Well i mean ppl who activly discuss in this thread - steve hasnt replied to anything so far :/

i have very clearly stated what your position is (you have yet to say how I am wrong on this because I'm not so you can't.) I understand it.I just completely disagree with it.In all of your pointless babbling you have not once explained how player a getting credit for (and consequnetly rewards/rakeback) players b's rake paid isn't leeching.

Sorry anyone who disgrees with you isn't a troll.

dealt punishes fish the most so i don't think your point holds much water
in fact lots of fish wins lots of pots because they play almost every hand

what makes you say that?

I can't tell if this is serious? Stars slightly flattens the reward system and there's talk of a strike. Imagine how this thread would go if it was the same for everyone? I definitely think it's right that higher volume players get higher rakeback, but I can see why Stars wants to adjust the system.

If we're talking about a 25% reduction in rakeback for some, surely that means that some of the nittiest SNE players were receiving close to or over 100% using a WC method of calculation. It's all very well saying "I raked x00k last year" but if you are really nitty once you consider pokerstars overheads you might have been a net loss for the company after rakeback.

whats the highest % rakeback (ballpark) people are getting using wta?

and we're moving away from dealt.. Fish buying more pokerstars t-shirts with their VPPs can only be good for the games. What is concerning is that our loss is greater than their gain due to VPP multipliers. That is the main problem here imo, not the pointless WTA vs. WC argument that we (regs) will never win.

You are a troll, sir. And that is a fact.

also the idea of poker players joining in the occupy movement is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure we're the 1%.

Really? After switching to WC?

Going from 4.5% to 2% is 56% rakeback up front.

How many regs, especially after Stars goes to WC are going to be getting the volume at a high enough stake to get more than 56% rb?

Answer: only SNE.

You are grossly overestimating the percentage of regs making 56% rb at Stars, even now, and next year that percentage will be much smaller with WC.

There are tons of Stars regs who have never even seen 40%.

wow you are beyond slow

For all of you that are saying rake went up you are wrong... The rake % went from 5% to 4.5%... Thats a big difference as a lot of pots don't get to the maximum rake. Yes, rakeback will go down for most multitable grinders but so will your rake. I'd like to see some actual numbers on what it will look like before everyone completely slams the changes. I think people will be surprised at the results

Greg777:
Yeah but them switching to 2% rake (and smaller rakecap in same degree) would be a massive drop for their (PokerStars') income. Assuming both options are adjusted in a way that gives PS the same amount of money, rakeback certainly makes the game cheaper for regs than no bonuses whatsoever and slightly lower rakecap.

What you are hoping for (lower rake without any bonuses) basically means giving fish the same rakeback/bonuses as regs.

Just look at the euro sites, in most networks highest volume regs are getting >80% rakeback with rake structures somewhat similar to PS. I'm sure those sites are still making way more rake than they would if they lowered the rake to half and didn't pay any bonuses, simply because big part of player pool is playing without rakeback.

This post is not directed to ponnzi, which isnt able to understand anything or does not want it but to avoid that others getting mislead by his trolling.


Both under the present method and new one:

- All players get credit for rake they did not pay, including the ones that have lower rewards/rakeback, at some point (more exactly: anytime they were dealt (2011) / contribute to the pot (2012) but they did not win the hand).

- Relatively speaking, some get more rewards back, some get less (which basically depends on volume and appropriate use of VIP club) resulting in different rakeback equivalent % and different efective rake paid (which is being "tweaked" with these changes, adding changes in the rake paid too).



I repeat: both are true and both applies to old and new rules. It is meaningless arguing about this on those terms and just a troll or a ******ed that doesnt grasp these concepts would do it...

Yeah this seems very likely. Increasing the rake by 50% on 25% of your hands means you pay 12.5% more rake correct. For a tag that drops like 20% rakeback, only drops like 7.5% in vpp/hand now. Which is agressively confusing players thinking its not that bad, but in reality they get killed even harder.

Can you (or anyone else) verify something for me?

