It was posted earlier by PT guy. Check the PT software forum- I imagine it's there.

$700 could well have been a typo instead of $70.

Im srsly confused right now

Reposting this, cause I can.

in terms of fairness, WTA > WC > Dealt, im sure everyone agrees with that.

the problem is people believe stars is doing WC to make more money because the people who benefit have a 1 or 1.5x multiplier instead of a 3.5 or 5x multiplier.

i could not care less about the vip system changes. im just really really mad about paying a lot more rake in midstakes PLO games. i think thats pretty ****ed up considering how much is already raked from those games. 8bb/100 of rake is just insane, stars is really gonna make it more?

wp stars.

The thing is as i see it WC is actually a fairer way to allocate vpps/rakeback.

I understand that pokerstars will make money from the change, but it could be argued that the change is at the expense of the proportion of players who were receiving more than their fair share anyway. multitablers/grinders will be earning less, but not because they are multitablers per se, but because this way of playing lends itself to a tighter, more measured style of play. The same can be said of the vast majority of winning players and regs. It's important to remember it is entirely within your power to choose to play 80/50, and were it profitable to do so far less people here would be up in arms at the changes. The fact that in general tighter play is more profitable is just a strategic precept of the game of poker, the profitability of the player isn't really the concern of a system which is based solely on rewarding rake generation. (Pokerstars is ultimately a business, not a buddy trying to gain you wealth.)

It is absolutely fairer to payback points in proportion to how much money was directly contributed by the player. Whether you feel high volume players are rewarded enough is another matter entirely.

Having said that, the raising of rake for 5-handed play is absolutely a cash grab and some questions have to be raised about pokerstars' decision there

Is it possible for someone to produce a more accurate WC rake stat for HEM? Surely it can't be that difficult (can it? )

8bb /100 really sick o,O

Maybe it's so they can do a u-turn on the 5-handed thing a few days from now and say "look, we listened and changed it back!" in the hope that everybody will forget about the other changes...

Juk

EDIT: This is pretty much what Party did a bit back: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...e-cap-1088056/

Chinz

I agree you, but most regs never see anywhere near the rakeback you are referring to.

It would be worse for high volume/stakes regs, but it will be better for most low volume/stakes regs, and this group of players is much much larger than the high volume/stakes winning regs.

Also, regarding your statement above, most low stakes regs are fish. So to reword your statement: What you are hoping for basically means giving low stakes regs the same rakeback/bonuses as high stakes regs.

That is exactly what I am saying, and because there are so many tens of thousands more of them, then there are of the high stakes/volume regs, they would prefer 2%.

If you still don't agree, here's an example:

A guy on PTRs biggest winners for the entire year at 50NL made $7385 and played 149,000 hands.

Using Stars rake calculator his VIP rewards are $1089.

His rake paid was $7216, if it had been only 2% he would have paid $3174.

If you were him, which would you prefer? 2% rake or Stars rewards?

You are right about high stakes/volume players, but most regs are not.

i was thinking this as well

You are starting to aknowledge what is really being said and that is a step in the good direction. There is hope for you after all and my time was not entirely lost...


As I said before, I never used the term "screw/screwed/screwing" at any point in this discussion neither applied it to any player style/type.

Moreover, I am not discussing the fairness of changing from dealt to weighted contributed.

As I pointed to you on my first reply to you, I am discussing the effect on overall rake paid by players namely on the stake I know better. I am not concerned about % rakeback being tweaked, I am concerned about everyone (across the board, whatever style/type of player) end paying more rake with these changes at least at the stake I play mostly and about the one I put data on this topic.

Unfortunately, you have been trolling around my posts all this time and messing with my message, arguing about things I did not even talk about, altering what really I said (at some point the opposite even) and babbling around pointless and meaningless arguments per se.

I hope such behavior of yours ends here.


The argument about "leeching" is not this at all but this:

If a player ends effectively paying rake to the site then he is not leeching anyone.

