**** Official 2012 Pokerstars Regs Thread ****
01-01-2012
, 10:34 PM
01-01-2012
, 10:35 PM
01-01-2012
, 11:07 PM
01-01-2012
, 11:16 PM
01-01-2012
, 11:29 PM
01-01-2012
, 11:45 PM
Quote:
ROM, at the risk of looking foolish, I'm going to disagree with you. Lower rake is much better than increased VPP's/hand.
First b/c I think you're failing to account for increased winrate in your example, but also b/c lower rake is better for other reasons.
The simple stuff:
-Lower rake results in a lower loss rate for a fish. This isnt given back to them in fpps, this is cash in thier accounts which can turn into positive variance that will make them think they are winners and keep depositng. A pokerstars hoodie does not provide this opportunity.
Play with EV++ a bit, even a small decrease in loss rate impacts the chances of positive variance siginificantly.
My Math:
You play 1000 hands of 200NL.
In those hands you pay $100 in rake (MGR) and win $100.
You recieve 80% rakeback.
100+100(.80)= $180 total profit.
Now reduce rake 20%. You will still play the same pots, but will keep a larger % of your winnings.
Table profits are now $120 Rake is $80.
You still recieve 80% rakeback.
Total profit is now $184 (120+80(.80)).
The only issue I see is that SNE would then be a larger commitment in terms of # of hands. Which I think given the expected increase is $/h is less of an issue than its being made out to be. (ie: SNE will take longer, but you will have a greater hourly while grinding to get there)
Lets look at it as a more extreme example to clarify. If stars kept the same VPP rates, but said rake was now capped at 10c, at all cash tables, would that too be a net loss?
You guys need to be pushing for a rake decrease, NOT higher VPP rates.
First b/c I think you're failing to account for increased winrate in your example, but also b/c lower rake is better for other reasons.
The simple stuff:
-Lower rake results in a lower loss rate for a fish. This isnt given back to them in fpps, this is cash in thier accounts which can turn into positive variance that will make them think they are winners and keep depositng. A pokerstars hoodie does not provide this opportunity.
Play with EV++ a bit, even a small decrease in loss rate impacts the chances of positive variance siginificantly.
My Math:
You play 1000 hands of 200NL.
In those hands you pay $100 in rake (MGR) and win $100.
You recieve 80% rakeback.
100+100(.80)= $180 total profit.
Now reduce rake 20%. You will still play the same pots, but will keep a larger % of your winnings.
Table profits are now $120 Rake is $80.
You still recieve 80% rakeback.
Total profit is now $184 (120+80(.80)).
The only issue I see is that SNE would then be a larger commitment in terms of # of hands. Which I think given the expected increase is $/h is less of an issue than its being made out to be. (ie: SNE will take longer, but you will have a greater hourly while grinding to get there)
Lets look at it as a more extreme example to clarify. If stars kept the same VPP rates, but said rake was now capped at 10c, at all cash tables, would that too be a net loss?
You guys need to be pushing for a rake decrease, NOT higher VPP rates.
Quote:
You are little confused, and example u make is not proper.
We are (I hope so) not about getting pump, we are about our income.
Simple math: U play X hand (does not matter how much) and win $1000 before rake taken. Lets say you pays $800 rake to the room (under 5% system) (exact number not matters too). If u get 60% RB it will be $480 back. Lets sum income: $1000 - $800 + $480 = $680
Moving on. Imagine rake is 4.5%. U pay from net winnings only ($800*4.5/5)=$720. 60% RB will be $720*0.6=432. Calculating income: $1000 - $720 + $432 = $712
Not focus only on RB, we are playng to win!
We are (I hope so) not about getting pump, we are about our income.
Simple math: U play X hand (does not matter how much) and win $1000 before rake taken. Lets say you pays $800 rake to the room (under 5% system) (exact number not matters too). If u get 60% RB it will be $480 back. Lets sum income: $1000 - $800 + $480 = $680
Moving on. Imagine rake is 4.5%. U pay from net winnings only ($800*4.5/5)=$720. 60% RB will be $720*0.6=432. Calculating income: $1000 - $720 + $432 = $712
Not focus only on RB, we are playng to win!
