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)

I think just about everybody agrees that this is a must-do for the long term health of the games, that or swapping to a all together different profit model than per-hand rake. Unfortunately I don't think the hold-up is Stars not understanding that they're killing off their games, but rather they feel like their future is already very uncertain so it's in their best interest to get all they can from the games today even if it destroys them tomorrow.

In NVG there's a thread on a recent supreme court decision in Russia, for instance, that ISPs are now supposed to proactively to block all gambling and other illegal sites. It's unclear how stringently that will be enforced, if at all, but it goes to show the problem. If the Russians were banned even a site like Stars would be extremely hard hit and potentially unable to maintain enough liquidity to even keep certain games and stakes running constantly. It's also unlikely that the judgement caught Stars with their pants down. I think it's a given that similar legal wrangling is ongoing in other countries as well.

As such I think the real challenge is not convincing Stars that lowering the rake is good for their long term future, but rather convincing them that they have a long term future! And that seems a herculean task.

We did manage to lower the rake on small stakes PLO earlier this year. However, my position then and my position now remains the same. PLO is a completely different game than NLH and needs its own rake structure.

You're welcome, stars. Buy something nice with it.

Havent read the OP but what is there to discuss?
Its simple fact that the rake is redicoulus too high (esp in lower limit games). Its also fact that at some point they will reduce it significantly because nobody is going to win if they dont. Now if that happens tomorrow or in 10 years I dont know.
But its for sure that something just has to be done. I mean I played that highroller scoop PLO event or whatever it was and the total rake for the tourney was 40k$... If its a lower buyin even the rake might be like just 4k. Its really carzy. Now I know that a tournament and not a cashgame example but it is even worse in cashgames.
Only because live casinos take that much out of the pot doesnt mean that a website has to do the same. Casinos have much higher expanses on 100 dealt hands (the room, personell) While the cost to deal 100 hands in the pokerstars client are close to zero.

A very well written post, napsus. It's this kind of constructive dialogue that the customers (2+2 representing the community of players) and the provider (PokerStars) should engage in.

I am sure that PokerStars, as a company that has shown to possess much more vision than its competitors in the industry, acknowledges the fine balance between maximizing short term profit and preserving the longevity of the games (i.e. maximizing long term profit), so I'm confident their high level representatives are open to having this debate and listening to the voices and concerns of their most valuable customers.

They didn't reveal anything yet.

Perhaps PS is gonna listen to you tomorrow. Of course I hope it's not gonna be like last year's fiasco.

But Pokerstars's favorite saying is: things which you do not hope happen more frequently than things which you do hope.

I refuse to play PLO on Stars because of the ludicrous rake. If they adjusted it to a more reasonable amount I would come back in a heartbeat.

Signed.

Rake= (Rake/big blind)/( total hands/100)

your rake= (96.85/0.1)/(5113/100)= 18.94 bb/100

It's beyond absurd.

I totally agree on this, lowering the rake is good for everyone incl Stars. Its almost impossible for a good but not superstar reg to break out of smallstakes cause of the rake and to me it seems simply unfair. Stars want them to become pros that might even turn into SNE's.

I sit down with $10 at plo8 and after 250 hands (28 orbits) my stack is lost to the 16bb/100 rake.
I sometimes steal a few blinds which helps me last another 2 orbits.
It would be really helpful for me and other recreational players to get a break and enjoy the game for a little while longer.

Is it even beatable (I honestly dont know) or is it a glorified casinogame?

Im ****ing stunned how the rake can be this high

You can basically be a 17bb/100 winner and still be lose at 2bb/100 because of the rake LOL!

Obviously it would be easily beatable for someone like you as the average skill of players at those stakes is quite low. But for someone who is new to the game and wants to learn PLO cash games, studying really hard to improve and starting with a bankroll of just a few hundred dollars - getting good enough to gain a >20bb/100 edge to the field is going to be really hard - in practice almost impossible.

I went from 90% volume in plo to a 10% in the last months.
I tried and tried to get the hell out of the micros and I couldn't despite most of the players being worse players than me.

Sure there are some winning players, but I'm more convinced than ever that many players that won at a stake and moved up to mid/high stakes was because of some sort of heater.

Changes to rake structure should be considered. Not only for plo but for all games (my opinion is that players should pay based on time and # of tables they play, but fair enough, I understand we have more urgent problems to solve and Stars would never do something like that being the market leader)


So yeah, something urgent must be done to the PLO rake structure.

Hi napsus,

thanks for this discussion. A few months back or maybe a year back the same discussion was taking place and there were meetings about it with pokerstars on IOM. I believe the conclusion was that stars showed large samples of data that the SSPLO games still got beat with high winrates, therefore they don't see a point in changing the rake structure. I don't say this is fair. I absolutely dont think its fair if high stakes players pay under 1bb/100 in rake and smallstake players have to pay AT LEAST 10bb/100 in rake and have to fight for 30-40% rakeback while a high stakes player get that rakeback without sweating. My question is what do you think Stars is going to do now. is there changed anything? Do you think the overall winrates in small stakes went that much down this year?

Additional post i found: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...55&postcount=6

Is it even realistic to assume they will listen and lower the rake ?
I for sure would not place a bet on it.

cocktails,
obviously I have no hard data to back my view, Stars has it.
Those high winrates are largely due to variance -> you run well -> you move up and never come down -> lower stake winrate stays high.
but what I don't understand is that how does this justify very high rake? what does variance or player winrate have to do with it? it's not like everyone is moving up, the rest end up staying at the same stake for longer periods of time.
Pokerstars is providing us (PLO players) exact same service as NLHE, yet we pay ~double at certain stakes (nl100/plo100). It just does not compute in my big head.