If a player gets more in rewards than what he pays in rake then one may talk about "leeching": this hypotetical player not only is not paying nothing for the service, he is receiving some (its extremely unlikely at the games/stakes I play but I aknowledged the possibility that such cases may exist).



Apart from such a case, what happens is different discount rates over what one is paying which makes sense given different frequency of use of the service (mainly). Said % will be tweaked with this but still there will be different discount rates with these changes.




Finally and again, my posts are about the fact that at the tables I know better everyone will be paying more effective rake, from loosers to tighter players across the board (the increase will be bigger on tighter players and to a lesser extent on looser players but those also will be paying more since the increase on the rakeback does not cover for the increased rake taken up front).

Completely agree with all of this.

This is a myth, illusion, lie...

You either give players rakeback based on the rake they pay (WTA as pokerstars refers to it) or you use an arbitrary method.

No arbitrary method is any more or less fair than any other. I don't know where the idea weighted contributed is more fair than dealt came from.

Weighted contributed was created by the sites so they could pay less rakeback.

antz,

The only time a player does not get more or less in rewards than he pays in a dealt rake system is if every player at the table goes all in with the exact same stack sizes.

Any other scenario except for above, and someone is contributing less, and someone is contributing more, yet everyone receives the same.

Therefore, someone is paying more, and someone is paying less.

It is not hypothetical, it happens over 99.99% of the time.

So you think players who continually donk off money without winning a pot are contributing nothing to the rake? To the site??

I would like those players to have some sort of reward so that they come back. If you contribute money into the pot, a percentage of that money will be raked. Weighted contributed actually makes a lot of sense and Steve's arguments against WTA are somewhat valid.

It doesn't matter what the underlying rake system is. Don't get bogged down in technical arguments about the fairness of one system over another. The real issue is how this change will affect the income of people. It seems that in most cases it will hurt the income of regular cash game players.

wta is the fairest
any artitrary method that is close to wta is fairer than one that isnt

If they want to give everyone a flat rakeback % then fine. Lets switch to Weighted contributed and give everyone 50% rakeback.

They are doing this to assign more of the rake to low level VIP players and pay out less rakeback overall.

The VIP system offers little reward for low volume fish. Maybe if you want to improve the rewards for low volume players then increase rewards for low volume players.

Thats not what stars wants to do. They want to encourage high volume players to play, yet they don't want to payout as much in rewards as they are currently.

Its a money grab. Like I said, you can have a discussion about changes that could be made that might be beneficial but don't post in this thread under the assumption that this is one of those changes and that stars is trying to do anything beneficial for anyone.

They'd assign none of the rake to none of the players if they could find a good way to spin it.

This, this, this.

This may as well be two guys standing in an alley arguing if their attacker has a 9mm or a .45 pointed at them, ignoring the fact that they are being mugged.

ha ha pretty good analogy

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...anges-1145349/

they are valid if you fail hard at poker/life.

The quote IS NOT about someone paying more and someone paying less.

The piece you quoted here means that some hypotethical player pays a negative effective rake (the effective rake is the rake payed up front less the rewards the player gets back, ie, R-RB).

Being accounted for more rake than the actualy paid doesnt automatically means that. It would if RB% was of 100% or another very high percentage close enough to 100%. Not at all if the RB is like 50% or 60% and it is being accounted for 20% more than the real one (do the math, the player is still paying effective rake).



Moreover, I aknowledge that different players pay different effective rakes (the thing you are apperently talking about). This happens now and still will happen in 2012 (although "tweaked" to different percentages but still different % via VIP club rules).

At the stakes I play "never" happens. But I guess that by now you already know that you misread it completly...



If not, I have a previous post (one with a bold in Rake and other in Rakeback) where I explain the rake, the rakeback and who pays what. To understand that quote you need to understand both and perceive what effective rake is (ie, what one ends paying in rake to the site even after accounting for rewards).