Discussion Thread re PokerStars Player Reps Report. Feb 2012
01-28-2012
, 09:33 AM
01-28-2012
, 09:41 AM
1. Thx guys for your work with Pokerstars. At the beginning i thought that they wouldnt do anything to be straight honest.
2. Thx to Pokerstars for doing something for their customers.
BIG THANKS TO ALL WOH MADE THIS HAPPEN.
Much respect from me
Just one question:
These rake changes are the same for plo i guess right?
2. Thx to Pokerstars for doing something for their customers.
BIG THANKS TO ALL WOH MADE THIS HAPPEN.
Much respect from me
Just one question:
These rake changes are the same for plo i guess right?
01-28-2012
, 09:52 AM
01-28-2012
, 09:55 AM
01-28-2012
, 09:55 AM
01-28-2012
, 10:02 AM
The micros look OK, but NL50 and NL100 had minimal changes.
These two limits are road blocks.
Rake wise it is better to go from 25NL to 200NL.
This will maintain the impasse from micros to mid stakes.
The upflow is barely any better off than before.
Please prove me wrong.
Time for another hiatus.
GG Stars...
01-28-2012
, 10:20 AM
Cross posting from a thread in STTF
Sorry for tl;dr but cash games aren't the only things we should be discussing imo.
TT
Sorry for tl;dr but cash games aren't the only things we should be discussing imo.
TT
Quote:
Hi Walmsley, glad to have you aboard!
Although this isn't directly relevant to your OP, nevertheless it is a tangentially important point that I feel should probably be adressed somewhere in this forum, and right now, in this thread, seems to be a good time and place to do so.
Perhaps some STTFers are not aware of the debate, or are aware of it but not really following it, but doubtless you yourself are aware of the ongoing discussion in the Internet Poker forum about the 2+2 community's concerns over VPP and rake in your cash games, and about the absurdity of the difference in VPP awarded, for arcane historical reasons, between FR (6/$rake) and SH (5.5/$rake) cash games, not to mention the concerns over the change to weighted contributed on January 1st this year. Consequently, I expect you are also aware that Stars asked for a few nominated 2+2ers to visit IOM for discussions about these issues, and iirc, that is happening sometime about now. Applying part of those concerns to SNGs, it bears asking that if $1 of rake is worth 6 VPP for a FR cash game, and if it looks like SH cash games will be moved up to 6 VPP/$ too, then why is a $1 of tournament fee not worth 6 VPP on all your other games too, whether it be for a SNG or for a scheduled tourney? Why does a SNG player have to pay ~$1,500 more in rake to become a Supernova VIP, or about $15k more to achieve SNE?
TBH, I am one of those who is aware of the meeting, but because I have been travelling a lot lately, I haven't been able to follow it properly, and the zoo threads are now unreadably long. I don't know if SNG rake and VPP is scheduled for discussion as part of the above mentioned talks, but it certainly should be, as it is patently unfair. Do you have any comments at all on this?
TT
Although this isn't directly relevant to your OP, nevertheless it is a tangentially important point that I feel should probably be adressed somewhere in this forum, and right now, in this thread, seems to be a good time and place to do so.
Perhaps some STTFers are not aware of the debate, or are aware of it but not really following it, but doubtless you yourself are aware of the ongoing discussion in the Internet Poker forum about the 2+2 community's concerns over VPP and rake in your cash games, and about the absurdity of the difference in VPP awarded, for arcane historical reasons, between FR (6/$rake) and SH (5.5/$rake) cash games, not to mention the concerns over the change to weighted contributed on January 1st this year. Consequently, I expect you are also aware that Stars asked for a few nominated 2+2ers to visit IOM for discussions about these issues, and iirc, that is happening sometime about now. Applying part of those concerns to SNGs, it bears asking that if $1 of rake is worth 6 VPP for a FR cash game, and if it looks like SH cash games will be moved up to 6 VPP/$ too, then why is a $1 of tournament fee not worth 6 VPP on all your other games too, whether it be for a SNG or for a scheduled tourney? Why does a SNG player have to pay ~$1,500 more in rake to become a Supernova VIP, or about $15k more to achieve SNE?
TBH, I am one of those who is aware of the meeting, but because I have been travelling a lot lately, I haven't been able to follow it properly, and the zoo threads are now unreadably long. I don't know if SNG rake and VPP is scheduled for discussion as part of the above mentioned talks, but it certainly should be, as it is patently unfair. Do you have any comments at all on this?
