Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

News, Views, and Gossip, Sponsored by Online Poker Report For poker news, views, and gossip Sponsored by Onlinepokerreport.com.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-22-2013, 09:37 PM   #1
MauiPunter
veteran
 
MauiPunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Maui, Hawaii
Posts: 2,232
Nevada poker site 'Ultimate Poker' to use different rake system

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


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

Quote:
The regulations for the Ultimate Poker site stipulate that they have to use the Winner Takes All (WTA) system of rake attribution. There are several different methods used for various poker sites for paying rake.

The method used by most online poker is known as weighted contributed (WC) which players receive rake based on the amount they contribute to the pot. The WTA system differs because it works by allocating all the rake paid to the winner of the hand.
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?
MauiPunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2013, 09:51 PM   #2
The4thFilm
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
The4thFilm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 13,402
Re: Nevada poker site 'Ultimate Poker' to use different rake system

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.
The4thFilm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2013, 10:12 PM   #3
Pokeraddict
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: @john_mehaffey
Posts: 9,609
Re: Nevada poker site 'Ultimate Poker' to use different rake system

Quote:
Originally Posted by The4thFilm View Post
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.
Pokeraddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2013, 10:17 PM   #4
MauiPunter
veteran
 
MauiPunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Maui, Hawaii
Posts: 2,232
Re: Nevada poker site 'Ultimate Poker' to use different rake system

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?
MauiPunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2013, 10:21 PM   #5
Pokeraddict
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: @john_mehaffey
Posts: 9,609
Re: Nevada poker site 'Ultimate Poker' to use different rake system

Quote:
Originally Posted by MauiPunter View Post
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.
Pokeraddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2013, 10:30 PM   #6
Ditch Digger
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Ditch Digger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,964
Re: Nevada poker site 'Ultimate Poker' to use different rake system

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.
Ditch Digger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2013, 10:36 PM   #7
TBadr
Pooh-Bah
 
TBadr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NOT ... playing online poker :-/
Posts: 5,672
Re: Nevada poker site 'Ultimate Poker' to use different rake system

Does the WTA concept apply to SNGs as well? what about MTTs?
TBadr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2013, 10:44 PM   #8
zachvac
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
zachvac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,656
Re: Nevada poker site 'Ultimate Poker' to use different rake system

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ditch Digger View Post
Wow, WTA is by far the best method. The winner pays the rake so they should be getting all the points.
Agreed, never understood why sites used other methods. If you win the pot you pay the rake so you should get the rakeback.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ditch Digger View Post
This helps winning players more than losing players compared to WC. Will doubly suck when you are running bad though.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBadr View Post
Does the WTA concept apply to SNGs as well? what about MTTs?
in sngs/mtts everyone pays a fixed rake at the start, so clearly this is not going to apply to those.
zachvac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2013, 01:32 AM   #9
timormson
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 367
Re: Nevada poker site 'Ultimate Poker' to use different rake system

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
timormson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2013, 04:21 AM   #10
scaryfast
centurion
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 123
Re: Nevada poker site 'Ultimate Poker' to use different rake system

Quote:
Originally Posted by zachvac View Post
....
in sngs/mtts everyone pays a fixed rake at the start, so clearly this is not going to apply to those.
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.
scaryfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2013, 04:36 AM   #11
Hood
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Hood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 99 problems but a TT+ just ship pf
Posts: 6,400
Re: Nevada poker site 'Ultimate Poker' to use different rake system

Ballin' link to pokerfuse in paragraph 1
Hood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2013, 06:25 AM   #12
DoGGz
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DoGGz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in the streets, in the lab
Posts: 17,190
Re: Nevada poker site 'Ultimate Poker' to use different rake system

Quote:
Originally Posted by timormson View Post
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
must move up to 25/50nl where all the whales are and pay 50cents/hand in rake.
DoGGz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2013, 04:16 AM   #13
MauiPunter
veteran
 
MauiPunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Maui, Hawaii
Posts: 2,232
This is why many of the higher stake games charge time every 30min instead of raking each pot in live games.
MauiPunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2013, 04:33 AM   #14
Richas
veteran
 
Richas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the learning curve
Posts: 3,240
Re: Nevada poker site 'Ultimate Poker' to use different rake system

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.
Richas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2013, 04:54 AM   #15
terp
Carnal \ 'Knowledge
 
terp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: @terppoker
Posts: 14,781
Re: Nevada poker site 'Ultimate Poker' to use different rake system

Quote:
Originally Posted by zachvac View Post
Agreed, never understood why sites used other methods. If you win the pot you pay the rake so you should get the rakeback.
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.
terp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2013, 04:59 AM   #16
Hood
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Hood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 99 problems but a TT+ just ship pf
Posts: 6,400
Re: Nevada poker site 'Ultimate Poker' to use different rake system

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richas View Post
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.
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.
Hood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2013, 05:09 PM   #17
Richas
veteran
 
Richas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the learning curve
Posts: 3,240
Re: Nevada poker site 'Ultimate Poker' to use different rake system

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hood View Post
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.
The opening line of the quote in the OP reads
Quote:
The regulations for the Ultimate Poker site stipulate that they have to use the Winner Takes All (WTA) system of rake attribution.
so I took them at their word on it.

Quote:
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.
Glad to hear it

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


Quote:
[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?]
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

Quote:
3.20 For person to person games, such as poker, the basis of remote gaming duty will be the amount that is paid by people in the UK as entitlement to use facilities. For example, where a payment is made to a provider of facilities from a centrally held ‘pot’, the provider of facilities will be liable to duty on the proportion of the payment due from customers in the UK. Where a payment is made from an individual player (e.g. the winning player) the provider will be liable to duty if that player is in the UK.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.
Richas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 12:24 AM   #18
tuccotrading
adept
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 964
Re: Nevada poker site 'Ultimate Poker' to use different rake system

Quote:
Originally Posted by The4thFilm View Post
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 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?

Last edited by tuccotrading; 07-25-2013 at 12:36 AM.
tuccotrading is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.33 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online