i was thinking of a suggestion people had before.. which was to have a higher rate of vpps for starting FR tables.. but at the same time i think keeping a smaller concise 'list of optimistic compromises' (how's that euphemism?) would be better... idk.

Maybe Ricepaw or somebody else who is leading the charge in this thread could make a thread in about the forums and ask for permission to make a NVG thread. It really is nuts that they keep deleting them. There was a thread when the .FR guys stiked.

we need as many people as possible, because if this sitout fails then we have literally no recourse (if we want to keep playnig at stars)

Why does it have to be equal? You are the one that always talks about how CAP needs to be raked lower to be sustainable. Well maybe full ring needs to be raked lower as well. Also consider the fact that even the LAGiest FR players who have 20+VPIPs are going to loose about 20% due to this. Are the 6max LAGs going to loose 20%? I doubt it. There are many ways to make the situation better. You can campaign for lower rake, for more VPPs, for more FPPs, for lower VIP requirements, for bigger VIP bonuses or a combination of these. Raising 6max to 6VPP/$ will only help 6max and nobody else.

I did post a suggestion recently in this thread which was mainly about lowering rake. This should be in the best interest of FR players as well.


I honestly don't think much about myself when trying to figure out what we can and should demand, but more about the long term sustainability of online poker, which I do care about. I'm way less attached to Stars than many other here and if they screw this up, I just won't play there. This however is a good opportunity to improve things.

That said, I just don't see why FR should be awarded more VPP/rake than 6-max. It doesn't make much logical sense to me and the reasoning 'because it used to be like that' isn't quite that strong. Of course, if I could chose whatever I wanted, I'd go for 7x VPP for everyone, but this is just not realistic. I just don't see Stars conceding even 6.5x VPP, I'd be amazed though if they did.


If we want to make decent suggestions/demands as a community, we have to forget our individual identities as poker players for a second and try to figure out what benefits the game the most in the long run, given what we can realistically bargain for.

considering the only way to change your avatar is to email stars requesting their permission to do so i don't see this as likely

Still in tho.

How exactly does 6VPPs/$ for 6max benefit the game the most in the long run?

I don't like that all the 6max grinders are only thinking about themselves...

Our requests should be as a WHOLE...What we want for FR what we want for FL
what we want for SNG/MTT ...

And what FR players want is 7x vpp or 6.5x to compensate...because if it goes 6x on 6MAX then we FR players didn't get compensated.

If you were to forget about what games you are preferring and asked by Pokerstars if FR should have a higher VPP/rake than 6-max, what would your answer be?

My other suggestions are a lot more directed towards helping the games than 6.5x VPP and probably more realistic to bargain.

1. WC calculation method with 6x VPP across the board
2. linear rake, 3.5% at .01/.02 and .02/.05, 4% at .05/1 and .1/.25, 4.5% at .25/.5 and higher
3. lower rake caps, 1$ at .01/.02 up to .05/.1, 1.5$ at .1/.25, 2$ at .25/.5 and .5/1, 2.5$ at 1/2 and 2/4
4. something that makes sense for FL

This has been my proposal. It does help FR, but more importantly online poker as a whole.


I do understand and sympathize with what FR player want and why and that they think equaling the VPP/rake gives them less, but that just isn't very strong reasoning. If genders were unequally paid, and one gender would get an increase in order to eliminate the inequality, would it be reasonable for the other gender to demand the same raise just because?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/55.../#post30646759


Created a thread in ATF where the power mods reside aiming to get permission politely to start an awareness thread in NVG.

My answer would be: "I do not know."
I do not have the data. Are winrates at FR on average lower than at 6max? If they are then an argument could be made for FR to be raked less. Then again is FR easier than 6max. If yes then that would be an argument for equalizing FR and 6max. You can not simply say that we want 6VPPs because the FR guys have it. It would be like MTT players saying they want the same rake that hypers have.

