below 1-2 currently .40c of rake earns the table 9 vpp on 9 max and 6 vpp on 6 max, or 1 vpp per player, under a system of 5 vpp/$ .4 would equal 2 vpps for the table or .22 per player at 9 max or .33 per player at 6 max.
At stakes higher 1-2 players would earn the above vpps for the first time under the new system.

This is obviously a dramatic reduction whilst it would be negated to an extent by awards at lower than .40c for the first time (and incrementally higher awards above .40c) I can't imagine that would sufficiently 'compensate' for such an extreme reduction.




at 5 vpps per dollar of rake

.40c =2 vpps per table
9max = .22 per player
6 max =.33 per player
(currently: below 1-2 1 vpp per player for both 6 and 9 max 0 vpp per player above 1-2)


1$ =5 vpps per table
9 max = .56 per player
6 max = .83 per player
Currently: 1 vpp per player at both 6 and 9 max

2$ = 10 vpps per table
9 max =1.11 per player
6 max =1.67 per player
Currently: I vpp per player at 9 max and 2 vpp per player at 6 max

3$ (cap at most stakes)= 15 vpps per table
9 max = 1.67 per player
6 max = 2.5 per player
Currently: 2 vpp per player at both 6 and 9 max

Of course the big change here is that vpps will now be awarded every hand rather than when certain milestones are hit but it's pretty obviously going to be a much worse deal for 9 max (I think the fact that at that the capped rake you get quite a bit less than you do now really sticks out) and probably looking at those numbers a worse deal for 6 max too (but I'm not sure about that).

Looking at an alternative suggestion:

at 6 vpps per dollar of rake

.40c = 2.4 vpps per table

9 max = 0.267 per player
6 max = .4 per player

1$ = 6 vpps per table
9 max = .67 per player
6 max = 1 per player

2$ = 12 vpps per table
9 max = 1.33 per player
6 max = 2 per player

3$= 18 vpps per table
9 max = 2 per player
6 max = 3 per player

I suspect this would improve the FR situation somewhat but sill be a worse deal than currently exists for everyone in low and micro stakes, not sure about 6 max but it may be beneficial - and certainly would be for stakes above 1-2


What I would actually suggest would be a hybrid system (as in play currently) where the first vpp is easier to get than the second e.g. 9 vpps per table for the 1st $ and 5 vpps for each additional $ thereafter - I think that would probably clear many of the objections, although low and micro FR players would probably still be slightly worse off.

Sorry if I’ve made any mistakes in the above calculations.

They know what they're doing. They've done all the calculations we have and more.

We can assume they already have the exact rakeback% adjustment for every level of player. They're a billion dollar company, they've looked ahead.

So their posting here is to see: 1) if we're smart enough to realize the pay decrease this would cause, and 2) if we're pissed enough to take our business elsewhere.



I'm serious - if FTP came out with a high volume rewards program that amounted to anything significant (even an additional ~5% contributed would be enough), they would snag millions of MGR worth of FRNL players. Something like that would put the heat on PS and let them know they cant make changes like this without consequences.

It seemed extremely good at first because many were under the (false) impression that the current system will be maintained, but partial vpp will be added on top of it.

Very disappointed Stars, VERY DISAPPOINTED.

some1 tell me if thats good for 6max LHE or not plz

His calculation is fine. It simply assumes that the rake he paid is typical of what others paid.

Assuming there was an average of 8 players per table, then if we multiply the amount of rake he paid by 8 (to get an estimate of the total rake paid), multiply by 5, and then divide by 8, guess what?

I'm all for aligning the cash and tournament formulas and making things more transparent, but this seems likely to make things worse overall for cash players, though it will help those who play more SH and micros that rarely hit the VPP threshold. Of course, only Supernova+ players actually make more at Stars than rakeback elsewhere in most cases anyway, so I'm not sure if that's really going to be a big deterrent for the average player.

6 VPP/$1 across the whole system would go a fair ways to making up for the value lost by those negatively affected, though I guess it would probably cost Stars more under this system than the current 5 VPP/$1.

yea this is awful news for the FR grinders and there aer alot of elites from alst year that were FR players if this is changed stars will prob lose a decent amount of buisness from FR players

lol @ all the grinders crying.

I've played 165 hands in a year on PS in NLHE. Could care less what they do.

If all the grinders leave (which they won't), then the games will get better anyway.

Change it to a contributed system as well.

And now it's much better value for 6-max players and there will be lots of 6-max playing elites and stars will prob gain a decent amount of business from 6-max players.

for 6max LHE this is awesome

for me, playing 5/t 6max, this change would mean around 5% more RB excluding milestones

I don't think 6max players are getting much of a bonus. The calculations so far make it look pretty even for 6max players. HU players will certainly have a more fair rakeback% system, but everybody else....I don't quite know.

(This all applies to NL games, I don't know about LHE)

I really don't think it's much better value for 6 max players see my above calculations - the more I think about it the more I think that 9 vpp for the first dollar and 5 vpp for each dollar there-after is the way to go to keep everyone happy.

Nice but seriously stars don't make changes mid-year unless no-one loses or you'll undermine the confidence of all of us.

awesome, i am pleased!

Oh please stars don´t try to play Party and make anything worse (... while pretending it would be an "improvement" )