You write to vipclub@pokerstars.com and ask for them.

This is what matters. It goes back to the debate that had before the high volume incentives were common.

None of this is new, before the online boom there was live poker and the same debate was had. Mason wrote articles on why casinos needed winners for their poker games and it all still applies. The vast amount of easy money during the boom obscured the reality but nothing fundamental has changed.

So what do high volume regulars/winners provide that's so important to attract the vital casual players:

1. Games running round the clock for the casual player to play
2. Proof its possible to make money from poker and at this site
3. A demonstration of trust in the sites integrity (plus helping to keep the games honest)
4. Recommendations
5. A happy community they would like to belong to. The no 1 in the field.

* We provide something else that's very important to the site as well (much underestimated in value as far as I can see) which is continuity of income during lean times. When casual players are scarce the high volume players keep playing providing the incentives are great enough, some of them become losers during these periods and keep the games/site going until a new infux of casual players can be attracted.

There may be other things the high voo0lume regs provide but that's enough to see why regs really matter and why this debacle has been so bad for Pokerstars.

Instead of all the senseless fighting, whining and moronic anger we will do far better to keep pushing the real reason why we matter and why its a catastrophe for Stars if a significant enough number move elsewhere. But we also need to live in the real world of changing regulation and maybe a decline in available revenue.

Maybe we also need to take more responsibility for ensuring casual players have a good time. Plus ideas for attracting more of them and keeping them for longer.

Are their any 2+2er that increased their VPP as a result of the change?

That is not an insignificant question.


As a recreational player, having played more than a couple of million hands.
I am considering just ending my association with PS given my 36% decrease in VPP and $1000s of dollars lossed rakeback.

Unless someone can show me this is not just a rank cash grab.

One guy had an increase. He was 32/28 at 6max, which is beyond spewtarded.

Just pick a number at random between -25% and -35%. It will probably be pretty close.

Is the average SN/SNE VPP % change still what it was thought to be during the meetings?

Seems to be a higher decrease than initially thought, if anything.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=1771

mayox said he had an increase, not sure if he has verified this with pokerstars support though, he plays 21/19 at FR

Totally off-topic here, and not a flame either, rather just a fun fact.

But dude, xPeru, you totally look like Gary Busey.

I am a platinum star (missed supernova by 3k vpp last year). I play around 21/17 in 25nl 6max.

Taking fpp = $0.016

Difference of 1534.83 vpp, which at plat star is 3837.075 fpp or $61.39 (supernova would be $85.95)

Since 5th Feb (end of milestone) I have been raked at 25nl 8.82bb/100
In Feb 2011 I was raked at 9.3bb/100. A saving of 0.48bb/100 hands

I played 78637 25nl hands in Jan. If I play that this month I should save $94.36 in rake.

So I'm essentially gaining around a buy in a month, in actual real money, not fpp potential.

I hope my maths is right.

Again I hope my maths is right in replying to you but the problem I think you have in your calculations is, at platinum level you can't redeem bonuses at 0.016 instead the best exchange you can get is on the $650 which is 0.013. Also I feel gutted for you that you didn't get to Supernova, it makes a big difference and to miss it by that much is gut wrenching. The important thing to note here is that to try and get Supernova this year would mean having to play a shed load more hands than previous. In effect by not being Supernova you lose $200 each time you gain 100,000 fpp's because you can only cash 2 x 50,000 for $1,300 instead of 1 x 100,000 supernova rate at $1,500

I don't think it is.

Are you saying you're losing $61 in VPP/FPP value, but saving $94 in rake, and therefore better off by $33?

If so, I don't think you're accounting for the VPPs you would have received on that $94 worth of rake. E.G., if you earn the equivalent of 35% in rake back then you are only saving $94 - $33 (35%) = $61 in rake: The same as what you're losing in rewards.

It is a cash grab, the players who benefit from this change are the fish with insane VPIP and these guys are all mostly silver or gold stars. The players getting a pitiful 4-8% rakeback will end up with slightly more VPPs, but their multiplier and FPP exchange rate is so comically low, they won't get much benefit out of the extra points.

i was getting around 0.72 vpp's per hand at plo 200 so again around a 25%/30% drop.

Not true, it got a significant increase. I think even 1/2 sees an increase. PLO got raped by the changes.

Yeah I saw that, but asking here for official response

Wouldn't a cash grab result in grabbing cash for PS? It's a Robin Hood maneuver not a cash grab.

According to calcs we saw I'm pretty sure 2-4 and lower were supposed to go down, 3-6 up <0.5%

Calcs you made in the lab are wrong compared to what happens now, and not only about PLO. I'm pretty sure 2/4 PLO sees at least 5% increase in rake after February 1st, despite your calcs predicting less than 0.5%.

lol, and stars arent pocketing the difference in fpps.....oh no wait. its a cash grab

I ran some calcs using the program that Hood provided. I compared the old rake structure (5% incremental rake, $2 cap for 5-handed, $3 cap for 6-handed) vs the January 1st proposed structure (4.5% true percentage rake, $3 cap for 5-handed, $3 cap for 6-handed) vs the February 1st implemented structure (4.5% true percentage rake, $2.80 cap for 5-handed, $2.80 cap for 6-handed) and these are the numbers I got for 2/4 PLO 6-max. It's my main game and I did the calcs just for it to prove my point.

Old 5.15 bb/100
January 1st 5.42 bb/100 (5.24% increase)
February 1st 5.28 bb/100 (2.52% increase)

All calcs are made based on my play in January. I should say that 33% in the sample is 5-handed.

PS Steve claims that the increase with the new changes for 2/4 PLO 6-max is 0.73%.

I'm actually too disgusted by this whole charade to be able to play and gather a significant sample for February but once I do I'll run the calcs again. I'll be happy to run these calcs on a bigger sample if someone is willing to provide his HHs.

I'm extremely disappointed by PokerStars. Also, I'm amazed by the naivety shown by most of the reps. Krmont seems to be the only one realizing he has been taken advantage of and things that Pokerstars has told and showed the reps are not entirely true.

After all this time you still come out with this stuff? It blows my mind. The poor aren't getting richer, none of the players seem to be.

The more i read in this thread, the more i am stunned. Really disappointed by PokerStars' actions.

Steve's reply to not post in this thread really speaks for itselve.

Really disappointed.

PokerStars you ain't doing it right.

I hope this Monopoly thing ends and there comes a time where there will be competition and we players gain whats "fair" while they compete in the market.

it would be great if Digger the dog, Do it right, Starving writer or Antichev would be able to go on the 2+2 pokercast and actually speak to stars steve or just inform the 100k + listenership of the show just how redic this situation is

you mean the 2+2 pokercast, sponsored by PokerStars VIP Club?

no chance I'm afraid , that shiw has a pro stars biase imho, they gloss over the anger which is plainly seen here in the forums and they give Steve D a super easy time.

The last podcast had Hood and Steve D both on the show and it was basically a player rep / stars love in. If you listened to it you would think we had gone to the IOM and had an epic victory which is far from the case. Hood of course neglected to mention the increase in rake at low limit holdem (undeniable) of course.

In fact if Hood or Steve D could kindly explain how we went from Hoods figures after the IOM showing a rake decrease at 1/2 and 2/4 to Steve's figures showing an increase in rake at 1/2 and 2/4 I would appreciate it. I won't hold me breath, this has been brought up in the limit forum and your response was that you were surprised. Can you elaborate?

I won't get a definitive answer but I'll keep asking