We are organising this strike at the biggest Slovenian, Croatian and Serbian poker forum.
~10000 registered users all together, so I'm sure we'll get some action

We are monitoring all these threads so will do as you guys do

Good work corey.

mucho respecto to you!

i like the looks of that.. i think we're starting to get somewhere...
maybe a FL player can chime in on what would help them..
as well as PLO players.. cuz i know they're getting screwed atm.

nice^

i can't help but picture the 'power mods' resemble something like:

I see a lot of arguing about how the changes should be and not be... Imo there should be no changes at all... just keep everything like it have been, everyone was used to this, noone was complaining, the pros where making money, the fish had their fun and everyone was happy...

I think we should ask for 6.5x vpp accross the board...
or 6 for 6MAX and 6.5 for FR....because FR players on average stand to lose 25-30% of rakeback...increasing it to 6.5% would make it less harmful ... all the FR players that have been hit , raise your voice.

I did have to think about this, but let me start off by answering the easy parts. Given that you mentioned winrates, first and foremost our demands should be giving cap players better rewards then. How would you feel about a 6.5x multiplier for Cap, 6x for FR, 5.5x for 6-max and 5x for omaha? Does this seem like a good and fair system to you?
Your analogy also misses something, a hyper SNG is greatly distinct in the amount of hands the average person is going to play to a MTT. Thus the service has a different quality (or a difference in quantity more accurately ..). But what is the difference in quality in a cash game hand where I raise on the button and go heads-up to the flop against a blind if a) 4 people have folded in front of me or b) 7? Why should I be rewarded more if b was the case?
What your post does direct to is the question of sustainability of a game, which is harder to answer. The rake for HU is lower than for 6-max or FR games and it has to be because of it's sustainability. I do not see this apply to FR though. If that would be your reasoning, behind the 'veil of ignorance' (if I may borrow that phrase) you'd have to argue for Cap before FR. I don't see you doing that so far.

I also did address the question of sustainability in a, what I think, better way than increasing the VPP multiplier.

ty for reposting the avatars.

good post!


I would NOT support a strike for in order to keep the dealt method.
My main concern is that WTA would be preferable, though that might be a lost cause since industry standard seems to be WC. so I am asking for WTA but honestly would consider it a 'nice to have' or rather awesome bonus if they would do that. Again, I am absolutely fine with WC (WC is also short for toilet in some contries fwiw).
I am supporting the strike because the mitigating factors have been taken away and because the unfair multiplier issue that has been brought up plenty of times and I have never seen a response from PS to that. Basically I think all the points from Metro are very very very reasonable for both players and PS and that is what I want:
so in other words: if the theme of the strike turns into 'we want to keep the dealt in method' I am deffo out.

Asking for dealt is not realistic and just not going to happen. I don't think that's the reason why many are intending to sitout at this point.

A mass sitout will not do much imho, I suggest we all look closely at the changes and vote with out feet if we don't like it.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE CHANGES, PLAY SOMEWHERE ELSE.

im in !!

But like me you really do not know. You have no data. You are just pulling opinions out of your ass. Opinions that benefit you.
FR is not 6max. There are differences. Clearly Stars thought in the past that FR games needed a higher VPP/$ to be sustainable. Whether that was justified or not I don't know.
Your demands to Stars are not well thought out. Your demands should benefit the whole player pool as equally as possible. This whole strike is because WC caused an effective rake increase yet your demands would only alleviate the looses of 6max players. FR, LHE and probably some others would still get seriously shafted.

i agree with the latter, but IRT the former...
hypothetically, even if 100 players sat out that would disrupt around 1/3 of the tables... for a company making 1.5m a day that would disrupt around 500k per 'sit out'. there are well over 200 players on the list i would imagine many more lurkers and foreign 2p2esque sites as well.. i wouldn't underestimate the potential disruption.. the french players did it successfully and ended up receiving a reduction in rake... if nothing can be resolved than maybe people will leave... or reduce play etc... if anything, it's a show of solidarity between poker players.