TT
Quote:
The standard VPP multiplier on PokerStars is 5.5x for USD games, including most ring games and all tournaments. There are some tables that award more:
-Microstakes tables (NL2, NL5, NL10), for the purpose of helping loyal players at these stakes move up to higher VIP levels
-Full Ring tables, as such players historically had earned even more than 6 VPPs per USD when the current system was introduced.
Note that only a small portion of VPPs sitewide are awarded at 6x. 5.5x is the standard for USD games by which the vast majority of VPPs are awarded.
-Microstakes tables (NL2, NL5, NL10), for the purpose of helping loyal players at these stakes move up to higher VIP levels
-Full Ring tables, as such players historically had earned even more than 6 VPPs per USD when the current system was introduced.
Note that only a small portion of VPPs sitewide are awarded at 6x. 5.5x is the standard for USD games by which the vast majority of VPPs are awarded.
Quote:
Hi Steve,
Sorry if it sounds like I'm just hammering on this point, and I don't want to do it to antagonise, but..... I don't think you actually answered the question at all. While I cannot deny that everything you have written in reply here is factually correct, it is effectively only a re-wording and slight expansion of what I wrote, and wholly fails to address the essential point of the post, namely why there isn't parity of value of $1 for players in all games. If I pay X amount of money per year in tournament fees, and another player also contributes exactly the same X amount of money per year in FR cash games, why should he get in excess of 9% extra value from the VIP scheme, when we've both spent precisely the same amount of money with you?
Saying that it is for "historical reasons" is a poor excuse. Historically, people used to do all sorts of things which we wouldn't consider doing now because they are unfair, and using it as a reason not to introduce equality for all for our rake dollars seems to me to be a weak cop-out. It is about time that true parity was introduced across the board, particularly as your cash games have now switched over to the weighted contributed method instead of the old dealt method, and FR players are now getting a truer and fairer allocation of VPP for their contributions to the pot as a result of the change.
You're almost discriminating against people because of the game they play, although I will quickly say, before a lost politard chimes in with the patently obvious, yes, I know it's not quite the same as true discrimination because Stars aren't actually preventing us from playing FR cash games to deny us the 6x multiplier. Nevertheless, surely Stars cannot deny that this policy is either undervaluing tournament fees and SH/HU cash rake or overvaluing FR cash rake.
Are SH games more difficult to host on the software than FR games? Are there additional administration costs associated with us clicking the "Register" button for SNGs and tournaments, compared to the "Seat me" button? If not, please just be honest with us and admit that you're favouring them.
TT
Sorry if it sounds like I'm just hammering on this point, and I don't want to do it to antagonise, but..... I don't think you actually answered the question at all. While I cannot deny that everything you have written in reply here is factually correct, it is effectively only a re-wording and slight expansion of what I wrote, and wholly fails to address the essential point of the post, namely why there isn't parity of value of $1 for players in all games. If I pay X amount of money per year in tournament fees, and another player also contributes exactly the same X amount of money per year in FR cash games, why should he get in excess of 9% extra value from the VIP scheme, when we've both spent precisely the same amount of money with you?
Saying that it is for "historical reasons" is a poor excuse. Historically, people used to do all sorts of things which we wouldn't consider doing now because they are unfair, and using it as a reason not to introduce equality for all for our rake dollars seems to me to be a weak cop-out. It is about time that true parity was introduced across the board, particularly as your cash games have now switched over to the weighted contributed method instead of the old dealt method, and FR players are now getting a truer and fairer allocation of VPP for their contributions to the pot as a result of the change.
You're almost discriminating against people because of the game they play, although I will quickly say, before a lost politard chimes in with the patently obvious, yes, I know it's not quite the same as true discrimination because Stars aren't actually preventing us from playing FR cash games to deny us the 6x multiplier. Nevertheless, surely Stars cannot deny that this policy is either undervaluing tournament fees and SH/HU cash rake or overvaluing FR cash rake.
Are SH games more difficult to host on the software than FR games? Are there additional administration costs associated with us clicking the "Register" button for SNGs and tournaments, compared to the "Seat me" button? If not, please just be honest with us and admit that you're favouring them.
TT
01-28-2012
, 10:37 AM
