Could someone explain to me the fascination these online poker sites have with hiring some so-called, online pro to represent them?

Nobody cares.

its also worth noting that we know very little about the vip program. right now with the tokens we are getting 21ish%. this is the only thing we know for certain.

www.pokerscout.com

Every site has them and have been using them for years. They can't all be wrong.

Does support have a telephone number that is currently active? I don't see it dislayed on their support page anymore.

Lots of recreational players do care about those things.Not everyone thinks the same...

702.495.3352
its on website, I have never used it tho. Email support is really quick lately.

How do you get into the summer series free roll flight A and B that top 3 win a $1100 main event seat at red rock?

I try to register and it says "unknown error".

Leaderboard freerolls for Summer Series

https://www.facebook.com/notes/ultim...55868451182242

UP software is completely garbage.
I'm so happy I live in Europe .

Ummmm yeah because it's a trial launch version clown.

No reason to call people names.

I see a different "because". Perhaps it is more because the U.S.A. severely restricted online poker.

Honored you used post number 18 on me Mr. 2005

Now get back in your hole!

E-mail support is definitely the channel 2+2ers will want. The phone line is almost entirely for registration/geolocation issues, pretty much everything else gets escalated to the e-mail team anyway so it'll save you time to e-mail directly.

This notion is both terrible and completely wrong. If you are playing $5/$10 and the rake is $4, do you want the dealer breaking down a $10 chip and putting $6 back into the pot every single hand? Probably not. In the even higher games (aka black chip games) it's almost always a time-pot so the winner of that pot pays the time rake for every player which just makes it even easier for everyone so more hands can be dealt. It's not about fair, it's about ease of not having to get large chips changed every hand which could lead to dealer change error and having to get fills more. The less opportunity to not get short-changed the better.

Winner take all is fine if you're a winner but 80%+ aren't. If people are going to call off stacks with the 2nd best hand they should probably get something, so IMO weighted-contributed is probably better for this but it's already been decided so whatever.

Everything you wrote in paragraph one does NOT translate to online, a time or hand charge online is a breeze to do. And the last line of your paragraph two is hilarious, "it's already been decided so whatever"...that's the spirit, nothing on 2+2 forum by players has ever been able to change something that has already been decide. LOL.

We are in agreement (and so is Turyia in post #4850) that Chan made a crazy statement with the stacking off comment. That stack off comment had weight-contributed written all over it. Plus, one time I was in a casino and saw the promotion desk lined up with people 30+ deep. I asked someone what was everyone waiting in line for and someone told me the casino was giving out key chains. Plastic key chains and people were waiting in a long line for one. Silly but giving away stuff works. From a marketing point of view, winner take all seems like a bad idea, give those loose passive people who are contributing at least their weight share of every one of the pots. For example, some recs might play for 30 minutes to an hour every night. On a night they play their loose passive style volunteering to put money in 30-50+% of the time but don't win a pot then they get nothing in winner take all. Marketing 101, "never give them nothing." D'oh.

Many people try to run an online business like a brick and mortar business...it doesn't work!

It is amazing what people will do for some cheap, worthless, promo items

Even losers like to feel appreciated!

Any plans on online sattys for the ultimate poker showdown yet I think you guys need to start advertising this. I want to play but I don't want to play a bunch of STTs with high rake. You should probably also start a thread on it in MTTc

IMO Winner Take All is the best and fairest method to award loyalty points.

Bravo UP - looking forward to the program rolling out.

I also think it's a error to assume that losing players don't win pots - mightn't they conceivably win more pots on average than a winning player and in turn earn more loyalty points keeping them in action longer?

Seems pretty genius in terms of keeping overall player pool liquid, but I could be wrong...

Important part of Chan's statement, "When you ask people what makes a game good, they generally say a loose-passive game with people calling off stacks."

Errrr, ummmmm, generally when entire stacks go in, who is a heck of a lot more likely to win that hand??? The pro going all in or the rec calling off stack? Just using Chan's (incorrect) example of loose passively stacking off with second best hand shows the rec would have earned a heck of a lot more with weight contributed. Recs winning more small pots means nothing in the face of losing more big pots with no RB rewards on their big pot stack off calls with second best hand. Also conversely, when you hear a lot of good players make positive WTA comments, you can take that to mean it is good for good players and usually bad for recs.

It is when people throw around the "fair" comment that I have to laugh. The rake at tournaments is fair in terms of everyone at a particular game paying the same amount of rake to play. And then you move on to the rake-back component that is also fair. But cash games don't even start off with fair rake so WTA as fair rake-back is a lark.

you are. think it through. Lets just take all in pots.

in a weighted system, our fishy friend splits the VIP points with his opponent, win or lose. Assume these pots are all rake capped at $3. so he gets (3x10)/2=15 points for every single all in pot that he plays.

Now consider what he would get in the WTA system. In those pots where he was the winner, he would get 30 points, for a gain of 15 points over the contributed system. In the pots where he was the loser, he would get no points, and make 15 less points than he would under the W/C system.

So under what circumstances would the WTA method of distributing points benefit our pet fish? Precisely when he wins more of these pots than he loses. And if thats the case, he probably isnt that much of a fish.

SO yeah, the fish might win more pots than, say a nit or a taggy guy. Byut thats not what youre comparing. Youre comapring the number of pots that the fish wins to the number of pots that the fish puts money into and loses.

think about it this way. By giving all the VIP points to the winner rather than dividing them among the players who put money in the pot, WTA is, in effect doing the exact opposite of what chan posits -- it is penalizing the player who gets all his money in with the losing hand.

I have no problem with this... like i said before, for most players in most games, W/C and WTA are pretty similar. But the arguments made thus far that this system somehow benefits action players, including the arguments made by chan in the interview and itt, are empty sophistry.

The money in a pot is given to the winner/s.

If you take out some rake(other than time rake), the winner gets less.

So, any rake given back should be to the one who had it taken from them.

If you give rake taken from the winners pot and give it to the losers or spectators you are redistributing the wealth. (Not necessarily a bad thing)

You would also be giving money to someone who, if no rake were taken, would not get any money from the hand in question.

Rake is only relevant* when you win a pot. (Because you recieve less).

*That is not completely true, because strategy is shaped by the knowledge that rake is being taken.


That is all I have to say about that.
I prefer the DEALT method.

Scary indeed. "Rake is only relevant when you win a pot." WTA is a gimmick. You are going to have to show me some real world examples of this "only" type pipe dream. Because I can show you plenty almost exclusively real world examples of people individually paying for something. Like a movie ticket, hamburger, chair, or even individually paying for a poker tournament rake/fee. Did only the winner of the poker tournament end up in a "Rake/fee is only relevant when you win the tournament."????

Ah ha and there is the point about time charge rake being the fairest. If for example, everyone paid $0.05 per hand ante to casino to play at $0.50/1.00 NL, then the fallacy that, "only the winner paid rake" would be busted wide open as false. Hmmmm gee that paying $0.05 ante a hand to play cash $100 NL sounds a lot like paying a tournament fee. Light bulb going off yet? Last time I went to McDonald and got a royale with cheese. So did the person in front of me and behind me. The three of us played a round of rock-scissors-paper and the winner was the one that paid for all the hamburgers. Oh wait we all paid individually for our meals. Just like you all pay individually to see a movie, or all pay individually to play a poker tournament or allllllll pay individually to play a cash hand of poker.

Why not do WTA rakeback for tournaments too?

Interesting question. It would be an interesting experiment to see if zero entry fee tournaments where winner pays all rake/fee would be popular or the cause of, "I'll never play there again" protest.