world is gonna end this year so who cares about poker.

but still hope you all run as good as me in 2011.



hotswedishchicks.jpg

first

gl everyone, hope i can get back to ftp soon enough, but if that doesnt happen w/e ill grind stars shrug

1st page, gl everyone

Fourth. Gonna kill it this year

Going travelling this year. Be lucky if I maintain Supernova. Wouldn't have made it this yr without the free 50k VPPs from last yrs WSOP ME. Epic fail.

#7, 8 figures it will be.

8 figures which way?

In on first page

GL all! Hoping to run as good as Ment or blaabar this year!

In

Must get SNE before Dec 1st so that Ill have 100k to blow before world ends on the 20th or w/e

I'll settle with running as good as pontylad

happy new year peeps, glgl

Happy New Year to all
This year I resolve to smash less computer equipment

good luck on the virtual felt guys!

gl guys,gonna play a lot more this year.

16th

Lets get this party started!

No f*ucking around with 1sts, 3ths, Happy New Years, or any of that shlt from me. Straight down to business:

I'm quite sure what you're saying about the $20 doesn't make sense. Can you explain in more detail what you mean?

The change to wc rake takes from the rich and gives to the poor. By reducing the rake paid as well, this also does that. It's a double hit.

I'm re-quoting this as I think that it's very, very important that everyone understands that a reduction in rake paid %age is not a good solution for compensation for the reduction in VPP value. (Especially for players with high rake back %ages. Although it does reward the players with low rack back %ages.)

The following highlights how reducing rake paid by 20% to compensate for a loss of 20% in VPP value would effect players differently, depending on their rake back %age:

>>>>>>>>>> Someone who has equivalent of 80% rake back on Stars, would effectively see the amount of rake they pay increase by 44%. (The example quoted above assumes 80% rack back, and the calculations are detailed there, and repeated below.)

>>>>>>>>>> Someone who has equivalent of 50% rake back on Stars, would effectively see the amount of rake they pay decrease by 4%. (Details at bottom of post.)

>>>>>>>>>> Someone who has equivalent of 20% rake back on Stars, would effectively see the amount of rake they pay decrease by 16%. (Details at bottom of post.)

On top of this, and another very important point is that everyone would earn VPPs at a 20% slower rate, hence milestones would be far harder to reach, resulting in significant further reduction in the value of VPPs. (Milestone targets and cost of store items would therefore also have to be reduced by 20%.)

In Summary, simply reducing the %age of rake paid is not a good, fair, or simple solution to compensating for a loss in VPP value.

---------------------------------------------------------


Detail for player with 80% rack back:

Imagine a hypothetical reward system where for every $100 paid in rake, you get 80 VPPs, each worth $1. This results in a total cost to the player (rake paid less rakeback) of $20.

Now, if the value of each VPP was reduced by 20% but the rake was also reduced by 20%; over that same sample you will now pay only $80 in rake. This will give you 64 VPPs (80% of $80), each worth $0.80. This results in a total cost to the player of (64*$0.80 - $80) $28.80. You are 44% worse off!


Detail for player with 50% rack back:

Imagine a hypothetical reward system where for every $100 paid in rake, you get 50 VPPs, each worth $1. This results in a total cost to the player (rake paid less rakeback) of $50.

Now, if the value of each VPP was reduced by 20% but the rake was also reduced by 20%; over that same sample you will now pay only $80 in rake. This will give you 40 VPPs (50% of $80), each worth $0.80. This results in a total cost to the player of (40*$0.80 - $80) $48. You are 4% better off.


Detail for player with 20% rack back:

Imagine a hypothetical reward system where for every $100 paid in rake, you get 20 VPPs, each worth $1. This results in a total cost to the player (rake paid less rakeback) of $80.

Now, if the value of each VPP was reduced by 20% but the rake was also reduced by 20%; over that same sample you will now pay only $80 in rake. This will give you 16 VPPs (20% of $80), each worth $0.80. This results in a total cost to the player of (16*$0.80 - $80) $67.20 You are 16% better off.

Better yet, you should visit Mexico in December. It's an awesome country. Just stay away from Cancun. It's awful..

confused, where did $20 u save on rake go??

In. **** 2011, maybe 2012 won't be a disaster!

I'm confused with what you're asking.

In the example above, the initial amount paid in rake (after rake back) is $20. By then reducing the rake paid %age by 20% as a compensation to switching to WC rake (with a set 20% reduction in VPP for simplicity) it shows that we are worse off.

at what time does mass sit out end?

i m unable to think but it seem like typical 'make the rake higher so i can get more vpps'. sure vpp value goes down but u save a lot more on rake

playing less tbl of plo my vpp rate is even better, lol