Some people like the beast, while most people don't. The problem right now for those who don't is that not enough people are playing non-BBJ table.

What about this. ACR can add an option on each table or each account called "non_beast". Those who enables this button won't pay the additional rake when they win. Of course, they will not be in the Beast race, while those who enjoy the beast can still keep their Beast race.

In this case, all the people can play together. There is no need to set BBJ table or the non-BBJ table. If you want the beast, just play, if you don't, just click the non_beast button.

While a good idea, this would kill the beast promo and that is not something Winning wants so it will never happen.

If the reality is the same as the official states:"People love the beast." And according to one of the manager:" We received numerous positive feedback", then if won't kill the action.

Of course, if they were lying, then yes, this basically slays the beast, which may not be a bad thing to ACR. Because if it happens, ACR can really realize how players think about the Beast.

This idea is great. So the only time your part of the beast rake isn't dropped is when you actually win the hand. Whenever you fold it would still go to it. Beast players really shouldn't have a reason to complain seeing you aren't getting anything in return(except the whole not getting screwed over). On paper it sounds wonderful, but it also is much too fair. From what I've read here, the winningReps don't really give a **** about changing it. This seems like a nice compromise though, good thinking.

I think it's painfully obvious to anybody with half a brain that they are full of excrement when they say people love the beast and they get a lot of good feedback. They simply refuse to acknowledge any of the concerns we've raised over and over. It's a disaster.

I think that it's an excellant idea too. Unfortunately I think that DrawMeOut is exactly right.

It is a good idea but what happens to players who opt-in and lose hand? Would they still get points towards the leader board? From their pov it would not be such a good idea since what they really are playing for is the points.

The point is that if one enables the non-beast option, he is longer part of the race. So, in your case, they don't get points.

Or you could continue giving points to opted-in players when they lose a pot.

The only difference would be that the prizepool shrinks -- the points system could remain unchanged. This way Beast players aren't hurt by playing at a table with a bunch of non-Beast players.

If so, then the opt-in players can't take all the rake back when they win a pot, since some of those rake doesn't belong to them. So, if opted-in players are given the point, the result won't change, it just complicates the algrithom a lot.

Also, the idea of non-beast button is so that players don't like the beast can play as if there is no such race. So, why do they need the points?

The beast players won't be hurt anyway, even if they are playing on a table with non-beast players. Because, the beast rake is taken from all the beast players playing on the site. So, it doesn't matter which table you are on, as long as enough people are beast players, the beast can still run.

We're talking about Beast players who lose a pot to a non-Beast player.

As it stands now, they win beast points even if they don't win the pot. These players would be pissed off if you took away their points.

For the beast players, everything is the same as now.

So, yes, they still get points.

If a non-beast player wins the pot no contribution is made, therefore no points can be rewarded. Otherwise beast players would be bum hunting non-beast players since they would be gaining points on more hands at zero cost to them. This is why the opt in button won't work.

This is incorrect unless only non beast players would be involved in the hand. But the proposed scenario from OP would only make the whole thing by far more complicated.

Since so many 2+2 members have complained about WPN being slow at implementing new things, in which decade to you expect this to happen?

the reason no points could (should) be rewarded is take for example we have 2 6 max tables running. Table A has 5 beast and 1 non-beast. Table B has 5 non- beast and 1 beast. Each table plays 100 hands with everyone playing each hand. Table A contributes a lot more to the beast than table B, meaning table A is actually building the prize pool for the 1 player on table B.

I'm not so sure that what is contributed per table matters. All the Beast sees is that 6 players contributed and 6 didn't.

I understand what you are saying but take the example I gave, the one beast player would basically be getting "free" beast points. What I mean by this is that the points that he would be getting in hands that he didn't win would not have contributed anything towards the beast prize pool. One could argue that it would even out for everyone but to me it seems to be mixing apples and oranges.

I agree with chopsy. Although I like the fact that people are brainstorming ways to improve The Beast I think this idea just isn't feasible and even if it were the network would be highly unlikely to implement it.

Its only when we accept the fact that The Beast is staying will we start coming up with ways to make it better for everyone.

I think they need to lower the fee at $25nl and $50nl to something that isn't exorbitant and bleeding the non leaderboard players dry. They also need to fix the payout structure as mentioned in other threads so everyone on the leaderboard is coming out ahead or at least even. They need to distribute points based on individual players rake contribution to the pot to stimulate more action and less nitty play.

It would also be great if they found a way to randomize the rewards some so that even recreational players have a chance to come away with something. As is its a lose lose situation for them. Something like the old Cake gold card system could be a starting point.

When we start brainstorming more ideas that are good for the network's bottom line and our bottom line then they might be more open to listen.