**** Official 2012 Pokerstars Regs Thread ****

[Dante63s]

16th

Lets get this party started!

[ROM Amnesty]

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

Originally Posted by Perfection

ROM

re: your example for the guy with 80% RB

He goes from paying $100 rake total and after RB effectively paying $20 to paying $80 in rake and effectively $28.80

BUT that doesnt account for the extra $20 that stayed on the table in the pots he played to be won/lost. So if we assume hes a winning player then surely at least $10 of that would go to improving his WR - thus his bottom line of rake paid went from -$20 to at most -$18.80

So I think saying hes 'worse off' is a little incorrect.

PLUS, even if your numbers are to be taken at face value, Im pretty sure thats exactly what Stars are trying to do ie. give less money back to the SN/SNEs and more to the lower VIP levels. I dont think anyone has a right to say 'I want my RB% to remain the same.' The reason Im going to be sitting out is because its important that the total given back to everyone stays the same, which atm it isnt.

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.

[ROM Amnesty]

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.

[ach ja]

Originally Posted by Perfection

In

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

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

[justDgmt]

Originally Posted by ROM Amnesty

Right, SNE completed so I'll address this.

Disclaimer: I've been playing for 16.5 hours straight so I'm too tired to double check these following calculations right now.

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

Of course I understand the point you're making, but there are a couple of mistakes.

Firstly, the rake would have to be lowered by a lot more than 20% (5% --> 4%) in order for things to remain in equilibrium.

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!

Amazingly, in order to remain the same as before, the rake would have to be reduced by 44.8%!! If this happened then rake paid over the same sample is $55.20. This gives 44 VPPs worth $0.80 each. Total cost is (44*$0.80 - $55.20) $20.



Secondly, which I mentioned in my previous post, the targets for each milestone (and cost of each item in the store) would need to be reduced. This is because each VPP isn't directly related to a cash value. Rather, the VPPs get you to a milestone, and the milestone itself holds the value.

E.g. Adapting our original hypothetical rewards system above, let's assume that instead of each VPP being worth $1 there is instead a 100VPP milestone worth $100. Now, in our revised hypothetical system where each VPP was reduced by 20%, if we are to simply reduce the value of reaching 100VPPs to $80 this won't work because we wouldn't reach the milestone in the same amount of time/hands as we're earning VPPs at a slower rate.

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

[d_smith77]

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

[ROM Amnesty]

Originally Posted by justDgmt

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

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.

[Slugant]

at what time does mass sit out end?

[justDgmt]

Originally Posted by ROM Amnesty

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.

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

[ChicagoJoey]

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

[pontylad]

Originally Posted by ROM Amnesty

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.

I assume He's saying this, In the first example you play x hands and pay $100 rake and get $80 rb etc etc...

In the 2nd example you've played the same number of hands but paid 20% less rake and gotten 20% less rakeback.... he's wondering where you have accounted for the $20 saved on rake during that hand sample. (since we paid 80 and not 100 this time).

so for this...

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!


I think he's wondering if the answer is actually $28.80 - $20 saved = $8.80, which would be an improvement.

Its 2am here and i have not read it all thoroughly enough to know if this is what dgmt meant. If i've got it wrong i apologise. see you in the morning.

if rake and rakeback are reduced by the same % then (in my hazy state, i think) it is impossible to be worse off.

[justDgmt]

^this

[pontylad]

example A, you play 100 hands, pay $100 rake, get 80% back = $20 paid.

now example B, they reduce rake and rakeback by 20% and you play 100 hands again.

you pay $80 rake, you get (80*0.64) = $51.2 back... so you've paid $28.80 however, it doesn't account for the $20 saved in rake in the first place.... so over 100 hands in the 2nd example we pay $28.80 - $20 (savings) = $8.80 = 56% better off than in example A

[ROM Amnesty]

Would you rather pay $100 for a Swedish penis pump and be given $80 back, or would you rather pay $80 for it and be given $51.20 back?

[pontylad]

**** i'm too tired, sorry if i'm messing it up i can't think clearly. be back in the morning.