+1 $75 Super Turbos

Not that it matters really, 47th month of Iron man, leaving after I clear MidYear bonus in January. Too bad, I really prefer Full Tilt's software, game options, and player pool to Stars, but I just can't give up the significantly higher rewards that I get elsewhere.

When there's a main pot of $60 and a side pot of $40, the winner of the main pot pays $1.8 in rake while the winner of the side pot pays the remaining $1.2. So if the shorter stack wins the main pot, he collect $58.2 out of $60 instead of $57 out of $60 if there was no main pot and he had to pay the whole rake himself.

That isn't the way pots are raked, Guyra was just pointing out that FTP's "poker specialist" appears to be fos.

You mean that the main pot pays all the rake and the side pot none of it?

Honestly I have no clue and I don't have a HH here to check, but from the FTP support response, the logical conclusion was that both side and main pot winners shared the cost of rake.

Can someone post a HH confirming one way or the other?

I dont think this is correct. When a pot reaches $60, rake gets capped at $3.00. whatever happens after that $60 should not have any more effect on rake towards that hand.

If you are correct, your side pot example has nothing to do with Doug's example in his initial post.

Doug does not specify if player C only puts $20 in the pot because he folds or if he only puts $20 because that's his whole stack. If he's all in, there is a main and side pot and my example applies.

While your statements about rakeback are technically correct most people don't really care because their bottom line is being affected. I don't think most people are concerned with the fairness of the rakeback system, they just want to have that difference made up to them in some manner. You can't tell someone that making 20-25% less rakeback is good for them because it's just not (especially when FT already pays out a lower rb % than other poker rooms). The only logical argument that would ever convince me to eat this change without moaning would be if the extra money FT was pocketing was dumped nearly $ for $ into a great VIP system. We obviously did not get that with Black Card so it looks like a money grab instead of a change that is actually beneficial to players.

Rolling out the Black Card and the rake changes in the same update was not the best idea because the two will always be linked even though they should probably be two completely separate issues. You're delivering a dose of bad news and then effectively saying 'but look we have a new VIP system!' which doesn't even make up for the loss. Maybe the wool is more easily pulled over the eyes of the average player and from that standpoint it works. However, for the average p2per they had to realize ahead of time people would do the math and see that they are actually getting screwed in the process. Had the bad news been given a few months in advance or vice versa I think you'd see a lot more rational discussion about potential solutions instead of the responses you're seeing now.

It almost seems as though they rushed the Black Card a bit to try and soften the blow of losing the rb money because I have a hard time believing anyone actually thinks this is the product of years of hard work on a VIP system.

If the only changes were the Black Card and points changes then it would mean an extra 3% for me. We would not be "crying" but I am sure people would still have suggestions to tweak the system for their self interest.

The problem is not that the BC has fallen short of expectations, the problem is that FT decided to increase the amount of rakeback collected by the people that do not have rakeback.

You should try being factually correct and intellectually honest.

Just what does "intellectually" honest mean anyway? Is it different than regular honest?

Um, it means you seem smart and you're just being contrary for the hell of it, instead of making an effort to get to the true core of the issue.

As opposed to a Sarah Palin type, who may or may not be "regular" honest, but has no capacity to be "intellecutally" anything.

So bc doug didnt specify you auto assume that its a side pot and come to your own conclusions? If so, thats fine(and you might be correct here, idk) but my question to you and to black card support/doug is this:

example:
3 people in the pot.
all three see the flop for $20 each.
rake is capped at $3.00
pot is now $57 on the flop.

player A goes all in for $20
player B calls $20.
player C folds

player A wins pot worth $97

all three players contributed the same amount to the max rake of $3.00

why on earth should player C be unfairly penalized for folding AFTER he was an equal part of maxing out the rake for this hand? If the dealt method wasnt fair in giving players too much rake in pots they had no business getting rake from, then why should A & B get credit for more rake that they didnt create?

why won't anyone answer this?

or say joe biden/barack obama intellectually honest which goes without saying isnt either

Of course, but the only real objection people have to the new attribution method is that they get less money from it - not that it's a less fair way to attribute rake (which it obviously isn't).

