Originally Posted by theMBK
No need to get so defensive!
Fair enough, but the same theory still applies to hypers.
What theory? Again I hate being rude but you are trying to push the idea that going from 3.x% rake to 1% rake in hypers is somehow going to be a win for Stars net bottom-line. Now this could be true but I just straight up don't believe it. In fact I think it is almost impossible for it to be true. And if it isn't a win for Stars then they probably aren't going to do it. Even just the fact that they haven't done it already is pretty strong evidence that it isn't true.
Below is the reason I think it doesn't work out:
Fish generally play regardless of what the rake is. If they want to gamble, they will. They play based on what game attracts them. So eg. even if a pass line bet in craps, or a bet on banker in bacarrat, or whatever has less rake than a bet on red in roulette, they might bet red because they like the wheel and dislike the dice -- even if they know that banker has "the best odds in the house."
Now, some indirect factors could hurt this. For example if rake was extremely high, fish would lose faster and maybe indirectly steer towards other games where they notice they win more. But overall, fish do not actually play much volume. This is because their winrates are abysmal so their money leaves their account quickly. This is very important: changing rake does not directly impact the sustainability of a fish, because they are already losing so much. *(It can indirectly, but that is more nuanced)
As kind of an oversimplification, suppose 2 fish want to play a $100 6max tournament. They come 1st 15.5% and 2nd 15.5%, resulting in a rakeless roi of -7%. If there was no rake, those players represent a profit of $14 to be split between the players -- $3.5 per player.
However, Stars needs their cut too. So what happens is they rake it, say at 3.5%. So lets say now it was a $103.50 tournament. The four regs that sit end up paying $3.5 rake and getting about $2.1 back, paying $1.4 in true rake. In exchange, they make $3.5 from the two spots sitting at the table -- in total they make $2.10, which is quite good -- it works out to about $10 for every 100 hands played, even though they are "0% roi players." The spots lose $7 plus $3.5, but they get $0.50 back from rake back. They end up losing $10 per game, or maybe even $9 or $8.5 depending on if their rakeback is a bit better.
In my opinion (and mine only), from Stars's POV, the optimal rake is the amount that keeps the games liquid. If the rake is too high, then players won't start games so easily and it will regress into bumhunting -- regs only sit if fish sit, instead of open sitting. There is no reason to lower the rake if regs are willing to open sit. The reason is because fish are the reason the games run and once they get sheared they leave. If the rake is lowered, it just means more of a % of their money goes to winners hands instead of Stars. Keep in mind Stars is the one paying absurd amounts of money to try to get losing players to deposit.
Now, I am in favor of rake reduction COMBINED with changes to VIP club. Hell, I am even in favor of rolling SNE. But straight up rake changes PS will never do, so why not try to be realistic? For normal games you have a strong argument (noone is starting games), but for hypers you don't have as strong of a case.