16% less than last year for me when i ran it

hard to tell if that will be correct yet, games were so fishy today will be messing with the numbers

Oh I wasn't saying that in response to anyone particular. These threads are just getting cluttered and no one is actually taking progressive actions.

Yeah, I wasn't sure- it's just that the last few posts had been mainly me discussing it with others, so was just explaining what that was all about.

ROM could you explain why WC reduces vpp value. I thought vpps were still worth the same, for example if you start as SN and reach SNE this year. each vpp is still worth .106, same as last year. no?

session 1 over:
9.3 hours
16,280 hands
5648.12 vpp

~.346 vpp/hand

lolsngs -- plz bitch more about vpp/hand, cash grinders

Count me in for 2012... gonna start first of February...

I know this is a very unpopular opinion here at 2+2, but if people could look past the short-term, they would see this would only increase their long-term profits.

We, as an extremely vocal minority, have been lobbying sites like Pokerstars to make changes that benefit us, but hurt the poker community as a whole. For us, (in the short term), we have been fortunate to have a site like Pokerstars that listens and tries to accommodate us. Unfortunately, what we think is good for us is actually bad, and terrible for the game long-term.

SN/SNE benefits need to be greatly reduced, with the proceeds going to bump the casual players rewards, whether that be in the form of increased multipliers for the silver/gold/plat stars, targeted reloads towards net-depositors, or other promotions that tend to benefit the casual player. This is a much better way to inject money into the poker economy, as the money will actually be played in the poker economy, creating more action and looser games. When an SN/SNE hits a milestone, that money just exits the poker economy completely without ever getting played through or generating any action.

Every single promotion should be focused on increasing action, not nittery.

I'm guessing everyone who disagrees with me also supports the Bush tax-cuts, otherwise you are a hypocrite.

I think a lot agree with this, but it's the fact that the money taken is just going into Stars' pockets that is pissing people off.

Juk

EDIT: There is a sick amount of 6 month or less posters who seem to have a "nit agenda" in the Stars threads though, so it's painful to read them... BUT, I don't think everybody arguing against the changes is doing so for selfish reasons and a lot would like to see the RB distributed more fairly and used to attract recreational players to the games to play against.

I'll agree to give up 100% of my Supernova benefits if Pokerstars agrees to provide games with low enough rake that they're winnable by more than 1% of the population.

The problem with this is that no-rake sites do not work. This is fact. We need rake to pay for promotions, security, customer support, etc... (of course we want it to be kept within reason)

I agree that low rake is better than high rake, but we need to find the right balance. The right balance includes winning and high-volume players paying a significant rake that, as long as used towards marketing and targeted reloads towards fish, is spent as a good investment. Of course there will never be 100% consensus on this, but you cannot expect games with fish unless you are willing to pay the rake that will be used to attract those players.

We have seen what no-rake sites look like, and it is not pretty.

This. The only complaints I've heard that are pro-SN/SNE are posters pointing out that Stars told high volume players "Play a lot this year and then next year you'll have awesome rakeback!" and are now pretty much taking that away entirely.

All the other complaints have either been that 5 handed rake increased an absurd amount and Stars is pocketing the SN/SNE rakeback instead of distributing back into the player pool.

I've never been a fan of PokerStars top heavy rewards scheme. Also due to the way poker works money flows up, so there is no such thing as trickle down.

But what they need to do is not take from one set of players and give to the other but, recognise that the game is getting far more competative and that after years of raking the hell out of the games, for once they need to take from themselves and give to the players.

The amount of money they are raking off the table at lower limits (below 1KNL) is absurd.
And as for the micros... well it is beyond ridiculous, a new player to the game has no chance of overcoming the huge handicap of rake. Rake needs to be AT LEAST halved in the micros at a minimum, to create winners and make poker seem beatable. No point attracting new players if you are just going to fleece them by raking all the money away in no time.

I've never had a problem with nits, especially in CAP games where there is nothing I love better than playing with a table of nit I also agree that dealt rakeback rewards nitty play too much... however stars has switched to WC and like every site that has done that, used the opportunity to go for a money grab and pass it off as 'beneficial' to players.

I expect scummy sites like Ongame to do that, I would never have thought stars would pull that, and that is why everyone is pissed at them.

I wonder how much of their profit comes from micros, or the nanos (50NL and down). Obviously the pot sizes won't be nearly as big as higher stakes, but there have to be more games running and more flops taken.

What I would love to see is tax on withdrawal and rake free play. Say at 20-25% (with some caveats that if you haven't played much you could withdraw cheaper and if; or have some free withdrawal amount, equal to amount of your deposit or w/e).
That would guarantee site some % of money they get from deposits and would make agreements with governments easier. For now Stars is probably getting somewhere in 60-70% deposits instead of 20% but maybe when some competition come around...

Do we have to re-email you each year? I can't remember from last year.