Quote:
Yes, of course your example is correct. It is obvious that if the rake is reduced and nothing else changes then that is better for everyone. You don't need a detailed example and an excel picture to prove that.
But that isn't what we're talking about.
We are talking about a solution to compensate for the new WC rake (which on average looks like it reduces VPP value by 20%.) So we are comparing a hypothetical solution which involves reducing the rake by 20% and reducing VPP value by 20% with the old 2011 situation.
So, using your numbers (and factoring in the estimated 20% drop in VPP value for 2012) and comparing with 2011 numbers we get:
A loss of $54.40
---------------------------
So, whereas a reduction in rakeback is still better than a kick in the balls, it is not the best, fairest, or simplest solution.
(Also, and it's been mentioned before, a reduction in rake by x% wouldn't actual save you x% in rake paid unless the cap was reduced by the same percentage. In reality, in the example above where rake is reduced by 10% you wouldn't go from $800 in rake paid to $720, because the cap will have been reached in many of the pots. You would actually pay more than $720.)
But that isn't what we're talking about.
We are talking about a solution to compensate for the new WC rake (which on average looks like it reduces VPP value by 20%.) So we are comparing a hypothetical solution which involves reducing the rake by 20% and reducing VPP value by 20% with the old 2011 situation.
So, using your numbers (and factoring in the estimated 20% drop in VPP value for 2012) and comparing with 2011 numbers we get:
A loss of $54.40
---------------------------
So, whereas a reduction in rakeback is still better than a kick in the balls, it is not the best, fairest, or simplest solution.
(Also, and it's been mentioned before, a reduction in rake by x% wouldn't actual save you x% in rake paid unless the cap was reduced by the same percentage. In reality, in the example above where rake is reduced by 10% you wouldn't go from $800 in rake paid to $720, because the cap will have been reached in many of the pots. You would actually pay more than $720.)
Quote:
ROM Amnesty, Yes, you right in both remarks. You talking about players who will receive less VPP, but! Let say group of players who constantly and preferably plays 5/10. Spread of VPP will be different, but overall value of VPP will be the same for that group. Since they all on a same vip level and so on.. This group will receive same amount of rewards.
About rakecap - it harms mid+ stakes alot more then guys on small/micro. It clearly will be way more over $720 on 5/10. But rake reduction to 4.5 actually will help on lower stakes, for that (I belive) this changes is made for.
/sorry for bad english/
Edit: there is no such thing as "drop in VPP value". At least for that group. For the same amount of rake paid some players will get more VPP, some less - thats all.
About rakecap - it harms mid+ stakes alot more then guys on small/micro. It clearly will be way more over $720 on 5/10. But rake reduction to 4.5 actually will help on lower stakes, for that (I belive) this changes is made for.
/sorry for bad english/
Edit: there is no such thing as "drop in VPP value". At least for that group. For the same amount of rake paid some players will get more VPP, some less - thats all.
01-01-2012
, 11:51 PM
01-01-2012
, 11:54 PM
Quote:
Im not adressing the changes they revoked, my example is a 20% decrease in rake.
Both the cap and the %.
Of course if you simply reduce the % slightly it does nothing at the stakes we play.
Edit: Im saying this is what we should be pushing for over VPP increases. Was assuming thier previously proposed system didnt really matter
Both the cap and the %.
Of course if you simply reduce the % slightly it does nothing at the stakes we play.
Edit: Im saying this is what we should be pushing for over VPP increases. Was assuming thier previously proposed system didnt really matter
Edit: I strongly disagree with your edit.
01-01-2012
, 11:56 PM
01-02-2012
, 12:00 AM
01-02-2012
, 12:01 AM
01-02-2012
, 12:03 AM
01-02-2012
, 12:04 AM
01-02-2012
, 12:04 AM
01-02-2012
, 12:12 AM
01-02-2012
, 12:13 AM
01-02-2012
, 12:25 AM
01-02-2012
, 12:27 AM