*** Official 2012 Supernova Elite pursuit thread, with related chat ***
01-01-2012
, 11:18 AM
In and out within 2 hours!
Was going for first sne but, realistically, the changes mean i wont make it. Im getting about 25% less VPP's which is obviously HUGE. (YEAH YEAH I KNOW IM A NIT!)
Time to start whoring myself round for best rakeback deal possible on softer site.
Thank you and goodnight pokerstars!
Was going for first sne but, realistically, the changes mean i wont make it. Im getting about 25% less VPP's which is obviously HUGE. (YEAH YEAH I KNOW IM A NIT!)
Time to start whoring myself round for best rakeback deal possible on softer site.
Thank you and goodnight pokerstars!
01-01-2012
, 11:50 AM
I'm cross posting this because a potential reduction in rake paid %age is not a good solution (especially for everyone who is a SNE,) and I'm concerned that virtually no one is aware of this fact. I fear if that change was made it would be disastrous hence I'd like everyone here to understand why. No doubt people will then cease to support that particular idea.
----------------------------------------------------
I'm re-quoting this as I think that it's very, very important that everyone understands that a reduction in rake paid %age is not a good solution for compensation for the reduction in VPP value. (Especially for players with high rake back %ages. Although it does reward the players with low rack back %ages.)
The following highlights how reducing rake paid by 20% to compensate for a loss of 20% in VPP value would effect players differently, depending on their rake back %age:
>>>>>>>>>> Someone who has equivalent of 80% rake back on Stars, would effectively see the amount of rake they pay increase by 44%. (The example quoted above assumes 80% rack back, and the calculations are detailed there, and repeated below.)
>>>>>>>>>> Someone who has equivalent of 50% rake back on Stars, would effectively see the amount of rake they pay decrease by 4%. (Details at bottom of post.)
>>>>>>>>>> Someone who has equivalent of 20% rake back on Stars, would effectively see the amount of rake they pay decrease by 16%. (Details at bottom of post.)
On top of this, and another very important point is that everyone would earn VPPs at a 20% slower rate, hence milestones would be far harder to reach, resulting in significant further reduction in the value of VPPs. (Milestone targets and cost of store items would therefore also have to be reduced by 20%.)
In Summary, simply reducing the %age of rake paid is not a good, fair, or simple solution to compensating for a loss in VPP value.
---------------------------------------------------------
Detail for player with 80% rack back:
Imagine a hypothetical reward system where for every $100 paid in rake, you get 80 VPPs, each worth $1. This results in a total cost to the player (rake paid less rakeback) of $20.
Now, if the value of each VPP was reduced by 20% but the rake was also reduced by 20%; over that same sample you will now pay only $80 in rake. This will give you 64 VPPs (80% of $80), each worth $0.80. This results in a total cost to the player of (64*$0.80 - $80) $28.80. You are 44% worse off!
Detail for player with 50% rack back:
Imagine a hypothetical reward system where for every $100 paid in rake, you get 50 VPPs, each worth $1. This results in a total cost to the player (rake paid less rakeback) of $50.
Now, if the value of each VPP was reduced by 20% but the rake was also reduced by 20%; over that same sample you will now pay only $80 in rake. This will give you 40 VPPs (50% of $80), each worth $0.80. This results in a total cost to the player of (40*$0.80 - $80) $48. You are 4% better off.
Detail for player with 20% rack back:
Imagine a hypothetical reward system where for every $100 paid in rake, you get 20 VPPs, each worth $1. This results in a total cost to the player (rake paid less rakeback) of $80.
Now, if the value of each VPP was reduced by 20% but the rake was also reduced by 20%; over that same sample you will now pay only $80 in rake. This will give you 16 VPPs (20% of $80), each worth $0.80. This results in a total cost to the player of (16*$0.80 - $80) $67.20 You are 16% better off.
----------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Right, SNE completed so I'll address this.
Disclaimer: I've been playing for 16.5 hours straight so I'm too tired to double check these following calculations right now.
-----------------------------
Of course I understand the point you're making, but there are a couple of mistakes.
Firstly, the rake would have to be lowered by a lot more than 20% (5% --> 4%) in order for things to remain in equilibrium.
Imagine a hypothetical reward system where for every $100 paid in rake, you get 80 VPPs, each worth $1. This results in a total cost to the player (rake paid less rakeback) of $20.
Now, if the value of each VPP was reduced by 20% but the rake was also reduced by 20%; over that same sample you will now pay only $80 in rake. This will give you 64 VPPs (80% of $80), each worth $0.80. This results in a total cost to the player of (64*$0.80 - $80) $28.80. You are 44% worse off!
Amazingly, in order to remain the same as before, the rake would have to be reduced by 44.8%!! If this happened then rake paid over the same sample is $55.20. This gives 44 VPPs worth $0.80 each. Total cost is (44*$0.80 - $55.20) $20.
Secondly, which I mentioned in my previous post, the targets for each milestone (and cost of each item in the store) would need to be reduced. This is because each VPP isn't directly related to a cash value. Rather, the VPPs get you to a milestone, and the milestone itself holds the value.
