Yeah i believe the players will not join the game because it would be 16+1.11 because the prize pool would be too much increased and they dont want to have higher roi/low variance.All people prefer round numbers more

umm 15.89+1.11?

this may work..dont know for sure

yeah obv the numbers would be rounded to the nearest dollar but it wouldnt be nice and pretty like 30,60,100 etc. Not that i have any prob with that.

Still this would be enough of a decrease in rake % to have much of an impact, but this in conjunction with a slight lowering of the rake amount would be nice.

maybe 16+1 for that particular level

Stars isn't going to go for 16+1. I doubt they will even consider going back to 15+1. They have all the power and give us just enough to be satisfied.

The day I open up my client and see 16+1 9 man turbos, I won't be around to play them because I'll have a heart attack for sure.

asdfghjkl[;/##

please stop ending all hypers 2 hours before the server reset, so dumb.

hahaha

There is no point to ask from stars to reduce the rake.Whats the point for him?Their biggest competitor is out and they are alone.So why not to make more money.But they could definitely increase the prize pool and leave the rake the same

Increasing prizepool while keeping the rake $ the same is actually decreasing the rake. DUCY? Stars knows this.

Shhhhh maybe they won't notice!!

This.Now too late.He destoyed everything

Just wow

Also +1 to changing BOP, though please make sure we're compensated for shootout tickets.

Why does 6max have less rake than 9mans, but 9mans have the same rake as 18mans?

^ good question indeed

look out b4 18man rake gets increased!

It's not a joke. Almost all forms of poker nowadays depend on rb. Again I agree that it would be ideal to have people win at higher than 0% roi. But only through reform that includes both rake and rb cuts. Basically rake remodelling. But "effective" rake will probably stay near current levels.

If say hyper rake was lowered from 4% to 2% (*ignoring effects of sne and etc., suppose sne was 2x easier to get), more regs would move in. Current regs would see a small increase in profit likely. Fish would lose slightly less fast. But PS would lose by a lot.

Its pretty obvious that the optimal rake for stars is clearly for regs to win as little as possible. This is because of a simple equation: Profit = Deposits minus withdrawals. Because of that they are not going to just cut the rake in half. But theres tendency in this thread for everyone to "shoot the messenger." You think I hate money or something? Of course I want less rake. But we have to be realistic too. As long as there are regs filling the game, what incentive does PS have to grease their wheel?

[Again I don't want people to chime in this point with "but regs arent filling the game", so let me very clear THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH IS ONLY REFERENCING HYPER TURBOS. (Because last time people strawmanned my argument and juxtaposed turbo/reg speeds which are a problem that I agree with)]


First in regards to promos and advertising, those are a time honored way of bringing fish into the site. Now some aren't successful (BOP duh), but many of PS promos and advertising campaigns were clearly successful. Remember, the fact that there is even 1 or 2 fish per game (read: the fact that you have a job playing on PS) is a direct result of advertising.

Lowering rake can help add liquidity to a game. But games such as hypers do not require extra liquidity. If 4 or 5 regs are willing to open sit tables why does PS need to lower rake?

Again you keep talking from the point of view like PS owes you something. This is a simple cost benefit analysis. Why would PS lower the rake? The onus is on you to answer that question sufficiently for PS's interests. For example, you mentioned "the only thing that would make the games better is to lower the rake." Better for who?


Firstly you said that lower rake would provide more turnover and more upward mobility in games. To the latter, upward mobility isn't a likely preogative of PS. The former might be a good point so I will save that for the end.

Secondly you said "why does there need to be something in it for them?" I think it is very clear that PS as a business is not interested in charity. Just because they make money doesn't mean they are interested in giving it away.

Now to your point about turnover. Lowering the rake would increase the number of games played, but simple math would show it is not sufficient. For example, even with no equilibrium concessions, lowering the rake from 4% to 2% would mean an "extra game played every 50 games" for a typical fish -- which doesn't really do anything compared to how much rake is lost. For winners it doesn't matter -- like I said, anything that improves a winners' game conditions (without increasing net deposits) is probably going to be worse for stars. (READ: something they won't do.)


Notice in my reply above this paragraph I didn't tell you off even though I think 99%+ of people would agree that "why does there need to be something in it for PS? they are rich enough" is a very poor argument, but you didn't really extend me the same courtesy, but now I pretty much lost it. **** you you ignorant piece of ****.

As for your "games run around regs, not fish", this is basically false. "When the regs leave, so do the fish." Actually, when the fish sits out, all the regs do too -- look at any cash game. "Why do you think the 9 mans don't go off anymore?" Because there are no fish sitting.

An entire poker economy can exist with 100% fish -- take for example Commerce Casino Live 1/2 NLH. But a poker economy cannot exist with 100% regs. It's true that regs can help bolster fish attendance, so there is a symbiotic-esque relationship; but make no mistake, the games always revolve around the fish.

Look, there are ways to get what you want from PS, but we have to move in realistic directions and with actual focus, we can't just crybaby the rake. If rake was 0.5% there would probably be someone in the future complaining. Where does it end?

And a better question is, how do we convince stars that our concerns about the rake are legitimate? Remember, players have been complaining about rake for decades.


Right now, the focus should be on cleaning up turbos and normal speeds which are sorely outdated (of which a cleanup would include rake reduction, but probably not just that.) We need more information -- what kinds of games, structures, etc. would fish most like to play?

Actually I recommend doing a trial run in playmoney. Set up some structures and offer these sngs in playmoney. Then try to note attendance.

Look, i could argue some points with you forever, but im not going to because it achieves nothing. You said some good things above that i agree with. Not really much need for the nasties tho.

This seems to have been fixed/re-fixed in a recent update, so Tyty!!

Steve, please answer this.

Lol, and now it seems undone again in the update this morning.

Just wondering what ppl think about extending higher buyin hypers? $200 6 max hypers have pretty much taken over now, both from 200 turbo and from higher turbos, so i think introducing a $300 level might be a good idea both to get more games running at a similar level and make the highest division of BOP more accessible since its pretty dead now because of this change. By contrast i think $500 hypers should probably still be a while off, since the $200s have already crushed a few ppl and liquidity needs to be monitored carefully.