http://www.examiner.com/article/neva...nt-rake-system


Winner Takes All (WTA) vs. the Weighted Contribution (WC) method?

They claim this method of accounting will help the weaker players in the game. How is this so? I dont get it. Is this about rake back?

Misleading shock headline: it's just a different rakeback/rewards program.

I have not seen any evidence this would punish nits, but I could obviously be convinced if someone has a large database. I would think nits wouldn't be making as many reward points per hand, but would crush in rewards per money wagered, which is all that matters.

I had not thought of that part. The higher W$SD and aggressively betting people out will benefit them, while call stations will earn points faster. Sometimes fish just want to see their comps add up fast similar to how a slot player might be happy about a free buffet after losing $100.

By awarding all points to the winner of the hand (WTA) doesnt a losing playing actually get hurt more? A winning player would also be accumulating points faster? Am I missing something?

Losing players are likely to be in more pots so they are likely to win more pots by sucking out or hitting into hands experienced players would have folded preflop. They lose because they see too many hands. Now if you have a fish that calls down to showdown with crap over and over they will not benefit from this.

Wow, WTA is by far the best method. The winner pays the rake so they should be getting all the points. This helps winning players more than losing players compared to WC. Will doubly suck when you are running bad though.

Does the WTA concept apply to SNGs as well? what about MTTs?

Agreed, never understood why sites used other methods. If you win the pot you pay the rake so you should get the rakeback.

No because of rake being capped losing players generally actually win more pots because they're playing more pots. This will help the average losing player I think more than the average winning player but it's completely fair.

in sngs/mtts everyone pays a fixed rake at the start, so clearly this is not going to apply to those.

im watching the ultra stakes games
$25-$50 with a $5000 buy in

the rake on a $200 pot was.....50 cents

the rake on a $900 pot was ..............50 cents
the rake on a $1400 pot was.... 50 cents

what am I missing here

is it like the IRS where rich people use loopholes, just claim deductions and don't pay taxes
seems stupid to charge 2 or 3 whales 50 cents a hand

Even in sng's/mtt's it is only the winner/s that has/have less money because of the rake.

Instead of saying 10+1 they could just say 11.

But, I can imagine that an mtt player would like some rakeback even if they didn't cash much.

Ballin' link to pokerfuse in paragraph 1

must move up to 25/50nl where all the whales are and pay 50cents/hand in rake.

This is why many of the higher stake games charge time every 30min instead of raking each pot in live games.

The regulator seems to have insisted upon a WTA calculation of rake. Now this is of relevance to reward programmes but it is of more relevance to the tax take if you have multiple jurisdictions pooling their players and doing revenue sharing.

The UK example of how this works is clearest. The proposal is that the UK will charge a 15%(this rate may change) levy on gross revenues from UK players but 0% on players outside the UK.

Now if the revenue sharing states in a player pool all levy the same tax then it does not really matter whether it is WTA or Weighted Contribution but as soon as you have a different rate - a full 15% difference in the UK case then the regulations have introduced a perverse incentive for the sites. The sites would keep more of the money if the player with the lower tax jurisdiction wins the pot under WTA.

If you go for WTA then the game stops being a neutral peer to peer game where the site has no interest in the outcome to a game where they make 15% more if the right player wins. This potentially corrupts the whole game and also potentially provides an incentive for sites to falsely record where the player is based.

WTA is a bad idea for player pooling and revenue sharing.

this is only due to convention - in a live game, the rake is removed between winning the pot and passing it to the winner. this could be due to some advanced calculation, but it's probably just for simplicity. casinos don't offer rewards based on rake paid, so it doesn't really make sense to follow this model in designing an online rakeback system. consider that the simplest way to offer rakeback under this model is simply to...reduce the rake.

that isn't to say that this way couldn't be correct. it's just to say that it should be considered further before implementing it online.

regardless of who pays rake, the value of individual players to sites is becoming better known. there are players who never create action and merely flock to it. why subsidize these players? on the other hand, there are others who either create games (contributing regs) or others who are the catalysts for games (fish). it seems that these players should get the bulk of the rewards.

rather than simply collecting the rake, hanging onto it for a bit and then paying it back equally, the sites should continue tweaking their formulas to create the best games and the best viability for themselves.

I'm not sure I follow. Where in the Nevada regs do they require WTA for attributing rewards for promotions? I'd be interested in reading that.

In Denmark, Belgium and Estonia they have international player sharing when, as I understand it, in most cases rake is attributed based on weighted-contributed when declaring what revenue comes from players from these jurisdictions when they pay their taxes.

The same will probably be the case in the UK too, I imagine. I don't see why it would have to be a WTA system for attributing rake from UK customers. The only important things is that there is a parity between the system; PokerStars would be screwed if they had to pay WTA on GGR from UK players, but a WC system for Belgian players, for example. That's where industry consultation comes in; I believe until now its basically left up to the operators to decide how they attribute rake in cash poker games.

[I know you're very up on the UK regulations, have you seen anything to suggest this is going to be explicit in the forthcoming POC system?]

But if it were all WTA... i don't think it would really provide significant influence. Yes on a pot-by-pot basis the "wrong" playing winning means additional 15% in GGR; but longer term there's probably negligible difference with a WC system. Sure I mean maybe "UK players are looser preflop but go to showdown less than average" might provide slight differences but i don't see it really perverting the game.

Finally, i don't see see why rake attribution for a rewards program is needs to be the same for rake attribution for declaring country-specific gross gaming revenues. The two could be separate systems.

The opening line of the quote in the OP reads so I took them at their word on it.

Glad to hear it

I agree they have to have one way of doing it for tax, having two conflicting methods would be a nightmare.


I was a bit concerned about the Treasury consultation a year ago, the one they have not yet even published the input to never mind published the rules for POC following on from the consultation... https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...sumption-basis In that consultation paper they said

My input to the consultation was that this approach for tournaments was fine but WC would be better for individual pots because of the way tax and thus profits would vary by player location producing the interest in game outcome for th site.

It may be that I am being a bit OCD about it but 15% extra for the site depending on player breaks the peer to peer trust model. Reputable sites would no doubt keep it fair but the principle that the site has no interest in who wins would be cracked wide open.

The second issue would be that winning UK players would become less attractive to the site. The model of providing training materials to get more engaged players would have a perverse disincentive in the higher tax location, the potential impact on VIP programmes is also likely to be magnified for high volume UK players. If the UK player gets taxed on WTA but the VIP programme is WC there is a mismatch with the site, the tax impact would be higher for the higher volume winner and so maybe the impact on the VIP programme for UK players would be greater if WTA is used for tax.

I agree you could tax by WTA and provide VIP points by WC but this mismatch would make attracting winning players less attractive to the site in higher tax locations so the national VIP programme might get hit disproportionately at the top end in those locations.

I do not understand much about Ultimate Poker but... under normal rake back/rewards/ points programs:


NITS should prefer a method where every active player at the table gets equal credit when a hand is dealt.

Super nits gain at an equal pace with huge loosing players who play almost every hand they are dealt and then usually go to the river.


LOOSE PLAYERS gain when whoever wins the pot receives all the points.

A player who plays every hand he is dealt and then goes to the river gains greatly as far as points earned.

.............

How is Ultimate Poker doing things?