i think its a question and not a statement. my opinion is that they should be beatable if offered.
keeps rec players in game longer and winning players can use profit to move up and then generate higher rake at
higher limits

They should be both offered and beatable, IMO. I know a few people that I thought would never play online who deposited once I told them they could play for .02-.05. They stuck with that for a while until they got comfortable and turned their $25 into $50, then started to move up.

I think if they couldn't win on the nano level they would have either remained at those stakes or quit playing online.

Not sure if serious...

I would honestly hope that your position, as a player, isn't that a game of skill should have such a slim edge that only the best of the best can beat it.

Yeah Stars can do what they want as a business. But there are 3 scenarios here from a players' perspective:

• Think rake decrease would be good for you personally --> lobby for rake decrease, non-zero chance you end up with more money.
• Think rake decrease would be good for the economy --> lobby for rake decrease, non-zero chance that you and the player pool end up with more money.
• Think you're paying the right amount --> good for you but for the love of god why are you lobbying against something that has a non-zero chance of getting you and the player pool more money? There is no ****ing upside to any single player in lobbying against a rake decrease and putting yourself on Stars' side of the fence.

Whether you're in this for yourself or think it would help games or improve liquidity or think it would do nothing at all or is unnecessary, there is absolutely no logical position you can take in support of saying the rake is fine if you like money.

Players who are playing stakes where they are largely not affected by rake since they hit the rake cap with a very high frequency arguing that money should stay trapped way down the ladder preventing them from even getting a whiff of it = mind blown.

I was not lobbying against, I was just challenging guys to come up with arguments. Remember, SteveD reads these threads and the more we come up with reasonable arguments beyond "wah, I used to win, now I don't anymore" on why rake reduction and an offering of beatable games is good for the poker economy the more Stars will listen. Post in the threads that the representatives are gathering, make your voice heard with constructive advice!

Stars is already offering unbeatable games (.5/1 HUHU LHE, for example), yet there are plenty of players playing them. I personally would rather like that these games don't exist, since no player wins and they will get very annoyed playing them. As an incentive Stars can promote its trickle-up effect, sort of like achieving levels in a video game, with the upper tiers only being attainable by very few (like pro sports). As Barry Greenstein said, in the last few years the effort by the poker sites has been to promote the game as if you can win millions and lead a balla lifestyle, while perhaps the promoting emphasis should have been the micros and how the game can just be, you know, fun.

i am interested in the underlying economics of the FPP changes - it might have already been discussed but anyway....

Steve D made the comment that the FPPs are the same allocated before and after the change just where they land is different on the calculation used.

But then he says the fact is that the FPP program is cheaper after the change.

Why is it cheaper. Recreational players dont cash in FPPs, pro players do as they rely on them I presume.

Interesting that this would be a driver to reworking the program.

As to rake increases etc. I just think that pure economic business management says, corner the market, create a monopoly then charge for that monopoly. from their point of view... the result of that is the chinese do it cheaper and take over the world and the monopoly files for bankruptcy or bail out if its a US based company.

ultimately I think stars are as a business eligible to do what they like in charging the fee for the service. they will live or die as to the value that is provided under their services v the rake we pay.

if you dont like move to a site with a better deal. or evaluate whether the higher rake is worth it for the access to the services (recreational players like me).

I also agree that if you want a different outcome you can ask for it (lobby for it) but it is a business and they must earn their rate of return that is required for the owners to bother doing it. that must be alot harder now than pre-black friday.

loss of income, no reduction in funds invested. that hurts any business model.

The same number of VPPs are awarded for each hand, but fewer FPPs are awarded sitewide. This is because on average, more VPPs are awarded to Supernova+ VIPs and fewer VPPs are awarded to BronzeStar and SilverStar VIPs. Higher level VIPs earn more FPPs per VPP, thus the decrease in overall FPPs awarded.

I should be crystal clear that the above facts relate to summaries of all points awarded sitewide. Individual players will see different changes; some BronzeStars may earn fewer points than before and some Supernovas may earn more.

I know some sites have a sweet spot where you should actually stop playing because your effective giveback actually decreases at a certain level. Might be something to look at.

face slap moment - of course as a bronze member only (recreational player i guess is another way of calling it, or having a full time career job as well as a pursuit of playing cards) means that I had forgotten that the rate goes up with the different levels.

cheers my bad.