Dear Pokerstars representatives,
I'm starting this thread as a petition for Pokerstars to consider making changes (reductions) to their current PLO cash game rake structure in order to ensure the preservation of the PLO cash games.
Members of 2+2 are welcomed to chime in and let their voices be heard. Therefore, please take this opportunity to open a dialogue with Pokerstars and make suggestions/ask questions in a civilized manner. Please post your worries, ideas and suggestions in a clear format for everyone to discuss.
I would like to ask the Pokerstars representatives the following questions:
1) Are there any planned rake structure changes for the PLO cash game tables? If yes, when do you foresee them taking effect?
2) Why does Pokerstars rake approximately double the rake at PLO tables (in bb/100 terms) compared to NLHE? (NL100 / PLO100, source: PTR rake analysis tables, the 2p2 forums)
This seems unfair to me for lack of a better word. As a moderator of 2p2 SSPLO and HSPLO subforums, I can deliver you the message that the high amount of rake paid is constant topic of discussion and complaints, and an increasing amount of players are considering going back to the NLHE/other tables to avoid the high rake. This is not good.
The rake is becoming a major issue at small stakes PLO since the competition is getting increasingly tougher and many players opting to buy in the for the minimum (30bb) make it very hard to eek out a profit, even if you are a talented player. This is becoming an issue also at midstakes, where the game is becoming increasingly shortstack-heavy.
Please click here to find of thread of the ongoing discussion regarding the minimum buy-in at Pokerstars PLO cash tables.
I play currently $0.50/1 (PLO100) on Pokerstars (and other sites). Playing "standard TAG" preflop and postflop style I pay ~10 bb/100 in rake. For more loose players this number goes to 15 bb/100 and higher. These are very high numbers if any player wants to make long-term profit.
It would take me approximately 200k hands to reach Supernova status which would enable me to really start enjoying the Pokerstars VIP club benefits. I will play this amount in a matter of months if I want to, but this is not the case for a vast number of recretional players. They have to pay absurdly high amounts of rake and most of them probably don't get to enjoy the VIP club benefits since they don't play enough to reach Supernova status, end result being that Pokerstars banks a lot of money at the recretional players expense especially. (FWIW I'm not complaining about the WC rake method, I believe it's the correct one). Many of these players opt to buy in for the minimum (30bb at the moment), and assuming they rake 15 bb/100, they have lost their initial buy-in as rake in 200 hands! This combination of rake, buy-in and top heavy VIP club system virtually guarantee that the recretional player will never win money. (Naturally the amount which they buy-in with is their own choice, I'm just giving an example here)
On the other hand, this is not a concern only for the recretional player. Competition is getting increasinly fierce at the PLO tables, therefore edges are getting smaller and thus making it more and more difficult to make a living at the PLO cash tables. After all for players the main motivation is to make money. Between the possibility of buying in for 30bb which increasing amount of players use and high rake, players are starting to play tighter not to pay extra rake which leads to games which are significantly less fun to play. PLO is a superfun game to play, but at the Pokerstars tables more so than other sites, the players are starting to play more tight due to the rake structure and top-heavy VIP benefit system in order to adjust to current conditions.
PLO is a very high variance game, which I assume is one the reasons for Pokerstars to keep high rake environment at the PLO tables. I don't understand this argument. High variance -> high risk, both positive and negative. Some players run well and can move up in stakes, some players are stuck in certain stake because of lack of rungood (or talent) in order to move up permanently in stakes.
High rake structure certainly doesn't help this case! Quite the opposite, it will silently drop out many starting PLO players without even them knowing what hit them!
Also the technology used for NLHE and PLO is exactly the same, so I don't understand how it is justifiable to rake one game more in terms of bb/100 than the other.
I aknowledge that Pokerstars PLO rake structure is very competitive in the current market environment compared to their competition, but that doesn't mean that it is a durable, long lasting solution for the preservation of the games. Therefore the players and I hope that Pokerstars opens a dialogue with the players to see what can be done about this situation.
I would appreciate if Pokerstars would take part in this thread and have an open dialogue with the community about the topic at hand. This way both sides would have a better understanding of each other.
