We are planning to move the formula for VPPs awarded for all ring games to
5x of rake. This change will align the ring games with tournaments, will be
more equitable for players, and make our VIP Program easier to understand.

Compared to the VPPs awarded now, some type of games will award more and
some will award less. Overall our calculations show that we will award a bit
more, assuming current patterns of play will remain. FPPs will continue to
be awarded based on the multiplier for the VIP level.

Examples below

8 handed .50-$1.00 game - pot = $10 - rake = $0.50
2 handed .50-$1.00 game - pot = $10 - rake = $0.50
2.5 VPPs will be awarded to each table
8 handed each player is awarded .31 VPPs
2 handed each player is awarded 1.25 VPPs

8 handed $2-4 game - pot = $20 - rake = $1.00
4 handed $2-4 game - pot = $20 - rake = $1.00
5 VPPs will be awarded to each table
8 handed each player is awarded .63 VPPs
4 handed each player is awarded 1.25 VPPs

We feel that this planned change is an improvement for the program. The date for this change is not set yet.

Your feedback is appreciated.


Scotty
PokerStars VIP Team

EPIC WIN
I might have to go get that supar nova
although the RB should be slightly higher overall since FR players get a lot higher RB than tournament players
they'll be pissed if they get lower RB

excellent

Can someone please link me to the way VPPs are currently awarded to ring games?

Is this change better for FR players, or worse? Seems worse.

http://www.pokerstars.com/fpp/ -> the way it is now

It seems like if that change goes through, full 6max tables will give up to 15vpp/6players = 2.5 vpp per player per hand, up from 2

and full FR tables will give up to 15/9 = 1.66 vpp per player, down from 2

i find it hard to believe that this change would lead to more vpps overall but im not sure

Spectacular.

So I guess this is a sad day for FR grinders?

I guess I will just have to wait patiently till microbob wakes up to break it all down for me.

For this new plan, is it everyone at the table getting VPP's to the tune of 5x the rake, or is it STILL only those who contributed to the rake?

I'm pretty certain it has always been everyone at the table and still is. Contributing was never required which is one reason why FR is such a popular spot to grind out fpps

I would have to imagine this won't change in this calendar year...

Ah, but then I wonder why some people at FR 100nl avg .35+ vpp/hand consistently and others barely get to .3 ......always assumed it was a function of the rake you were paying directly

^^

no it has much more to do with their style making more rake generated for the table and playing at better times of day.

Damn, FRers just got owned.

Example: 9-handed table, 8$-pot, 40c rake.

Old: Each player gets 1VPP -> 9VPPs for the table.

New: Each player gets 0.22VPPs -> 2VPPs for the table.


How is this going to amount to more VPPs over all?

The proposed change appears to be an extremely poor deal for full-ring micro-limit players (10c/25c and 25c/50c NL).

From my calculations and my smallish database of 4554 hands, the total rake that I paid was $74.51 (sum of MGR from Pokerstars). I have 471 hands where I earned 1 VPP per hand (3.5 FPP per hand) and 20 hands with 2 VPP per hand (7 FPP per hand). Assuming a value of 1.6c per FPP, this works out to be $28.61, and the equivalent rakeback is 38%.

Could anybody verify with their own databases if they are getting similar percentages?

With the current style of 5x rake, assume that the rake is $1... 5 VPP will be awarded to the entire table, and assuming everybody is supernova, this is 17.5 FPP for the table, this works to be $0.28, so the equivalent rakeback is merely 28%.

The value of the proposed partial-VPP program (28%) is much lower than the current VPP system! (38%).

This is a huge disappointment. The proposed change is unfortunately extremely poor for many full-ring players, and especially many players had the initial impression that the proposed much speculated partial-VPP program will be an addition to the current VPP award style (and that would be great!).