouldn't be ready. A couple of weeks sounds like a good amount of time to get everything ready on both sides. Also, Stars has a great reputation for taking care of the players, so I'm not going to assume we're getting screwed until I see otherwise.

a former ratholer to represent the community?
ya right

24 tabling nits have been sucking the poker economy dry for years now. Absolutely no sympathy.

I believe that it's in the best interest of the players that negotiations take place for all to see.

What if allegation come afterwards that you may have been bribed by PS during the talk to accept an offer in their advantage?

How can you respond to that?

Things happening under NDA's and closed doors tend to be perceived by public as shady. I would stay away.

Who is paying for your trip costs?

Might as well get brutally honest fast in this thread.

The change to WC was a drastic change. It would take a drastic change in rake to compensate. I don't see PS going from 5% to like 4% without pulling the bullcrap shadow increases in like 5 player cap or getting rid of increment.

You are going to have to fight on multiple fronts for a rake decrease without bullcrap added AND a multiplier.

I'm not a fan of having different groups I.E. Cap, No Limit, Limit. It makes for an easy Pokerstars strategy of divide and conquer !!!!!!!! Seriously.

But good luck hopefully you can solve the impasse.

I don't know if having another thread will be very useful. With all the new threads and posts it has become extremely messy and cluttered.

However, as I have said in the other threads, I am willing to represent the PLO community and will go if people approve. Until we can decide upon a reasonable commitee, I feel like negotiations will be delayed. The sooner we can accomplish that, the better off we are. Fighting amongst ourselves, especially on childish fights about who is a Lag, Tag, Bumhunter, etc really only clogs threads and wastes our precious time.

Edit: Steve just PM'd me in regards to something I had asked him earlier. He agrees that it is best if we try to finalize a commitee asap.

Here is what I have to say for myself in regards to being on it:

American 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. 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.


I do agree that justification for changes can not be "our competitors do it" as the reason we all play on Pokerstars in the first place is because they are not their competitors. They have treated us fairly, have good customer support, and a good player base. Don't change the reasons we all commit our business to you.

In regards to the changes, I do feel dealt method is unfair. I am still undecided between WC and WTA, but I don't think that even matters as Stars is most likely going with WC no matter what. I feel like the major problem I have and most others have is that we want to make sure of a few things:

1. The games remain beatable. No one wants to play on a site where no one is winning. People play poker for the competition and the money.

2. The money taken from the winning players in this change is redistributed to the player pool or ways to increase the player pool (advertising, bonuses, etc)

3. There won't be further changes or updates which hurt winning players more this year. Other sites have openly made it clear that they do not want winning players on their site. I do not want to feel like Stars has the same view. People love Stars for their vip program and consistency. We make year long plans based on this.


I think this situation can definitely be handled to where both sides are happy, but the only way this can happen is through open dialogue, which I feel is not currently happening on 2p2 or anywhere. I want to be a part of this discussion and have no problem going to the Isle of Man to figure this out.

Can you explain better why you think the negotiations should be public? I made some points about why I think the private negotiations are best, and you didn't respond to them.

I'm expecting to get a lot of hate from people that don't like the deal. Will they think I took a bribe? Maybe. I won't let that bother me though. I know I won't do it, and that's good enough for me. It would be impossible to prove to someone one way or the other.

the thing is humans are selfish as ****
am i really supposed to trust some random guys to ignore their own bottom line and do whats best for the community instead?

not gonna happen, micro stakes for example who need an improvement the most would surely miss out

No representation for some variants will result in they being ignored. Already happened in the past so it shows...

Speaking of Fixed Limit, about 15% of the player pool at Holdem is not of course the majority but certainly they (us, i am one of them) dont deserve to be ignored.

Specially now that we are "paying" for something that has very little to do with us: any one complaining about nits I invite you to do a simple exercise like going to the lobby, filtering 6max games with at least 5 players, mid-low stakes and then breakdown by VPIP and scroll down midway the sidebar to check what the average VPIP is.

Well... someone doing this will find out that the average is something like 40% VPIP on Fixed Limit tables. Lack of action or lack of "entertainment" is not a problem at LHE SH tables and there is no "sweet spot" of taking advantage of rake generated by others cause it doesnt work there!


So, if we are talking about different games with different mechanics and even different rules when it comes to rake but all being subjected to the change from D -> WC then certainly we need proper representation...

SNE multiplier from 5 to 5.5
SN Multiplier from 3.5 to 4

This would still leave us much worse off than before, but I'm been realistic in regards to what stars is going to give us.

I agree and felt the same sentiment, which is why I feel forced to take responsibility myself. I know that these negotiations are going to result in me losing a ton off my bottom line, but I will assure that I and the rest of us still have a bottom line to worry about.

If we don't do it this way, we have zero chance of anything being done.

Included in your demands should be a few items that specifically target recreational players.

Some examples:

higher FPP multipliers for silver and gold players
regular bonus offers for net depositors
making sure an FPP has the same value in the store across all VIP levels

If you do not include any items like this and only demand changes that disproportionately benefit high-volume players, you are not true representatives of the players, but rather representatives of a self-serving faction.

Hope you make the right decisions.

I'm a limit player too.

But what I'm talking about is those type of individual fixes need to be done individually over time. Pokerstars changed ONE thing to WC. Now everyone wants their INDIVIDUAL game fixed to their liking instead a fast January 1st lower the freaking rake and increase multipier solution.

I hope that whoever will go to represent the poker community has the foresight to think about the overall health of the games and won't just lobby for high volume players. -_-"

... and who want's some fullring ratholer representing us

I 100pct agree that high volume players are going to have to take a hit. It's an unsustainable system, but our goals should be to keep the games beatable and get as much of the money directly back in at the bottom of the food chain.


We need to decide upon a size of the panel, get all the nominations in, and take a vote. I think the panel should have one person from each major group, unsure what this is ~7 people maybe.

Yes, exactly, and the one only thing that does both at the same time is a rake decrease.

So?

Those individual fixes are exactly the ones that need proper representation for each variant. The change from Dealt to Weighted Contributed is a done thing and its pretty clear that it will not go back to Dealt...

Now, the proposed discussion/negotiation/meeting that is the topic of this thread is about the revision of the rake structure which differs from variant to variant and each variant needs to be properly addressed in those negotiations. How you expect that happens if a seasoned FL player is not there to represent such community, for example?