Many thanks and best regards,
napsus
----
I'm taking the freedom to quote recent discussion among players regarding the PLO cash game rake to get the discussion going:
(some of the posts include discussion from the minimum buy-in thread, which was linked above)
Quote:
I'm SN in PLO midstakes. I've read and thought quite a bit before stating opinion.
PLO rake needs a change to reflect the fact noflop nodrop is barely used in PLO. The higher relative rake of PLO discourage regulars from playing each other when table breaks, among other things.
6max buy-in should be 50-100BB. Removing ante tables would be alright in my book but that's the extreme option, to raise liquidity and extend fish lifetime.
HU should be King of the Hill, about 5 different players max waiting per limit. More extreme option is remove HU (reasons similar to ante tables). The 50-bumhunter lobby is a disaster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daut44
I will give my opinions on all of the games/buyins in the next post i make, but i think the main thing that players should be seeking is lowered rake. I dont mean to completely derail the thread, but I was typing up a post and it very quickly became mostly about rake and how much we are paying (especially in cap/shallow) so I felt it was germane to the discussion and needed to be addressed.
The rake is absolutely absurd at midstakes. I am paying 7bb/100 in rake at 1/2 and 4.6bb/100 in rake at 2/4 and im sure there are looser players than I am paying even more. When so many of the games are cap or shallow and the regular games have infinite 30bb shortstacks in them, the result is an unsustainable poker economy.
I think the rake needs to be lowered across the board from .02/.05 all the way up to 5/10.
http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/rake/
Imagine being a .1/.25 player and paying $2 in rake every time you played a $50 pot. They must be paying like 10-15bb/100 in rake. Thats just insanity. The edges are getting smaller, the stacks are getting shorter and there are so many all ins in PLO that its just not fair to rake that much. The average potsize in PLO is significantly higher than the average potsize in NL at the same stakes, so the midstakes PLO players end up paying WAY more than the midstakes NL players. this is even more true for the lowstakes guys.
I think its fair to have the rake be 3-4bb/100. When you add in fpps or rakeback the overall rake would be between 2-2.5bb/100 which is not that bad. Compare that to about 4.5-5bb/100 for me at 1/2. The result is way more winners and people losing way less money. I think in the long run this would benefit the sites as well as right now they are just leading to people at best breaking even.
Quote:
Originally Posted by napsus
I got annoyed by the rake again with this ongoing discussion, so sorry that I'm slightly derailing this discussion. Below is the graph of my PLO hands on Stars lately. The blueline is 100% rakeback, i.e. the area between the lines is how much rake I've paid.
For 60bb pot Stars rakes pretty damn close to max, $2.8 out of $3 (4.55% of the pot...had the min BI been 50bb and pot thus 100bb, the rake would have been 2.95%, a substantial relative decrease). This severely limits my earning potential, but pockets Stars almost to the full. I think this illustrates that the situation even at PLO100 is completely unbearable, both rake-wise and minimum buy-in wise. The former should be radically decreased (PLO rake bb/100 at low stakes is ~2x higher than NLHE) and the latter should be increased to give at least somebody a chance to make some dough out of this game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shimmy
+1 Daut and Napsus. The ridiculously high rake is far more important for the health of the games than some technicality over ratholing/min-buyins, and I have no idea why Stars don't acknowledge it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blopp
Yeah rake is absurd on SSPLO and should be changed, but the 30bb vs 50bb issue at hand is very important as well, far from just a technicality to nitpick you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antchev
Effective rake is formed by true rake and average pot size which is in correlation with the min buy in. So, rake discussion is completely in line with the minimum buy in discussion when it comes to low and midstakes and long-term health of the games.
Low stakes get absolutely shafted because they pay the highest amount of rake in big blinds and it's really, really hard to achieve Supernova+ status at these stakes so they can get a significant amount of rakeback. The effective rake at low stakes is just insane. Because of that it makes sense low stakes to have the highest min buy in.
As I already mentioned, I understand the demand of a shallower game at 10/20+ and since the effective rake is not so high at these stakes, there can be some kind of a shallow offering which discourages ratholing.
Micro stakes already got 50bb minimum buy in and a different rake structure a.k.a. lower rake. It's time to take care of the other levels.