As has been pointed out by others, but what you seem to overlook, is that the $80 difference in this example needs to be put on net winnings in row 2. This is rake you did not have to pay when playing the same amount of hands under a 4.5% rake, and thus 100% rb.


You have some facts right, but you will always be better off with a lower rake as long as your rakeback does not exceed 100%. However, what I think you are after is that you need to play a whole lot more to reach the different VIP tiers, since the VPP accrual rate relative to amount of hands has gone down for many with WC.

An interesting question, but ultimately, profits for a poker room are measured in cash, but profits for a poker player are measured in bb/100. If players aren't putting in winning weeks or months because of the rake, they'll likely quit and give up. The rate at which the micros are raked feels a lot to me like picking a fruit before it's ripe or chopping down a tree when it's still a sapling.

I know more than a few guys that heard I played poker for a living, deposited $200, lost it, and didn't come back.

With less rake, that still happens, but it happens to fewer players, and it happens more slowly. That means more players can move up, and more players turn poker into a serious hobby instead of a weekend one-off, and that's good for players and for the poker room.

Finally, there's still a lot of mystique around grinding, beating a limit, moving up a limit, grinding and beating that limit, moving up again, and so on. It feels natural. With the rake as it is, that just can't happen for many people.

When I first started taking shortstacking seriously, I played NL50. I beat the game modestly and moved up to NL100. I got hammered. I couldn't figure it out, playing against many of the same regs, but I took my lumps and moved back down.

I repeated that process three or four more times, until I was fed up. I thought, "I'm going to find guys who are winning, study them, and figure out how to beat this game." Then I hit a wall: I couldn't find any winners.

At the end of my rope, I got some coaching, and one of the best pieces of advice he gave me was, "save up money at your real job until you can start playing NL400." I did, and the results shocked me: because of the reduced effective rake, I was back to being a winning player almost instantly.

It felt totally wrong, and I was certainly the worst reg at any given table at the time, but I was still winning - something I couldn't manage two stakes below because of the rake.

When I remember that, I can't help but wonder how many guys out there aren't getting the chance to be "the worst reg at the table" in the mid stakes, because they can beat all the other players at the current stakes.... but can't beat the rake.

To prove this further, imagine the rake went down to 2.5%. The rake paid in your example would total $400, but with your calculations your income would only be 792.

So even though $400 less has been taken in rake, your winnings only go up with 112? Where did the remainder go? (hint: look at your stack)

Steve:

Have you ever considered a multi VIP level Reload Bonus.

It could work along these lines.

January: Only current Bronze stars players can get a 50 dollar reload bonus which has to be cleared by earning SilverStar for 3 months straight Jan, Feb. March or earn 2250 first.

April: Silvers can get a 75 reload bonus for earning GoldStar for 3 straight months or by earning the Gold Monthly level times 3 earlier.

July: Golds can earn 100 reload bonus by making Platinum for 3 straight months or by getting the Platinum muliplier times 3 to insta clear.

October: Platinum can earn a 125 reload bonus for by earning 7500vpps for 3 straight months or by clearing 22500VPPs.

Players would have to be in the required VIP level on each of these days to take part. This type of promo would encourage players to move the VIP levels and could potentially soften up some of the games that most of us play.

Supernovas could get a reload bonus of 100 after each 100kvpp's which is cleared at a 20 dollar for 20k vpp rate to encourage us to keep up the grind.

btw it's Jan so we need a 100 reload to get us to 100k.

I was in and excited to go for SNE for the 3rd straight year.

Not looking likely anymore, especially since the rake was already insane at my game (100nl cap FR mostly) doubt it is going for long this year.

I can see why WC is more 'fair' than dealt... but don't see how that justifies stars just taking the massive amount of 'extra' money it produces... You guys really that broke stars? This definitely DEFINITELY cheapens the value of SNE that we earned in good faith last year.

changes to WC didn't really seem to affect me much. not "chasing" elite or anything but will probably have enough volume game selecting 1/2-25/50 this year that i'll rack up @ least a milli. gl all

About those guys with 200$ Ongame has lots of skins where even the basic signups gets good effective rakeback through points(or did a few years ago) that way all the -2 to -10ptbb losing fish stayed on and kept playing most days since they received almost 2ptbb back in points. They are a lot of fish i remember from 3 years ago that are still playing almost daily on ongame, a lot more than on stars. That 40% back they get to play just 5 or 10k hand per month is what keeps them coming back so much.

+1 for someone who hovers from low gold to platinum. like this

Steve, I'm not sure if the Stars VIP Level Calculator is correct, but when I put in my new details, then even playing 24 hours a day every day I'm going to have a problem reaching SNE for a 5th consecutive year with my new 1 table at a time limit.

^ lol +1

Can we please be allowed to play >1 table again, it's been a day since the strike, which obviously no one is going to attempt it again. Some non-striking mass tablers were banned on toilet breaks too.