Back on Pokerstars! It's been a long 9 month wait. I'm planning making 1.5M - 2M, haven't really decided if I will go for the full 2M.
How have most of the relocated players deposited funds into their accounts over 10K? wire transfer?

I would like to thank Pokerstars Chris and Caleb for their help getting my account reactivated, thanks!

You might want to aim for 1M if you're a cash player.

(If you're not untypical of many SNE seeing a 20% decrease in VPPs, and if this is "solved" by reducing the rake you pay by, say, 15% then you'll have to play over 47% more hands than last year in order to reach SNE- with no extra benefits.)

Table winnings will increase though, which is nice. (At least they will in theory. In reality one's performance will inevitably drop significantly if forced to put in an extra ~50% volume.)

he's a sng player tho

mind if we use this thread also?

lol you got the ninja edit in just in time!!

Yeah..

(Anyway, the post wasn't really aimed at Octavian- more towards any interested cash game parties.)

New poll started (votes from previous one have been scrubbed): http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...stars-1148227/

Yea I know. I don't envy your situation.

I know what its like to have a game pretty much get killed by rake changes. Whatever the changes, it'll ultimately be up to you to adapt, as painful as it can be. There will be $$ to be had somewhere.

Hopefully the upcoming negotiations work out a little more in your favor. GL sir.

Sorry! So basically reduced rake leads to reduced VPPs which leads to not getting the milestones which leads to lower rakeback percentage?

I guess the variable we don't "know" is how much (if any) winrates will go up from rake reduction.

How long did it take you to get back up and running after you sent all your documents and got your phone call?

Apologies to all non-cash game SNEs for the posts, but I think this is important seeing as how cash game SNEs may well go extinct...

Updated.

* Corrected Average VPP Rate (Row 3) from 0.20 down to 0.17 (due to the 15% decrease in Rake Paid) and all calculations dependant on it.

* Added additional info on hands required to make SNE.

* Added additional info on potential net winnings.

---------------------------------------

I’ve been attempting to explain how reducing the rake paid in order to compensate for reduced VPPs being awarded- through the WC rake- is not as simple as people think, and that specifically, further VPP value would be lost due to milestones taking longer to reach.

To verify what I’m claiming (or otherwise) I’m putting together a model in the hope of getting this point across. Before coming up with a final version of the model though I’d like to first post this initial version and ask for help from others to “proof read” it for me, and to identify any possible errors, and make any comments. If I'm wrong, great- that's better for me, but I currently think this is a very important implication that virtually everyone seems to be missing.

Model V1.1

The model is based around a “typical” break-even 2011 NL100 SNE player. The first row shows that this player managed 4,000,000 hands in 2011 at an average rate of 0.25 VPP/hand. He made $160k at the tables, but paid $160k in rake to finish the year level. However he received $120k back in SNE value for a total profit of $120k.

The second row shows the same player under the 2012 WC rake, where this particular player earns VPPs at a 20% slower rate. To compensate it is calculated that if his rake paid is reduced by 15%, then this will make up for his reduction in VPP rate, and it looks to work fine. After all, that reduction in rake paid makes him an extra $24k at the tables which seems to balance perfectly with the 20% reduction in total VPP value (from 120k to 96k.)

However, the major problem is that he has now actually only reached 68% of the way towards SNE. So, the third row gives a truer picture of how his year would end up, as his individual VPP value has now been reduced by 20% from $0.1200 to $0.0960, and his average VPP/hand rate has been reduced by 15% (the decrease in rake paid) to 0.17. So his Total Profit for the year has decreased from $120k to under $90k.

So, to reach SNE under these conditions, a player would now have to play over 47% (85% x 80%) more hands than in 2011. In order to put in this volume (if indeed possible) then it's pretty much inevitable that his win-rate (which improved due to the reduction in Rake Back) would deteriote significantly.



NB:

1. $120k has been used as an estimated worth of reaching SNE. It is not meant to be precise, nor does it matter.

2. Rake Paid has been reduced by 15% in this example. This is not the same as a 15% reduction in Rake %age. This is because the rake cap is not reduced by the same percentage, so many pots that were raked at $3 previously would still now be raked at $3. (To see a 15% reduction in Rake Paid, the Rake %age would have to decrease by significantly more than 15%.)

3. The final picture (row 3) would actually be even worse than is portrayed (G7) because reaching 68% of the way towards SNE is worth less than 68% of SNE value.

4. To clarify, this post is not claiming that reducing the rake isn't a bad thing compared to not reducing the rake and making no others changes either.

5. I also think that, by the same token, all store items became effectively more expensive for cash players too.

The leeching only applies to stakes where the rake never (or very very rarely) gets capped, which is basically .10/.25 and below. WC just shifts the leeching to the loosest splashiest players.

Just relocated myself. I ended up going with a wire. Pretty easy painless process so far.


I dont know about him. But i sent in the docs on the 30th, got a the call maybe 2 hours later, got account reopened next morning. Caleb was a great help.

