we all know he has zero influence. the issue is he pretends otherwise

I don't doubt he's done it. It's just that he doesn't run the company so he can't force that kind of change. He can help push in that direction though, which is exactly what he's done and exactly what is happening in this thread. You can't fault him for not owning PokerStars.

Hopefully Negreanu can help us fix this situation. PLO rake is horrible.

Just splitted a 10.31$ pot at 5plo , nuts v nuts .

Results in hm2 : -18cent .... nice, might just start callin river bets w/ nuts instead of reraising .... lmao

I sent Daniel a DM hoping that you would raise the concerns about the revamping of the VIP program and that SNE wouldn't get completely slaughtered which is my personal concern given the recent developments.

This is a good example of how broke the system is. He lost > 3 bbs with the nuts

i co-sign this brilliant thread. kudos to napsus for the OP.

im going for sne by playing 1/2 plo

the rake is undeniably too high. few players are winning and some of those that were winning were bots. if indeed the current rake was justified on the premise of high winrates from players like 4sominaire then obviously the rake should be revised given the evidence that he was a bot.

from what i can see on russian ptr there are only 2 players winning at 1/2 who are going for sne by only playing 1/2 or below

rake is far too high at 2550 cent and high at 50 cent dollar making it very difficult for players to move up.

I really doubt Negreanu will ever read this thread. He's busy playing the high roller event that stars bought him into

Read the second post, under OP post.

The game is a big rake pit at the micros, especially if you play less than tight it can cost you a fortune in bb/100 in rake. I started at PLO2 and am now at PLO10 with 105k hands logged across these stakes in the past 3 months and I work the rake out to be:

13.2bb/100 at PLO5
6bb/100 at PLO5

this cannot be very sustainable for the micros or people trying to build bankrolls from scratch.

You pay more rake to win bigger pots. The rake is percentage based.

I can't tell if you're being facetious or not, but different games rake different amounts despite having the same percentage rake and the same cap. This varies by stake and it varies by game type.

I made this table by looking at 100k hands from each game and stake at Unibet. This is the rake in bb/100 from the site's perspective with 5% rake and €3 cap. Stakes are in euros too. Other sites may have different distributions of pot sizes & players seeing each flop, in which case these numbers are going to vary somewhat. The NL4/NL10 difference is probably because there're a lot of free NL4 tickets floating around.



This is in bb/100, not ptbb/100. It's also for 6-max, so you can roughly see how much rake per player if you divide by 6. Note that this isn't what Unibet actually rake, it's just using those hands to measure the effects of different rake amounts.

F Dnegs and all his minions

F the Dnegs

Negs

A

i'd bet $350 on stars not decreasing rake within the next year
also do i win double if they increase the rake instead?

Yes, true, but stars doesn't care about people building bankrolls from scratch or about guy's moving up stakes. They want to keep you"poor" and paying them rake while at the same time you're just spinning your wheels and making them money.

Here is the info from 3rd party tracking sites for table profit at 100zoom for the 50 players with the most volume this year:

1) only 24 are > +0$ before VPP/FPP bonuses
2) 15 are winning between 0 and +2bb/100
2) 7 are winning between 2.01 and 5bb
3) 2 are winning > 5bb
4) no one has a winrate > 10bb
5) no one is winning more than the rake they pay

Here is the info for 200zoom:

1) only 22 are > +0$ before VPP/FPP bonuses (21 if you don't count bots)
2) 13 are winning between 0 and +2bb/100 (12 if you don't count bots)
2) 5 are winning between 2.01 and 5bb
3) 4 are winning > 5bb (3 if you dont count bots)
4) no one has a winrate > 10bb
5) 1 player is winning more than the rake they pay (has lost very slightly for the last ~100K hands so will likely be 0 at the end of the year)

So for the top 50 volume players across both 100 and 200zoom 99 (all) of them are paying more to PokerStars in rake than they extract from weaker players...

For NLH there are 0 players in the top 50 volume players at both 100 and 200zoom who have negative table profit because of the rake.

I just found this thread as I was trying to figure out stats in pt4.

I played 6500 hands at plo10z and my contributed rake is 7.5 buyins or $74.82, am I understanding this right, I've paid 7.5buyins in a measly 6.5k hands??

So if I play 2hours a night for a month, i'll have paid almost double in rake of what's needed to be rolled for plo10 and could be comfortably playing plo25. It really puts into perspective how they are killing the games and making the fields that much tougher than they are meant to be.

The fix seems simple, why are they not doing it? If rake was decreased, players would be able to move up much quicker and the fields below would become much softer, thus attracting more people to the field and increasing the longevity of PLO and other games by 9fold.. Stars surely benefit from this longterm, or is the damage done?

So good players will be able to move up to higher stakes and leave softer fields lower down?

Why would they wish to do that? Assuming the objective of playing the game is for money: On the premise that all good players move up stakes, why would you wish to play in a pool of talented players higher up when your hourly is better at lower 'softer' stakes? You may as well stay playing small stakes and print money rather than struggling to break even against a bunch of sharks higher up.

because u need twice the winrate at 50nl compared to 100nl to justify playing at 50nl

That's very possible if the assumption that all good players move up as soon as they can. The concept makes a few false assumptions though that all players are continually seeking to play bigger stakes.

This is the case now, so how would it be worse when there would be more money in circulation from having more players in the field and higher winrates from decreased rake?

Split pots should not b raked in PLO and rake should b reduced, let the game breath. Even the losing players don't like being skinned

Sounds about right. 11.5bb/100 of rake might even be lower than average for regs at that limit.
The fact is, Stars will make more just from your play at PLO than you will ever make from PLO on Stars. The situation for losing players is worse, as they tend to play more hands and pay more rake per 100.
Zoom PLO is a cash cow for Stars. It's nowhere near as popular as NLz, but evidently earns almost as much revenue for the site.

I enjoy PLO but I stopped playing online PLO about a year ago. It was a very slow bleed. I was beating the players, but I could not beat the rake. I was not putting in enough volume to make it worthwhile at $25 6 max. Between the rake and -EV I felt I could never win in the long run. Now that some of the bot rings have finally started to be discovered. I feel cheated and ripped off by stars.

I've had private conversations with Daniel regarding this issue ever since I started this thread, he's definitely not ignoring the issue and is actively pushing things forward from the players' perspective.