The problem is that Black Card has fallen short. If the cash bonuses were half the price that they are then people wouldn't be crying over "lost" rakeback and would be applauding Full Tilt for providing such a good VIP scheme.

Feel free to point out where you think I've made a factual error or argued from a purely subjective point of view.

Since no one here has even mentioned it. How about we get the RNG fixed. I have lost so much money lately with the case card hitting the flop. AK vs KK all in on a flop of AKx, KK vs AK all in pre flop comes AKx... 66 vs A6 all in on a flop of 6AA... KTT9 potraise pre, flop comes KT9, and I fire pot. Turn is a blank, and I fire pot still feeling I am ahead and we end up getting it all in and he turns over AQQ4(only a pair of Q's and a GUTTER).. River is the J and I lose a $30 pot.. AT .05/.10!!(Yes, I am well aware that I want them stacking off when they are behind, but everytime they do they manage to hit the miracle river card) thats just a few... I don't know about you guys, but this **** makes me sick. Either the RNG is screwed up or the doomswitch is on. And I am tending to lead towards the RNG being screwy since this only started a few days ago and it has cost me over $150 in losses. I don't care about the losses.. since I can make them back IF the RNG gets fixed or the doomswitch turned off. I may not be a huge winning player, but I am definitely a winning player. And unless **** turns around I will be taking my play back over to PS at the start of the new year as well. Either PS or another room.. maybe Cake or Doyle's Room.

Just because we have no real choice but to let our own government screw us doesn't mean we are going to let you bend us over FTP. I personally love the software of FTP, but that isnt going to stop me from spraying mace at my rapist(FTP) and go to a better place.

So basically, you feel its rigged/"broken", but you will continue to play there for another couple of months and you are just "warning them" that they should fix it LOL?

WTF...if you REALLY feel the RNG is 'rigged/broken' then get the hell out now.

I have SEVERAL issues with FTP, but I cannot support this line of thinking at all. Its called variance, **** happens and you are running bad for what? A few days? How many hands was this even? Boo fn hoo for you.

You felt compelled to tell us how its been rigged/broken for you, but you will still continue to play.....sigh!

+2

yeah this has been mentioned a few times and if I'm not mistaken, has not been addressed by FTP. It appears that they view the $3.00 coming out the final pot and not the earlier streets where the rake is maxed out. The question is why. Could be that it would have been too huge of a rb hit to the average breakeven or winning player if he was "sharing" more of his rb with players who can't fold preflop (pure speculation). Also FTP would be pocketing even more b/c all the fish without r/b who have to see the flop would be entitled to more rb.

I'd prefer a paid system. Winner gets all the rakeback. Or if it's kept the current way, raise the %. Pretty sure Howard and Jesus wouldn't like either of those ideas though.

full tilt poker rakeback scam

full tilt poker steals players money?

Yeah but is it fair and fun?

Can we get a Full Tilt rep here that can answer questions/concerns a couple times per week instead of once a month?

This is a serious request Doug.

um...so in reality you aren't being honest. Not even regular honest.

that will cost you another 15 percent or so of your rakeback

I'm one of the fortunate few who didn't lose any rakeback (HU Player), so i guess i'll just join the crowd, sign me up! lol

Variance is one thing. I am not the only one to notice it. And if you haven't then you either haven't been paying attention, or you are probably on the good side of it. Nowhere in my previous post did I say that it was rigged. However I do think that it is broken. Either that or it is in massive cooler mode. Stop playing for a day and just bring up a bunch of random tables. Cash/SnG/MTT bring them all up. And just watch.

And as for how many hands? I generally play about 1.5k+ hands per day(RUSH, mtt's and sng's(non-rush)). And for how long? Over a week. Thats over 10.5k hands. And when you play that much and you STILL notice a trend in the RNG.. You know something is wrong.

I have so little faith in your company Doug that you will do much of anything, but at the very least, I do not think this is TOO MUCH to ask, and if it is, then perhaps you people are in the wrong line of work, because that just sounds extremely fn lazy.

You have tons and tons of people on here asking all kinds of questions, and you honestly feel that your company can come on here once a month and that is good enough?

Pretty sad.