**** Official 2012 Pokerstars Regs Thread ****
01-13-2012
, 07:47 PM
01-13-2012
, 08:13 PM
Quote:
A very firm "No."
Using myself as an example (by with no bias
) I will lose approx $25k - $40k this year. A reduction in rake will make virtually no difference at all, and may very well cost me several thousand more, as it will make it far harder to get.
On top of that, a REDUCTION in the FR multiplier!? That is completely absurd. It shouldn't even be talked about. Stars may as well just do away with SNE for cash players- as there won't be any. We're better off abandoning the player panel if this is being considered. Who ever brought that idea up should be castrated and asked to leave the panel. F*ck me.
Also, paradoxically, there is no logic to making each $1 of rake equal to the same number of VPPs. This is because the rake (fee) of each tournament is a somewhat arbitrary %age of the buy-in (although usually around 10% of so.)
If there really is some cast-in-stone reason to make all rake dollars equal, then increase them all to 6.5 and make slight increases to all tourny rake. (Impractical though.)
-------------------------------------
And to repeat what I mentioned earlier, obviously we want to attract fish to the games- but this isn't what this whole panel was set for. They already have benefited from the changes- and a reduction in rake would be an additional benefit for them. Many have lost tens of thousands (which I don't have too much of a problem with as the previous rake method was a little unfair) and the point of the discussions are to re-balance that a little.
Once that has been accomplished, then we can talk about how to attract more fish to the tables. The sky isn't exactly falling right now anyway with regards to fish.
A very firm "No."
Using myself as an example (by with no bias
) I will lose approx $25k - $40k this year. A reduction in rake will make virtually no difference at all, and may very well cost me several thousand more, as it will make it far harder to get.On top of that, a REDUCTION in the FR multiplier!? That is completely absurd. It shouldn't even be talked about. Stars may as well just do away with SNE for cash players- as there won't be any. We're better off abandoning the player panel if this is being considered. Who ever brought that idea up should be castrated and asked to leave the panel. F*ck me.
Also, paradoxically, there is no logic to making each $1 of rake equal to the same number of VPPs. This is because the rake (fee) of each tournament is a somewhat arbitrary %age of the buy-in (although usually around 10% of so.)
If there really is some cast-in-stone reason to make all rake dollars equal, then increase them all to 6.5 and make slight increases to all tourny rake. (Impractical though.)
-------------------------------------
And to repeat what I mentioned earlier, obviously we want to attract fish to the games- but this isn't what this whole panel was set for. They already have benefited from the changes- and a reduction in rake would be an additional benefit for them. Many have lost tens of thousands (which I don't have too much of a problem with as the previous rake method was a little unfair) and the point of the discussions are to re-balance that a little.
Once that has been accomplished, then we can talk about how to attract more fish to the tables. The sky isn't exactly falling right now anyway with regards to fish.
01-13-2012
, 08:14 PM
Quote:
A very firm "No."
Using myself as an example (by with no bias ) I will lose approx $25k - $40k this year. A reduction in rake will make virtually no difference at all, and may very well cost me several thousand more, as it will make it far harder to get.
On top of that, a REDUCTION in the FR multiplier!? That is completely absurd. It shouldn't even be talked about. Stars may as well just do away with SNE for cash players- as there won't be any. We're better off abandoning the player panel if this is being considered. Who ever brought that idea up should be castrated and asked to leave the panel. F*ck me.
Also, paradoxically, there is no logic to making each $1 of rake equal to the same number of VPPs. This is because the rake (fee) of each tournament is a somewhat arbitrary %age of the buy-in (although usually around 10% of so.)
If there really is some cast-in-stone reason to make all rake dollars equal, then increase them all to 6.5 and make slight increases to all tourny rake. (Impractical though.)
-------------------------------------
And to repeat what I mentioned earlier, obviously we want to attract fish to the games- but this isn't what this whole panel was set for. They already have benefited from the changes- and a reduction in rake would be an additional benefit for them. Many have lost tens of thousands (which I don't have too much of a problem with as the previous rake method was a little unfair) and the point of the discussions are to re-balance that a little.
Once that has been accomplished, then we can talk about how to attract more fish to the tables. The sky isn't exactly falling right now anyway with regards to fish.
A very firm "No."
Using myself as an example (by with no bias
) I will lose approx $25k - $40k this year. A reduction in rake will make virtually no difference at all, and may very well cost me several thousand more, as it will make it far harder to get.On top of that, a REDUCTION in the FR multiplier!? That is completely absurd. It shouldn't even be talked about. Stars may as well just do away with SNE for cash players- as there won't be any. We're better off abandoning the player panel if this is being considered. Who ever brought that idea up should be castrated and asked to leave the panel. F*ck me.
Also, paradoxically, there is no logic to making each $1 of rake equal to the same number of VPPs. This is because the rake (fee) of each tournament is a somewhat arbitrary %age of the buy-in (although usually around 10% of so.)
If there really is some cast-in-stone reason to make all rake dollars equal, then increase them all to 6.5 and make slight increases to all tourny rake. (Impractical though.)
-------------------------------------
And to repeat what I mentioned earlier, obviously we want to attract fish to the games- but this isn't what this whole panel was set for. They already have benefited from the changes- and a reduction in rake would be an additional benefit for them. Many have lost tens of thousands (which I don't have too much of a problem with as the previous rake method was a little unfair) and the point of the discussions are to re-balance that a little.
Once that has been accomplished, then we can talk about how to attract more fish to the tables. The sky isn't exactly falling right now anyway with regards to fish.
01-13-2012
, 08:23 PM
01-13-2012
, 10:24 PM
, Klairic is a good man to have going. I think he'll do a great job for us. He and I will be talking on Skype sometime soon, so he will be well aware of the shared opinions that many of us have before he sets sail.
01-13-2012
, 11:15 PM
Quote:
Although I'd enjoy a little holiday in the Isle of Man , Klairic is a good man to have going. I think he'll do a great job for us. He and I will be talking on Skype sometime soon, so he will be well aware of the shared opinions that many of us have before he sets sail.
, Klairic is a good man to have going. I think he'll do a great job for us. He and I will be talking on Skype sometime soon, so he will be well aware of the shared opinions that many of us have before he sets sail.
01-14-2012
, 03:26 AM
Did not want to slowroll you, as I instantly clicked call after i typed those two words .... sick hand, tho
correct SN is just Trommelochse btw
01-14-2012
, 05:22 AM
Spoiler:
01-14-2012
, 07:23 AM
01-14-2012
, 07:37 AM
01-14-2012
, 07:59 AM
01-14-2012
, 09:23 AM
01-14-2012
, 10:01 AM
01-14-2012
, 10:27 AM
01-14-2012
, 10:28 AM