Thanks I got it working. Over my last 67500 hands I've paid 5881$ in rake under dealt method and 6672$ under WC.

Does this mean I'm in the minority?

26% of my hands played this year have been with five players. That means 26% of my hands have had a 50% rake increase, whereas many of my other hands stay the same, because I'm hitting the cap often regardless.

People defending the change to WC should stop comparing it to dealt. I can't remember one single person defending dealt in 2+2 discussions. Compare it to WTA ffs!

Yeah assuming that stat is accurate, I'd definitely say so. I just looked at mine and I paid 185K in rake this year, it would of been 175K under WC so basically only a 5% reduction in "rakeback" for me. I play mid/high stakes limit FWIW.

If you are referring to the rake, I made a simulation on a sample of real money hands that I played and applied the new rake structure and compared to the old one so I am basing in facts.

I did it to the stake/game I play most: FL2/4 6max.

The total rake is sufereing an increase of 10% with the new rake (it will be now of about 3.3BB/100 per player on average).

As I said, I cant talk about other games/stakes where I have no data neither I did such simulation.

Mine is all 200cap and I'm for sure one of the more loose regs.

If I could sig this post so it showed up at the end of every post I ever made, I would.

Not sure what stakes you are playing but for the bold part of your post to be true you need to hit the rake cap in every single raked pot. I am sure that is true at NL1K+ but at those stakes I would doubt you care too much about rake anyway. For lower stakes your statement is plain wrong.

So I guess I won't even think about going for SNE in future. Well done stars..

WTA is the only fair system. But it may not be the best practical long-term system. While grinders/SNs/SNEs were the biggest gainers with dealt, only PS seems to gain much with WC. I prefer a showdown system where players seeing a showdown would equally share rakeback, or WTA with no showdown.

This. I've read through most of the thread and it seems like playing HU or 6 max won't change at all, playing 3 and 5 handed you get totally screwed, and playing 4 handed you get a huge bonus... did PS really F up this bad or is there something I'm not understanding? Also seems like all the FR players also get screwed if they are playing below ~25 vpip. A new thread done by someone who feels like taking the time to break it all down would be pretty awesome. I just feel like I must be missing something because PS seems like they would come up with a better rake structure that is equally or more profitable for them and more attractive to their customers than what it appears to be.

Also wondering if PS or Steve really gives half a **** about any of this. Any comments or reaction to the responses to your OP Steve?

May-June probably? The real benefits of being SNE comes the next year you make it when your RB (or fpp multiplier) starts making a difference. Grinding 1M vpps with a 37% or less % RB (Supernova) is not really that funny or a great deal tbh. I'm 23 and I have a wife and a kid to support whom suffered from my absense for 365 days so we could get a better life deal in 2012 and this happens so I obviously feel pretty deceived since I heard of these changes early in this month and obv was too late to abandon the sne race.

What am I going to do now? I guess I'll have to play (if the changes continue after the protest) and see the numbers for an X period of time and if it isn't that worth it I guess I'll just reduce tables, focus more (since I don't consider myself a nit, and actually spewed a lot because of playing LAG but would lose a lot of pots because of playing so many tables and not paying proper attention), have a better table selection (this year I just sat down at any table, didn't care if there wasn't any fish cause my goal was not to have the sickest winrate out there) have some free time and start bumhunting here and there If I were to play cash games, or maybe just go back to MTTs where I have a fairly decent ROI even removing my Sunday Million win, so yeah, that would be my way of adjusting as MDD previously said I was not able to do.

And I'm sure I'm not the only former 24tabler to adjust to this change as many others will see what options fit them better. And I DO think the so called nits will get way better if they remove tables.

Sorry for this long post.

Yes, it would be very useful to get a comparison of rake new versus old across the board.

Not charts with rake, but simulations over a sample of real hands played. Charts are misleading and what happens to the total rake taken depends greatly on the distribution of pot sizes and number of players.


I made it for one stake/game (and I play a range of 5 stakes) and I cant give more time to this for the moment to check the others stakes leave alone try to figure it to stakes/games where I have little to none information but with several players contributing to it, it would be easier.

Otherwise we will have to wait until 1/2 January to figure the overall scenario...

Thanks It looks like it's working well:

WC=23370.06 and Dealt=33560.73

I'm gonna lose 30.36% in bonuses (my vpip is 18.5 at 6 max).

If English isn't your first language then your posts make a lot more sense.Your argument is that since nobody is getting over 100 pct rakeback using wta method then nobody is leeching.This is a completely flawed and illogical statement. I understand perfectly what you are saying- i just don't agree with it because it's idiotic.

almost everyone was defending dealt
i agree wta would be best

There's really nothing all that idiotic about it at all. I don't have an issue with the overall principle of a site taking steps to give more rewards to fish and less to multi-tabling grinders, but if you're going to say that anyone getting more than "their share" of RB is leeching, then I guess you don't favour the site being able to customize rewards in any way whatsoever?

Once the site rakes the money, it's up to them how to distribute any rewards, and very few distribute them perfect evenly. Calling anyone who benefits more than anyone else a leech is a little silly IMO.

I rly dont effin understand why theres no Pokerstars rep to talk to in this forum.
Things could be so easy

software just updated - have they tweaked it in a bid to guard themselves against the sitouts?

Wait, what?

There's about 10 of them.

Perhaps I'm missing some sarcasm here, considering one of the reps started this thread.

I hope FTP is paying attention to all of this.

If they come back with 4-5% rake like everyone else they may get 15-25% of the market, but if they came back and did something creative like 2% rake across the board, no rakeback, no VIP, (much less overhead), and offered regular deposit bonuses for the rec players, they would probably scoop 60-70% of the market.

Gregg777:
Lower rake and no rakeback is worse for the regs. The beauty of rakeback deals for regs is that fish pay more rake than all the regulars.

Sites would make much less money with half the rake and no bonuses than what they make giving regs 50-70% and fish 0-10%.

I will not waste my time explaining anything since it is pretty clear by now that would be wasted time.

What I am posting now is just a clarification that my english is good enough and that the problem is really you, for whatever reason or for whatever is your purpouse in this topic.



You get it all wrong post after post be it cause you are severly ******ed or cause you pretend to create confusion about what is being posted...

Go trolling somewhere else or at least stop messing with useful and clear information!




For any other person reading this, what I wrote and what this troll is saying about what I wrote are two quite different things (anyway, what he is saying is pretty badly articulated on this context and makes little to no sense).

I've had enough of hearing about WTA as if it's some kind of fantastically fair method.

It's simply a case of arguing over whether the rake is taken off at the end of the hand or throughout the hand. I would argue that the money put in the pot is effectively being immediately raked, but I can see why people argue that it's taken off the winners earnings.

Basically I think there's little to choose between the two in terms of actual "fairness". You have to accept when you make a bet that some percentage of that bet is going to go to the house. In a way I see little difference between tournaments and cash games - the only clear difference is that the amount of rake to pay is immediately evident as you enter.

This forum is (largely) filled with winning players so I can see why we all want WTA. But I think Stars will never do it as it seems to punish the fish. I'd like to avoid punishing the fish if possible so I'm pretty happy with WC instead of WTA.

I think he was referencing a lack of response, however, not hearing anything in response to us is pretty standard - Steve has to read the thread, take the information to his bosses, and get instructions from them before he can even think about crafting a response with any substance.