To bad banks were closed the day my account got reopened, otherwise i would have been playing by the 2nd.

See my above post.

Dude I know you're not ACTUALLY trolling but still... Just think about it for a second, the difference between the rake never reaching a cap where all the money put it is almost directly equal the amount of money that gets raked, and a table where many pots far exceed the cap.

a pot reaching the cap = a big pot

people ITT are shocked that they are taking a 20-30% hit "even tho they arent nitty and playing 23/20" not realising that they are very rarely involved in biggish pots that reach the cap

even if you were playing 40/30 3betting 15% of your hands you wouldnt get many VPPs if you are just taking it down preflop all the time

..? At 2/4 PLO (the stakes of one of the posters you replied to) that's pretty much a limp, a PFR and two calls. Pots reach that much preflop regularly. I'm pretty sure you're trolling now.

Bank wire or this thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/19...l#post30662075

Welcome back:}

how come ROM isnt on the list of people to vote for as a rep? Hell he could probably row boat his way over to the Isle.

I second ROM if he's interested.

Great! Thanks for the info appreciate it!

how are people's head starts working? if you got 200k VPPs from october thru december are they rolling them onto the start of this year for you guys?

We didn't do this; we did respond based on seeing players sitting out at tables. We were working quite quickly and did inadvertently affect some players (a very small % of overall players affected) who were not participating in the 'strike'. My apologies if you were one of the non-striking players affected.

I believe you have had the ability to 24-table back for some number of hours now.

almost all of the people that complain are smallstakes or cap players so im pretty sure you are the one trolling me

SNE nits tend to have a raise or fold mentality(preflop especially) because they need to simplify the majority of their decision due to the big amount of tables which results in them being involved in medium-big sized pots which hit the rake cap a lot less than the table avg.
happy now you posting-nit?

You didn't understand the question, and you didn't answer him correctly either.


As for your example about people 3betting, these pots were not raked before... so no that is not correct either.

It seems like you don't understand what has happened, or what the results of it are. This is not a punishment for nits, and a reward for laggy players... all of them are likely to have their overall vpps reduced.

No one was leeching off of others either. The VIP system is a system created by stars to reward players who play a lot of hands, not for those who play a laggy style. There is the reason that stars upped its max table limit to 24. There is also the reason why stars advertises how many SNEs make it to SNE each year. They want players multitabling and that means they will play tighter. This new change does not promote loose play. If anything it might promote tighter play as people add tables in order to make up their hourly.

Players won't be quitting, they'll be playing more in order to make up their lost $$$$$. Also this should not be a laggy players vs nitty players dilemma like it seems to be in your mind. It should be players who pay rake vs those who take rake.

I understand that you think the change is good. I think that is an incredibly stupid stance, but whatever. Either way everyone gets it; you are for decreased rb for all regs... cool... if you could stop trolling those actually discussing things now that would be nice though. I'm trying to read what they say.

Your analysis of the supposed failings of the new rake/VIP system is obviously comprehensive but why do you believe Stars owes you a living on your terms?

A common line on these boards appears to be "Stars is stealing from us" or something along those lines. If they came out and said "yes we know we are taking a greater cut of the pool but so-be-it, we want to" would that be unreasonable? I don't believe it would be and as a Supernova I'm affected by these changes too.

The likely outcome of that would be posts by SN's and SNE's along the lines of "well what a disgraceful attitude by Stars towards their most loyal customers" or "fk it I'm cashing out and taking my business elsewhere" but until Stars sees the impact of this on their bottom line they are unlikely to care a great deal in my opinion.

And even if that is the attitude of the players what percentage of them will actually act upon those comments and move elsewhere?....imo many will lump it and stay because there aren't a lot of feasible options if you need to put in the volume.

Stars doesn't owe me anything. Players can argue that they are loyal to Stars but that's really a load of rubbish. It's really the other way around. The players are in it for themselves and nothing else. Stars owes us nothing......afterall if we get a bad deal we are not obliged to stay. We can take our business elsewhere...so Stars walks a fine line when they make adjustments but presumably they take this into account.

Stars only obligation is to their employees. Players here are often deluded into believing they themselves are the employees and almost that they deserve an annual pay rise (in the form of rake/VIP reviews or whatever) as an employee of the company. This sense of self entitlement might be desirable but it's also misguided.

Pokerstars, I'm sure, was never created to provide a source of income for players. Players have astutely found a way to turn it into just that to the point where they can predetermine their annual salary almost to the dollar. The comprehensive level of detail and analysis that you (and many others) obviously are able to compile is testament to that fact.

To rely solely on a website created for others means (ie. gambling, recreational use, fun, whatever...etc....) is highly risky and means that you are more or less at the whim of the company running it.

im not getting a decrease with WC so far and im not even laggy
players who pay more rake get more VPP how is that bad?(WTA and WC is almost the same for most regs btw)