I have added the custom stat above, and compared it to my existing "Rake Paid" stat:

<Stat GroupName="Default" ColumnName="Rake paid" ValueExpressions="sum(case when ph.netamountwon > 0 then PKH.RakeAmount else 0 end)/100.00 as RakePaid" Evaluate="RakePaid" ColumnHeader="Rake paid" ColumnFormat="$0.00" ColumnWidth="*" Tooltip="Rake paid by player" />

<Stat ColumnName="WCRake" ValueExpressions="SUM(pkh.rakeamount * (phmisc.postamountpreflop + phmisc.betamountpreflop + phmisc.callamountpreflop + COALESCE(flop.betamount + flop.callamount, 0) + COALESCE(turn.betamount + turn.callamount, 0) + COALESCE(river.betamount + river.callamount, 0)) * 1. / (pkh.potsize + pkh.rakeamount)) * 0.01 AS WCRake" Evaluate="WCRake" ColumnHeader="WC Rake" ColumnFormat="$0.00" ColumnWidth="*" Tooltip="Weighted Contributed Rake (including uncalled bets)" />

Looking at this month's results, I have paid $12,260 under the current rake system and $15,656 under the WCrake over 358k hands. Assuming the rake calculations are correct(??) does this in fact imply I'd be better off under the new system!?

(I can't believe that could be true. What am I missing?)

EDIT: Full Ring if that makes a difference.

EDIT 2:

Do you have PT3 ? Someone posted custom WC stat for PT3 before. I could do that, just not today. I am going to sleep already.
Btw difference that huge is not possible imo.

how were these examples arrived upon? the $700 number is hilariously misleading and arbitrary since they obv want people to think "oh $700 pots, those are rare/I don't play pots that big, so I won't be paying the $3 rake!" when in fact all pots $66.67 and above 5+ handed are raked at $3.

indeed even a regular grinder misinterpreted this at first (not hating on you)

seems like the examples above were clearly chosen to make it look like rake would mostly be going down. i guess we can't know for sure until people start playing under this new rake regime but you can be damn sure stars knows exactly how much more/less they will be raking. obviously they have done the math and checked it a couple more times than twice. of course they didnt come in here and tell you those numbers, they just gave you some hand picked "examples" and said "reduced from 5% to 4.5%, CANT BE BAD AMIRITE?!?!/!11"

do you have a custom stat for PT3 for WC rake??

tard all players will get credit for rake they did not pay in some pots under both of these methods
however tight players more than make up for it while loose players get screwed in the end which is what matters
you now have the audcacity to say this isnt leeching because sometimes loose players gets vpps for hands they fold? big ****ing deal. they would get a lot more (and what they deserve) if it was wta
as it stands now they are getting a lot less than they paid for

i would love to see the outrage if the situation were reversed
"i won 1000 pots paying rake of 3 dollars per pot but stars only gave me credit for paying 1800 dollars in rake"
funny how nobody gives a **** when the other guy gets screwed

most winning players are benefiting from a flawed system that allows them to leech rewards on the backs off looser players- they'll just be able to leech less now under wc

Moreover, this will still applies with the new rules, just tweaked under a different methology: higher volume players will still get more rakeback and will end paying less effective rake!

There is nothing idiotic about it and this isnt leeching other players at all. Its getting a bigger discount "per hand" over what they are paying for the service. Which makes sense since they use more the service and put more volume one.




Note: If there are some players that get more in rewards than what they pay in rake in the hands they win (overall, on the long term) then in such a case one may speak about "leeching" but only in this case. As I said before, I am not saying that there is none of such cases.

This is necessary for the longevity of online poker period. Fishes well survive more and the chances of them redepositing (coz they don't bust out so fast) will be higher.

i didnt say wc was ideal i said its fairer than dealt and people get leeched off of less
higher volume players are already getting huge mulipliers on vpps,which is fine, they should just be given on pots they pay rake

Note: If there are some players that get more in rewards than what they pay in rake in the hands they win (overall, on the long term) then in such a case one may speak about "leeching" but only in this case. As I said before, I am not saying that there is none of such cases.


I never said these people exist on stars (they may but they are probably few and far between.) What i said is these people wouldnt be the only ones leeching.

Hmm, I am not so sure... If you are comparing WC to dealt maybe.
But only because they are increasing effective rake for winning players, not because they intrinsically prefer dealt by itself.

WC just doesn't sounds "fair" in a game supposed to be a skill game. On a casino game maybe...