Ring game VPPs awarding change - Page 5 - Internet Poker

crazyfool1985 · 06-28-2009, 08:27 AM

it would be good to hear more from scotty on this.

How will this affect the limit 6max games around .5/1 and 1/2

Raimond · 06-28-2009, 08:28 AM

You guys need to take into account in your calculations (1) your share of VPPs can increase quite dramatically depending on how many players there are (e.g. the less players there at the table, the less there is to divide with the table and hence your VPP share may be higher). And (2) because of the 5x multiplier, the bigger the pots, the more VPPs will you be able to collect as bigger pots mean more rake gets taken and hence more VPPs are produced.

krasko · 06-28-2009, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oprah123

They have been doing the opposite. Why should FR players get a much higher rakeback % than 6max or HU or anyone else? its been a flaw in the system that is now being fixed

I think this is a good plan and will get rid of a bunch of FPP nits and make the games better.

Well done Stars.

Based on this I am assuming you are not a FR player, care to explain how a lower number of Full Ring "FPP nits" will make your non FR games better?

ROM Amnesty · 06-28-2009, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oprah123

They have been doing the opposite. Why should FR players get a much higher rakeback % than 6max or HU or anyone else? its been a flaw in the system that is now being fixed

I think this is a good plan and will get rid of a bunch of FPP nits and make the games better.

Well done Stars.

Let's try and keep discussion in this thread sensible.

If Stars want to increase the benefits given to short-handed players then fair enough- but that really is a separate issue.

I'm not so sure Stars would consider it a good plan if, as you predict, "it will get rid of a bunch of FPP nits." I think that would make it a very bad plan.

ROM Amnesty · 06-28-2009, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jstyal

You guys need to take into account in your calculations (1) your share of VPPs can increase quite dramatically depending on how many players there are (e.g. the less players there at the table, the less there is to divide with the table and hence your VPP share may be higher). And (2) because of the 5x multiplier, the bigger the pots, the more VPPs will you be able to collect as bigger pots mean more rake gets taken and hence more VPPs are produced.

This makes little sense.

Aside from rake (and therefore VPPs) being capped, the only long-term number of interest is the average rake amount- which directly affects the VPP/hand ratio of course. And this will work out less than it currently does for FR'ers. There is nothing else that needs to be taken into account.

YKMM · 06-28-2009, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jstyal

You guys need to take into account in your calculations (1) your share of VPPs can increase quite dramatically depending on how many players there are (e.g. the less players there at the table, the less there is to divide with the table and hence your VPP share may be higher). And (2) because of the 5x multiplier, the bigger the pots, the more VPPs will you be able to collect as bigger pots mean more rake gets taken and hence more VPPs are produced.

You have misunderstood the calculations that many posters have made here.

The rakeback for the proposed program is a simple 28% (5 * 3.5 * 1.6) , no complex calculations needed there and this number remains unchanged in all game conditions.

Our calculations that we are making right now is figuring out our "current equivalent rakeback". All modern poker recording software calculates a marginal gross rake for a particular hand, (rake divided by number of players). So the total rake that a person pays can easily be worked out from there. We then figure out the FPP earned, multiply that by 1.6c per FPP (if you are supernova) and hence the "equivalent rakeback" can easily be calculated.

If (current equivalent rakeback > 28%), the current proposed program sucks. Simple.

Inland Knight · 06-28-2009, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jstyal

You guys need to take into account in your calculations (1) your share of VPPs can increase quite dramatically depending on how many players there are (e.g. the less players there at the table, the less there is to divide with the table and hence your VPP share may be higher). And (2) because of the 5x multiplier, the bigger the pots, the more VPPs will you be able to collect as bigger pots mean more rake gets taken and hence more VPPs are produced.

Wrong, if you look at 9 players at 400nl+, when the rake reaches $3 max you get 2 VPPs, with 5x you get 15/9 = 1.67VPPs

Belok · 06-28-2009, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YKMM

You have misunderstood the calculations that many posters have made here.

The rakeback for the proposed program is a simple 28% (5 * 3.5 * 1.6) , no complex calculations needed there and this number remains unchanged in all game conditions.