Yes that sucks, i didnt know we pay more than NLH Players. I guess i never thought about rake so much as it didnt affect me yet.

But whatever makes me more money im PRO that thing. GO NAPSUS!

I completely agree, last year i was quite amazed that nobody cared anymore after the meeting. It seems like there wasn't a really good, hard and tuff negotiator to represent us, IDK. But they probably will use this same argument. Pokerstars can lower the rake, but why the hell would they do that if low stakes games are sustainable and they have the lowest rake already in the business?

About that variance thing, they showed large samples of data, not a few 100k hands i believe but tens of millions, i might be wrong.


I am asking you because they won't make it easy on you. I am absolutely not in favor of pokerstars, dont attack me lol. I am just playing devils advocate. I think a lot of stuff is wrong in the pokerworld right now and stars has to step up.

I'm not attacking you

Thanks for your input. I can't remember this data anymore unfortunately.

I realize that it's a tough situation, but I'm also worried about the long term prospects, since people are working hard on their games. We get more and more strat posts on SSPLO and our beginners thread is flooded. It will get tougher as times goes by and I believe it's good to open / keep a dialogue with Pokerstars. There is no downside. Pokerstars does as they wish, they have a monopoly effectively but they have to listen to their clients as well. It's just normal good business habit to keep discussions open.

...and now back to tables to earn Stars and hopefully myself some $$$


EDIT: i mean who knows, maybe as a result of this dialogue there will be a solution that is satisfactory to both parties. just keep ideas coming.

I'd hope that the argument of stars was not that there are still winners on SSPLO... Ever heard of plo variance?

Will chime in later with my thoughts, but jeah PLO is raked very excessively at low and midstakes. A lot of stakes are no longer beatable (expectation wise offcourse, anyone can run good) without massive bumhunting.

1) No, there are no rake structure changes planned for any games or game types at this time.

2) The average amount of rake taken per hand in PLO is higher than in similar stakes NLHE games because there is more action in PLO.

Pot Limit Omaha is raked using the exact same rake structure as No Limit Hold'em. We do not set rake in big blinds per hand, nor in bb/100. As seen in our published rake tables, rake is determined by:
-Betting type (NL/PL vs FL)
-Number of players dealt into the hand
-Whether or not the hand ended on the first round of betting. (no flop, no drop)
-The stakes/blinds
-The size of the pot

You appear to be comparing rake taken for NLHE and PLO play with the same betting type, stakes/blinds, and likely same/similar number of players dealt into the hand. The reason the rake taken per hand is on average higher at PLO than NLHE would then be that there are
-fewer hands ending preflop, and
-larger pots

While you can argue that the rake structure is imperfect, it is not by accident that these characteristics of a game result in higher rake. These same game characteristics result in:
-a more exciting and interesting game
-larger winrates for the better players
-fewer hands dealt per hour

Cash game rake structures have been standardized as a percentage of the pot up to a cap (hopefully!) and 'no-flop, no-drop' since long before I first played poker in a casino 14 years ago. It seems intuitively clear as to why this system developed and flourished. When winning players have more edge, losing players are having more fun, and the house is able to rake fewer hands per hour, this method results in a higher rake. When the action is less profitable and interesting and hands are being dealt more quickly, each hand is raked less. I don't know the complete history, but this sounds like a system that was developed with input from both poker rooms and players to be reasonably fair to both parties.

It's no secret that over the last 8 years, the average online poker cash game has become tighter, resulting in fewer flops seen and lower average pot sizes. Rake per hand, and rake in bb/100, has dropped significantly as a result. I hope that you would agree with me that if we had kept our rake structure the same, this reduction in rake in bb/100 would not mean that we are charging 'less rake'. We are in fact charging 'less rake' in many/most games due to changing our rake structure, but this has resulted in some additional reduction in rake in bb/100 beyond the changes due to tighter play.

I understand it's quite common for poker players to gauge rake and profits in bb/100. I used to do the same myself as a player. However, this measurement is simply inappropriate for the purpose of evaluating rake structures in two completely different games.

I am happy to answer above the two questions that you have posed. As always, I will also read all PokerStars related threads here and consider the ideas and opinions that are posted. However, I am not going to engage here in detailed or extended discussions about rake.

We have discussed rake with elected player representatives at our twice annual player meetings and will continue to do so at future meetings if representatives wish.

^^ Meh that was expected.

Don't want to sound like a whining cry baby, but it's about time the poker community unite and form a world organization (a federation like FIFA or FIA) and people there works for the real good of the game. Almost anything in the online world can be free. I really believe poker is no exception.
With the good will of the people that love the game and the eventually rakeless games it could be done.


I will stick to hold'em till that day comes.

Just registered in order to post ITT.

CG PLO is my preferred form of poker, and I used to play frequently at low stakes on Pokerstars. However, although being an overall winner, I recently decided to stop playing due to the absurd amount of rake paid. It simply does not make any sense to play when you pay >15bb/100 in rake (at 0.10/0.25 and 0.25/0.50). Pokerstars might find the level of rake justified, but they do lose customers due to it. I am living proof of that.