It wasn't their rake in the first place. I don't understand how people can complain about not getting something that doesn't belong to them.

Chat with your boss: "Hey man, I'm a useless mother******, but I deserve my high salary just because I always had that much."

Yes, we'll be getting less, but stop whining ffs.

my boss IS pokerstars and i AM chatting with them. I along with every other reg make them a ridiculous amount of money each year so it's a pretty normal reaction to complain when your hourly wage will be decreased. How exactly are the regs useless?

all i can say is thank god i don't play cash on stars any more so I don't even have to worry about this as a possibility or getting ready to move my play if they did.

switching from dealt would be the nut freaking low and i'm definitely not a nit in 6-max games as I'm running 26/22 and still know that dealt-->contributed would harm rakeback by 15-20%.

This change will be bad for everybody. It will basically mean an increase in rake. Sure the fish and the super LAGs might get some more VPP-s but since the fish are bronze stars the extra money they will get will be minuscule. Everybody else will loose a lot and the difference will be pocketed by Pokerstars.

Nits will see a huge decrease in RB, most of the other reg players will get slightly less. Fish will get slightly more and the biggest winner is PS. I'm not fooling myself into thinking that the reasons for the change are ethical, but what I'm trying to say is that the dealt system isn't fair (yes, I'm aware of FTP's ridiculous "fair and fun" argument) either. You can't really complain if they stop paying you RB for the rake that was generated by someone else.

Actually Since PS pockets most the money the change would not really be fair would it. It would simply be a money grab. Unless they increase the rewards to compensate the regulars I really do not see how you can think of this as fair. Would it be fair if the government increased taxes and the politicians simply pocketed the money?

who gives a **** about fair?.. this is business. if they can increase profits without hurting the viability of the business, then they would be stupid not to.

I'm not saying that they are changing the system because of fairness. It's obvious what their motivation is. I'm only pointing out that the dealt system is idiotic. We can't say that weighted contributed is bad just because it gives us less.

Now, the fact that we are getting less with the new system and not getting compensation for that (= PS screwing us) is completely different matter.

Sure we can. Getting more is good, getting less is bad. I'm stumped as to why this is a tough one to wrap your head around.

THIS!

these are concepts understood even by animals...
why does it even need explaining...

what the hell is going on here?

Human preferences have been rumoured to be dictated by relative position rather than absolute position. I always thought that was BS but it seems to be the case that at least some people are arguing for a distribution where everyone is worse off simply because it makes a group they are not part of even worse off. It is a retarded way to view distributions.

Less rakeback/more rake in the current state of the games would be terrible. It would certainly make me consider moving my action elsewhere. At least some of it.

Anyone who is in the slightly positive to slightly negative winrate before rakeback category are going to seriously reconsider whether it's worth playing if Stars switches to contributed, and especially weighted contributed. The mass tablers that fall into this category are either going to drop tables hoping to improve winrate or quit. This is going to severely affect liquidity compared to what it is now after the affects start sinking in. Some games at some stakes are almost certain to fade into oblivion as a direct result of liquidity problems even with a player pool the size of Stars'.

By the same token, once these players stop filling out tons of seats the ratio of fish per table should increase, having an unknown degree of increase to the winrates of those of us who are left. It's still going to be a huge drop in $/hour for anyone that plays more tables than what will end up being available at certain stakes and games.

So if all the formerly breakeven regs decide to play until their newly non-replenishing BRs slowly bleed away, this is going to be a long, painful 2012. If they decide to give it up early it might not be quite a disaster.

But I still don't understand how you could just completely turn your back on the structure + VIP combo that created the monopoly in the first place and choose the opposite instead. You have a built in prop player system that will never die. It boggles my mind how this can possibly even be good for Stars' bottom line since they are surely looking beyond 3.5x multipliers and $0.016/FPP vs their Bronzestar counterparts and the easy manipulation of FPP distribution to skew where those FPPs land.

Why would you risk losing Supernovas raking 24 seats 100+ hours per month in order to claw back 20-30% of their rakeback and bump 2 tabling bronzestars who play 8 hours a month up a couple points? If you end up losing any portion of your reg pool (which isn't really that many players compared to your overall pool, but conversely the vast majority of your seats), the amount of lost revenue is going to outweigh the retained bonuses.

Someone hits Supernova and pays $18k in rake [sidesteps who pays the rake pandora's box]. You currently give him back $6.4k. Profit: $11.6k Now you take back lets say 25% of his bonus ($1.3k) and you profit $12.9k.

Even disregarding that the extra profit per 100k VPP Supernova isn't quite $1.3k due to handing a bit more out to the lower tiers who are more likely to vpip, you're laying yourselves 9:1 hoping that that Supernova doesn't pick up and leave as a result of these changes, best case scenario. And we can be fairly confident that any changes like this certainly aren't going to draw any new grinders to the site. So this doesn't even make sense from a money grab standpoint. That takes a lot of confidence that everyone's going to stick around imo, which clearly isn't the case logistically if you think back to all the FPP pros who will become breakeven or worse.

And of all things at a time when New FTP is obviously going to be desperate for the liquidity that mass tablers bring and have absolute position on competitive decision making for 2012.

Cliffs:
Switching rake structure will likely suck for a lot of non-rec players.
Winrates will go up for all regs as some regs quit, improving the fish ratio, while reducing the liquidity of the games.
Therfore players who currently play few tables will see an increase in $/hour won while players who play a lot of tables now will see a decrease in $/hour won.
The extremely high cost of losing time intensive mass tabling FPP pros means this doesn't even make sense from a money grab standpoint.

^^

/thread

Except that isn't the case here.