I think he meant for the site itself and not the players roi.

even if that were/is the case... dafuq? first of all of course the person giving the freeroll will see a net loss hence the name freeroll. second of all, they are talking about the beast weekly tournament prizepool which is generated by players, also not a freeroll. There is no coherence between the posts which makes my head turn in ways that it does not want to.

you should get your head checked out if it turns in ways you dont want it to. freerolls attract players who are freerollers or deposit very little, in return they dont generate much rake for the site aka negative roi. do you understand now?

Not to mention what berry basically said is the cash grinders don't care about a $55 tournament, so scrap that and put them in an even worse tournament.

WPN,

as of now I'm a Beast min-casher at ~4k week BP, and here's my rational for why I'm playing less.

before the changes the games were pretty good and I was starting to feel like there's incentive for me to start dialing back always having both WPN and Bovada lobbies open and just grind WPN.

now that the changes have been made, the effort is certainly not worth it and I'm actually back-tracking the other way meaning I've been pretty much just min-cashing the Beast every week by wed. from the time I hit that ~3900 point threshold I'm giving you guys zero action unless I can waitlist a game with a rec or two (which usually ends up being less than 500 hands total for thurs/fri) further hurting the site.

I'm sure what I'm going to say with be wildly unpopular to a somewhat loud but small minority, but the beast should become even less top heavy. as Who_Yaw' post points out there should be less incentive for a select small handful to be the heavy rakers because its so damaging to the overall game quality. there are some days where it's absolutely terrible to give your site action and because the Beast resets weekly there's nothing keeping me locked into playing there. if the battle is shaping up to be a bad one like last week or three weeks ago I'm just going to grind it up on Tuesday night, be done with your site by Wednesday (except for being a parasite lobby hawk) only to not check back in till Sat.

I strongly feel a structure like this would be overwhelmingly beneficial to all because of a increase in game quality.

Top 5 = $1000
6-15 = $750
16-30 = $500
31-50 = $250
50-100 = $100
100-150 = $75
150-200 = $50

That drives up the incentive for ~90 more people to shoot for cashes, and for more people to battle for the additional $750, $500, and $250 spots because they all run deeper. This will certainly help the game quality as there's clear incentive to play but not clear incentive to have 5 guys be 60 hour a week permanent seats at every single table.

Anyone with half a brain can see the top 4 are locked up by late Wednesday or early Thursday.

In that case, last week 5th place grinded 24 hours for an extra 45ish dollars. 3 weeks ago the extra money 5th received was due in little part to the top 4's grinding, as 4 people have little effect on the overall prize pool.

It makes absolutely no sense for someone to do that. 5th place KNEW he wasn't catching 4th or 3rd. It could not have been more obvious. Someone looking out for their own self interest is not someone who grinds 20+ hours in games they are most definitely not +ev in for 45 dollars.

You mean people don't play for the love of the game?

The continuing BLATANT trend of posting from WPN and its reps that they legitimately despise non winning grinders who aren't lining their pocket books.

You make zero sense. From a business perspective, grinders generate a lot of rake and are thus "lining their pocket books" whether they are winning or losing long term.

The hatorade is blinding your logic.

I mean they think fish are absolute ******s irl and only care about regs who are generating a ton of rake. You don't have regs and rake without these fish who they seem to think are completely clueless about everything

can we have a rep come in and update us how they think the new structure is working?

I've been thinking along the lines of Kevin, too.

I used to rack up 6500 to 7500 points a week. But now, every point over 5000 means I'm feeding the top 4. Before the change, I always got my beast money back, plus around $20. Not now. If I play 7000 points, I pay $140 and get back $100. Every 1000 points over 5000 has an extra rake of $20.

I'm getting hammered this week and hate to quit the week a loser, but I'm not going to play more than 5000 points because I can't reach the 250 tier which is around 10000 points. I'm not going to rack up 7500 points and give the top 4 another 50 bucks.

This current system has reduced my play to 5000 or less. Kevin is at 4000.

How many weeks do the total beast points have to be worse than the old system to try something else?

volume drops off a lot this time of year, every year its nice outside

This is true, so it's hard for us as observers to tell the true impact.

I assume the network has metrics for this though and they can tell, adjusting for traffic increase from year to year. If in prior years traffic/rake dropped 10% on average in May, and this year it's dropped 18%, then something else is going on besides the weather.

Can anyone compare how much of a difference in rake/points this new structure is. It looks like this week players rack up less points compared to the week before. The week before less points to the week before that!

I think people stop playing once they realise they aren't getting to the next tier. In any case with this new structure there's a lot less incentive by a lot more players to rake less!

^

Tsar,

Your instincts are dead-on. I predict this week's points will be the lowest since I started tracking. And your reason is exactly right.

Even though I am going to get beast money, every Beast dollar I pay now goes to someone else. The more I play, the more my rakeback FALLS. Why play today when tomorrow my higher effective rakeback returns? So I don't play.

With the old system, once in the payout range, more hands meant I would pass a few people and make a little bit more Beast money. Effective rakeback was almost constant - until the top 20. But not now. Playing within the same tier means lowering a player's effective rakeback.

it makes no sense that multiple places pay the same with the top 15 payouts. Why would #6 who has 1k locked up but no chance at 1-3 grind anymore other than to purely put hands in

I'd like to start playing cash again but current structure has given me zero motivation to do so. Hopefully some improvements to come very soon.

Because some people actually win pre-rb.

so do i, but ACR games are terrible. You can easily find different US sites with better action.

DUCY?

Worst week yet. For three straight weeks the totals have been below the no-tier beginning. I've added a column that is a percentage of the no-tier week.

I wouldn't be surprised if ACR had the lowest average winrates on the web

not surprised ACR is on a player pool downswing

well if the first millon dollar tournament is any evidence, the site (ceo phil nagy) will force this beast structure down his players throat until the very end when he is forced to pull the plug and make changes lol.