I'll play devil's advocate. What is "beatable for a reasonable amount"?

and why does Stars want regs to win money faster?

Beatable for a reasonable amount is quite hard to say exactly. The way I'd think of it is the hyper turbo mtts are raked at 2% and the regular speeds are 8-10% so turbos should be about 4-6% depending on the bi. A reasonable amount would be whatever a good reg would win at that rake level. I wouldn't say stars have to ensure the top regs must achieve x% roi as its not their fault if games become extremely tough but it is in their control to rake fairly.



There has to be a balance between the regs and stars and turbo mtts are too weighted in the favour of stars. Especially for higher stakes mtts the regs are very important to grow the fields, as they reg first and a lot of recreational players will then late reg when they see what they can win for 1st. Not that stars would want regs to win money faster but to win enough so they feel its still worth registering.

but seriously if, what, $3/game is the difference in you playing a $105t or not then you should probably focus on why you can't beat them for a bigger rate. Turbo MTTs are still one of the softest formats of poker offered on Pokerstars.

Not trying to kill y'alls thunder but arguing that you can't beat X game for enough is not really a great way to get stars to decrease rake. How about we focus on the tournament length vs a 1R1A tournament that only has 3% rake?.

If instead of 200+15 it was 205+10 then thats quite a lot more added to the prize pool, fields may get a bit bigger which would also help so for the better regs there would be more than $5 in increased winrate. 109 and 215 turbos are very far from "one of the softest forms of poker offered". Also I can beat turbos pretty well I think but that doesnt mean I want to be charged 9% for a 109 turbo.

15% rake reduction at mtts $55 and up seems around what we should shoot for (54, 108, 213 etc.) Awice and doggz are right though. We have no leverage, and their is no reason stars would want professional players to win money faster. I bet In terms of bottom line, its actually more beneficial to them the other way.

Being heard is the first step though

this is so untrue and shows a complete lack of foresight. edges are far smaller in turbos. a higher ROI is attainable in the very tough sunday 530 than in a "soft" 109 turbo. and sure whereas the non-turbo expert type guys have already had their ROIs in turbos decrease from say 20% in 2009 to somewhere between -10% and 5% in 2013, turbo expert guys are still able to win say 20% in 2013 and with a shortsighted view feel good about that. but that point of view doesn't take into account the fact that in 2009 you would have been able to win like 50% or more playing turbos optimally. the window is closing for everyone. if rake stays the same it won't be very long until almost the entire field are losing in 215 turbos, and 109 turbos.

Look at the rake in the first TCOOP event....unbelievable

IDK about you, but last year I paid around 25k in rake to stars, thus they made around 17-18k off of me.

This year I will only end up paying around 8-10k in rake to stars. (making around 6-7k off of me)

One of the ways stars can make back the 10-12k they are losing from my business this year is to have a more competitive rake structure.

I used to play the 109t+ daily, but as their rake is just too high and their fields are fairly tough, and I have many other options for good value games, I have no reason to play them anymore daily, and instead only play the 109t on sunday+ TCOOP Events.

(for 109t's+ im only losing to rake, if they were raked "normally" i would be up money in them)

I have around 5-10k in leverage myself, I'm sure many of you guys have much more leverage.

I'd be perfectly happy if they only lowered the turbo rake on 27's+

Edit: The rake suggestions I gave was based on their "own" rake structures for regs/hypers. I gave a fairly logical suggestion based on their structures for other games. TBH I think reg speed rake should be like 7-8%, turbo should be 2-3%, and hyper should be 1%. But stars would never do that at this point in the industry. Having their rake for turbos be based on their OWN rake structure for others games is not only logical, it is reasonable as well. It will also increase the sizes in the games, bringing value to their fields, and encouraging more regs to play there.

Can't get to a stars client atm, how much is it?

24.55 + 2.45

already at 11k entrants, 4 hours left on reg. it'll probably get 50-60k.

Oops. The rake amount is 9%.

As posted above. >.<

Edit:

The rake %'s for the tcoops today =

1- 9%

2- 9%

3- 5.5%

4- 9%


The only one of the above I'd consider "reasonable" based on their own rake structure = event 3 (which is a 215$)

The only reason i am playing all of them is because i see personal value in them for myself. However if all of them had small fields, like most of the normal 20t+'s on stars, i wouldn't play any of them.

Stars lowering the rake in mids+ turbos is best in everyone's interest. Including their own. I doubt they will do it with the monopoly they have, but, stranger things have happened.

I can't beat 10/20nl anymore. No fair! Stars should lower the rake in those games because I want to play that high again!

Mediocre players can no longer make big money playing sub optimally and that means Stars should lower the rake. Find a better argument.

I think rake should be lower; I dont' think this argument is a good one.

I'm gonna withdraw from this thread because if I haven't made my point clear by now then I have no business continuing to make it. I hope we can get Stars to lower rake for everything, but we need better arguments and in a perfect world we maybe could find leverage.