E.g. Adapting our original hypothetical rewards system above, let's assume that instead of each VPP being worth $1 there is instead a 100VPP milestone worth $100. Now, in our revised hypothetical system where each VPP was reduced by 20%, if we are to simply reduce the value of reaching 100VPPs to $80 this won't work because we wouldn't reach the milestone in the same amount of time/hands as we're earning VPPs at a slower rate.
Disclaimer: I've been playing for 16.5 hours straight so I'm too tired to double check these following calculations right now.
-----------------------------
Of course I understand the point you're making, but there are a couple of mistakes.
Firstly, the rake would have to be lowered by a lot more than 20% (5% --> 4%) in order for things to remain in equilibrium.
Imagine a hypothetical reward system where for every $100 paid in rake, you get 80 VPPs, each worth $1. This results in a total cost to the player (rake paid less rakeback) of $20.
Now, if the value of each VPP was reduced by 20% but the rake was also reduced by 20%; over that same sample you will now pay only $80 in rake. This will give you 64 VPPs (80% of $80), each worth $0.80. This results in a total cost to the player of (64*$0.80 - $80) $28.80. You are 44% worse off!
Amazingly, in order to remain the same as before, the rake would have to be reduced by 44.8%!! If this happened then rake paid over the same sample is $55.20. This gives 44 VPPs worth $0.80 each. Total cost is (44*$0.80 - $55.20) $20.
Secondly, which I mentioned in my previous post, the targets for each milestone (and cost of each item in the store) would need to be reduced. This is because each VPP isn't directly related to a cash value. Rather, the VPPs get you to a milestone, and the milestone itself holds the value.
E.g. Adapting our original hypothetical rewards system above, let's assume that instead of each VPP being worth $1 there is instead a 100VPP milestone worth $100. Now, in our revised hypothetical system where each VPP was reduced by 20%, if we are to simply reduce the value of reaching 100VPPs to $80 this won't work because we wouldn't reach the milestone in the same amount of time/hands as we're earning VPPs at a slower rate.
I'm re-quoting this as I think that it's very, very important that everyone understands that a reduction in rake paid %age is not a good solution for compensation for the reduction in VPP value. (Especially for players with high rake back %ages. Although it does reward the players with low rack back %ages.)
The following highlights how reducing rake paid by 20% to compensate for a loss of 20% in VPP value would effect players differently, depending on their rake back %age:
>>>>>>>>>> Someone who has equivalent of 80% rake back on Stars, would effectively see the amount of rake they pay increase by 44%. (The example quoted above assumes 80% rack back, and the calculations are detailed there, and repeated below.)
>>>>>>>>>> Someone who has equivalent of 50% rake back on Stars, would effectively see the amount of rake they pay decrease by 4%. (Details at bottom of post.)
>>>>>>>>>> Someone who has equivalent of 20% rake back on Stars, would effectively see the amount of rake they pay decrease by 16%. (Details at bottom of post.)
On top of this, and another very important point is that everyone would earn VPPs at a 20% slower rate, hence milestones would be far harder to reach, resulting in significant further reduction in the value of VPPs. (Milestone targets and cost of store items would therefore also have to be reduced by 20%.)
In Summary, simply reducing the %age of rake paid is not a good, fair, or simple solution to compensating for a loss in VPP value.
---------------------------------------------------------
Detail for player with 80% rack back:
Imagine a hypothetical reward system where for every $100 paid in rake, you get 80 VPPs, each worth $1. This results in a total cost to the player (rake paid less rakeback) of $20.
Now, if the value of each VPP was reduced by 20% but the rake was also reduced by 20%; over that same sample you will now pay only $80 in rake. This will give you 64 VPPs (80% of $80), each worth $0.80. This results in a total cost to the player of (64*$0.80 - $80) $28.80. You are 44% worse off!
Detail for player with 50% rack back:
Imagine a hypothetical reward system where for every $100 paid in rake, you get 50 VPPs, each worth $1. This results in a total cost to the player (rake paid less rakeback) of $50.
Now, if the value of each VPP was reduced by 20% but the rake was also reduced by 20%; over that same sample you will now pay only $80 in rake. This will give you 40 VPPs (50% of $80), each worth $0.80. This results in a total cost to the player of (40*$0.80 - $80) $48. You are 4% better off.
Detail for player with 20% rack back:
Imagine a hypothetical reward system where for every $100 paid in rake, you get 20 VPPs, each worth $1. This results in a total cost to the player (rake paid less rakeback) of $80.
Now, if the value of each VPP was reduced by 20% but the rake was also reduced by 20%; over that same sample you will now pay only $80 in rake. This will give you 16 VPPs (20% of $80), each worth $0.80. This results in a total cost to the player of (16*$0.80 - $80) $67.20 You are 16% better off.
Last edited by ROM Amnesty; 01-01-2012 at 12:01 PM.
01-01-2012
, 11:51 AM
01-01-2012
, 12:18 PM
Gl in 2012, will be seein ya on the tables lots
01-01-2012
, 12:21 PM
01-01-2012
, 01:22 PM
01-01-2012
, 01:29 PM
01-01-2012
, 01:47 PM
01-01-2012
, 01:57 PM