Our calculations that we are making right now is figuring out our "current equivalent rakeback". All modern poker recording software calculates a marginal gross rake for a particular hand, (rake divided by number of players). So the total rake that a person pays can easily be worked out from there. We then figure out the FPP earned, multiply that by 1.6c per FPP (if you are supernova) and hence the "equivalent rakeback" can easily be calculated.

If (current equivalent rakeback > 28%), the current proposed program sucks. Simple.

You are leaving milestones and whatnot out of your equation.

Jesper_6 · 06-28-2009, 08:36 AM

Well, The only thing we can do if this change takes place... is to switch to FT or some other side. I have been playing soley on Stars for 3 years now, and managed to get SNE last year. If this change place im gonna take my 250-300k yearly generated rake to another site. Thats all there is to it... No way imgonna be able to keep motivated if they cut my rb with 25%.
However, I dont think theyll do anything this year, since that would be extremely unethical to people chasing SNE on the terms that was set up on Jan 1st. But it will still suck if they do it next year... Well see. I dont think theyldo it because theyllend up losing somany high volume players on it.

Mardagg · 06-28-2009, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROM Amnesty

For the many grinders working hard for SNE this year, if they are on pace they will have reached 500k VPPs by the end of this month. They will know that, if playing 24 tables of $1/2, they have to average about 4 hours 45 minutes a day for the rest of the year.

But what if these changes are implemented? Suddenly they find that they actually now need to put in an extra hour a day EVERY day for the rest of the year! This is equivalent to being 100 hours behind pace at this half-way point rather than being on pace!

And as for the others- probably the majority- going for SNE who are behind pace with plans to step it up in the latter half of the year? Well, sorry chaps- you're most likely f**ked!!

....so Stars, if you want to make these changes, then you at least have to wait until the end of the year. You'd certainly lose a lot of the would-be-but-not-going-to-be-anymore-SNE'ers-cos-I'm-now-too-far-behind-pace if you made the changes now. At least give players until the end of the year to decide where they want to play next year.

this.

It is a shame that the introduction of a new partial vpp system has been announced quite some time ago to be a rather good change for ALL the players and now it appears to really screw up most FR players and furthermore many of the big time grinders/rake contributors on stars.
I cant believe though,that it is meant this way.Either we are all missing an important point here or someone at stars just did the wrong math.

IrBerg · 06-28-2009, 08:41 AM

31982 hands at 2/4 FR, 3/6 FR and 5/10 FR. I paid $4010.22 in rake and earned 19716 VPP's.

With the new system I would have earned 5 * 4010.22 = 20051 VPPs

So with the new system my VPP rate would go up by 1.7% (assuming I have an average rake contribution)

YKMM · 06-28-2009, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belok

You are leaving milestones and whatnot out of your equation.

Ok, if we have to include the milestones goodies...

Old (current) program = 38% + milestone goodies
Proposed program = 28% + milestone goodies

Do the milestone goodies remain the same? I'm sure they do.

For the purposes of comparison, they can obviously be left out.

ashiXIII · 06-28-2009, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belok

You are leaving milestones and whatnot out of your equation.

the milestones don't matter; they're not in the current model for figuring out "rakeback" so you can exclude them when calculating the "rakeback" for the new model. (sure, it might mean you get just over FTP's 27%, but you have to put in a ridic volume, unlock your bonuses, and you're still not counting FTP's ironman, or the rakeback freerolls)

riksanchez · 06-28-2009, 08:43 AM

Anyone have any idea how this new system for FR on stars compares to the new points system on party poker?

YKMM · 06-28-2009, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IrBerg

31982 hands at 2/4 FR, 3/6 FR and 5/10 FR. I paid $4010.22 in rake and earned 19716 VPP's.

With the new system I would have earned 5 * 4010.22 = 20051 VPPs

So with the new system my VPP rate would go up by 1.7% (assuming I have an average rake contribution)

I believe you made an error with your calculations.

The $4010.22 in the first and second figure are contradictory.

If you paid $4010.22 in the case of the first calculation, under the new system, the entire table would have paid much much more total rake.

The second formula must be 5 * (sum of total rake) average number of players).... as a correct approximate.