Oh I am not really upset. I just don't think it was enough. And I still managed somehow to eeeek out a 6500$ profit + an extra month vacation and only need to do half the work this year if I choose so!!! Without even asking. How can I really be upset?

I just don't think they fixed the problem. I do think they made a step in the right direction though. And honestly gave WAY more than I expected.

But again, I don't think them pumping 3mil more into the SNE player pool is really spending money wisely. I would have much rather heard 'Going to dump 3mil into the micros'

Thanks to all the reps that headed over and yeah all the Maths bla bla bla is great but the real question is, did you manage to find where they house the doomswitch and deactivate that shyte ??

Fair enough though you didn't half manage to make it sound like you were really pissed off.

off topic but why dont they cut down on the rediculous number of sponsored pros? Most players including me have know idea who half theses people are. The point of having them is to bring new fish in. doesnt exactly work when they are a bunch of nobody's. seems like a great way to cut operating cost and redistribute to the community

I was planning on going for sne for the first time this year and now i have know idea if its worthwhile

i also remember steve D saying on the pokercast that the rate of conversions from playmoney to real money was really low.

let stop subsidizing these bums

I'm not sure if you played / have played CAP, but at 50/100NL there are no winners pre-RB... Out of all the regs that I have looked at, I could name 1 winner at 100nl (in EV).

I also think that it shouldn't be a factor if players are winning post rake back (as i would assume this only applies to SNE, and some SN players), there is no way of a recreational player to last long at all at CAP before they lose all their money. This should be the number one priority as it is going to push players away from the site if they deposit and lose really quickly. Also a game where no-one is winning apart from Pokerstars in rake is not sustainable?

richsmith, you are winning now so make that 2

people 24 tabling a 20bb game. how profitable do you expect the majority to be? a big advantage of cap is the ability to more easily play more tables. i don't think it's surprising that winrates are low - it's not like players are 4 tabling and bumhunting, they're just trying to play as many hands as possible. it's a trade of winrate for $ per hour.

and PTR tells me people do win...

People are paying 6bb/100 in rake in the 100nl cap games If I'm not mistaken. That's not going to be beatable for the regs at these limits mass tabling or not.

It is a rake trap. That is why PS was salivating over CAP tables and why we should have never split tables from the 20-100 format. What should have happened years ago is:

Keep 20-100 format and limit the number of times a player can rathole on the site for a 24 hr period.

What we have done in splitting the games is create the rake trap where on PS wins. It sucks money from the economy.

It is much worse to have a game where

Reg earns $10/hr
Fish loses $100/hr
PS earns $90/hr

vs

Reg wins $10/hr
PS wins $6/hr
Fish loses $16/hr

...

Guys I don't play CAP at all but if they don't want to decrease rake what about increasing CAP (e.g to 30bb) I guess it would make the game more beatable??
Same with worse multiplayer but decreased rake (so the games would have like 4x vpp but rake capped on 2$ up to nl200??)

Is this considering win rates post black friday using WC? I know winrates dropped across the board post black friday. I assume they dropped across the board again with WC changes? Is this all true?

fyp

RIP SOME SNE cap players

fyp

much like your prediction last year that 20bb was dead when the cap tables were introduced?

;-)

If that's true about CAP players, then I think it is only possibly counter intuitive because you have more regs playing 100bb that have huge winrates and +400k graphs. At FR cap there is no one like this. A few 6max cap players do, but I think most of that was from a few years back. There are some players that are beating the game, but most aren't and most that are beating it are barely barely winning. I guess it will just run its natural course if it's left like this. I haven't played a single hand of CAP this year because I'm pretty sure with WC it's just not going to be worth it for most. but fwiw I never claimed to be the best cap player anyway.

I'm also done with CAP NL. I was beating the 6.6 BB/100 for a marginal winrate, but now with a 26% cut to VPPs it's just not worth it. It's only a matter of time until all the Russian and Ukrainian 14/13 regs grow tired of the sick swings and marginal or non-existent winrate.

Mellow,

Saying those two lowest levels of CAP "might just run their course" might not be the best way to look at it. Thinking players will know not to play, but fish/recs will play and get raked to death. Any game that PS massively rakes just sucks money out of the poker economy (and sucked out fasssst). The unbeatable rake needs to be fixed or the bottom few limits eliminated.

I look around the different games and levels and I see these honey pots that PS is making a ton of rake but thinking players avoid like the plague. The money just never flow up. It just all gets raked out the door by PS.

We looked at the last six months. I don't know the answers to the other questions. I posited that rake was too high in those games and no one was winning and suggested tests. Those tests showed the majority of people were winning post rakeback.

Also, in the microstakes as a bronze you can get like 25pct rb and as a silver like 42pct if you play in the games with extra high vpp multipliers.

lol.

With the switch to WC, the gap in vpp/hand earned at the micro (with high multiplier) between fish and winning player is so huge that I barely get 1/3 the vpp the VIP calculator says I should (at 5PLO). I'm getting significantly less then 25% rakeback as goldstar (and that's if I wait 3 months to buy the goldstar cash bonus). I'll admit that I'm a nit, but still. It's now almost impossible to get Platinum Star at the micro below 25NL and even there it's still difficult.

I have no doubt the some overly loose losing player are in fact getting like 42% rakeback, but that's not going to matter when your winrate is -50bb/100.

I've paid over a thousand in rake this month and I'm not even close to Platinum Star. And that's playing at mostly 10NL and 5 PLO, where I should have a 7x and 10x multiplier respectively. If it was WTA instead of WC, I would've been Platinum Star last week. The rake may be lower at the mirco on PS, but the rakeback is terrible and hard to get.

well then all is good and well. As long as people are beating the rake post rakeback there is no issue.

As someone that barely makes Silver every month, the best option for me is to save FPPs and play HT sats then exchange for T$. In other words I have to play lotto and hope to win flips.

I'd gladly take a flat 25% rakeback over that.

What rakeback percentage are you getting at the micro plo?

Can you speak to the average post-rakeback winrate of these players? If, for example, 52% of people win at .1bb/100 post rakeback, is that a healthier system than a system in which, say, 10% of people win at average 3bb/100?

I can't say averages or anything like that. All I can say is that after seeing the graphs is that people are beating the games a lot more than the games are beating them.