Blah, I don't like how you calculate rake. I see it as a % of the buy-in. In event #1 the rake is 10%, etc.

As for leverage, I think we do have some. Maybe everyone that doesnt play X buy-in any more due to rake should email PokerStars their reasons and this thread.

I've also cut out weekday $215 turbo's on PokerStars. There's 2 per day that I would play at a lower rake.

If winners are winning at a declining rate it's safe to assume losers are losing at an accelerated rate.

Losers losing at an accelerated rate means there is an increased risk that they get discouraged and eventually either decrease their play or stop altogether.

Some recreational players might be "content" (possibly wrong word but you get my meaning) losing say $50k spread over a 5 year period but be completely put off by losing the same $50k over a 2 year period.

It's obviously in Stars' best interests to preserve the player pool as much as possible, it's why their payout structure is as it is.

Stars should just turn this into some sort of promotion announcing that they are lowering rake for all turbos (possibly something else, maybe a turbo freeroll if you play X amount of turbos per week) since its something they should and probably will lower it eventually.. and at least short term they'd increase field sizes (making similar amount of rake per tourney) as well as hopefully getting new players into them to get hooked.

^^^^ great idea and a huge win win for everyone.

I wouldn't call taking a million+ year over year hit to their bottom line (to appease a small group of players) a win win. What people are asking for is too much. Party and ongame rake structure is what we should shoot for here, and only on turbos.

we are asking them to make a similar $/hr on turbos as they do on reg speeds and hypers, and to stick in line with the way the rest of their rake is structured based on structure/type of game.

they've barely changed the rake over the last 6 years, as they haven't had much of a need to do so.

The games are getting harder and the fields are getting smaller, and mids+ turbos are now only beatable on stars.com by a very small % of ppl due to high rake and low incentive for fish to play turbos and for bad regs to play turbos. If they lower the rake, more fish and bad regs will play turbos, giving for more incentive for turbo regs to play mids+ turbos on stars vs softer sites, and should make more money for stars due to larger fields and more rake/game.

Lowering the rake now will definitely not affect their bottom line long run. As it is something they will have to do soon or turbos 109+ will die out with the exception of series/reds.

I personally played 95%+ of my 2012 volume on stars, for 2013 i will play only around 25% of my volume on stars. Around half my volume is still turbo mtts though. If stars had lower rake+softer fields i'd have more incentive personally to grind there.

One thing that is important to mention about Party and Ongame is that their turbos have a structure closer to hyper turbo than turbo. Queue Awice confirming that rake$/hand is higher on Party and Ongame than Stars.

Maybe I am arguing semantics but just be careful how you word comparisons between Ongame/Party and Stars.

And while Bryan will always say "we don't care about making money" (and mean it), it is important to frame our arguments in a way that shows Pokerstars they can help the games AND make more money. This is where we need NoahSD to create a lot of fancy graphs.

I'd donate a little money to Noah if he or someone as qualified would do that for us.

Protential, im on your team. I have a rooting interest for lowering the rake, yet I (and others itt) see a problem with whats being asked. I think lowering rake will benefit us, but if we want this to be taken seriously, we can't ask for a 50% reduction.

One of the biggest problems is that we as a player pool don't have access to hard data like Stars does. Yes we can estimate attainable roi's from good players, but we don't know what increase/decrease in rake means to stars bottom line, and to the general player pool's ecology. We don't know about player pool roi's, bankroll liquidity, macro-view data on abi, how that changes, and the effect that has on players, the company and the industry as a whole. They have those numbers.

Step one is having a discussion at a player representative meeting, where people have access to both sides of the story. Right now we are guessing at what will or wont benefit stars by giving biased weight to parts of the problem. We can't expect them to make 7 figure decisions based on "opinions". We need to find a mutually beneficial change. Expecting them to take the hit for no reason other than "we make less money, and wont play as much" is not reasonable.

My effort is directed towards getting another player representative meeting.

Agree with most of it, however it can't be a bad thing to let Pokerstars know regs are moving away from the site to play other games because of the rake system - atleast let them be aware it is affecting their bottom line in some way.

Also I think there is a legitimate argument for service/product offered in relation to service/product cost. As it stands we pay the exact same price for playing a tournament that is going to last significantly shorter than other available products - which from a business perspective from their side is obviously understandable but not necessarily fair.

OBV.

The rake i was suggesting I did so based on their own rake structures+$/hr in other game types. I don't really expect them to lower it to that, and it might hurt their bottom line for the next year or so.

Obviously what is best for them won't necessarily be to drop it that low, and tbh it could be best for them to drop it lower.

Either way it NEEDS to be looked into.

Bringing it up here, gets the ball rolling, and gives them base suggestions to consider, then they make their decisions based on the stats they personally have and what they expect to be best for themselves/the game long run.

I am sure bryan is reading this thread, and hopefully he will chime in stating that they are looking into it. ^.^