Thanks to the 5 players who joined us on the Isle of Man for our PLO rake player meetings over the past 36 hours.

Effective July 1st, we are reducing rake for PL/NL Omaha (all variants) from $0.01/$0.02 through $0.10/$0.25, as per the below table:



We are proud to offer what we believe to be lower rake than any major competitor. This change makes our rake even lower for microstakes PLO. In addition, players at NL/PL games up to $0.05/$0.10 will continue to earn rewards faster due to their higher VPP multipliers compared to the 5.5x/6x offered at other games:

$0.01/$0.02: 10x
$0.02/$0.05: 8.5x
$0.05/$0.10: 7x


Background
These meetings were held to continue discussion of PLO rake that took place during player meetings in April 2012 and April 2013. Participants were invited based on recommendations made by participants in the April 2013 meetings.

In the April 2012 and April 2013 meetings we reviewed with players the results for winning players at various different game types. Data showed that PLO players were winning at least as quickly as players in other games when VIP benefits were taken into account.

Because Omaha hands tend to reach the flop more often and have significantly larger average pots, more rake is taken per hand and thus more rewards are earned per hand. Rewards make up a much larger portion of a winning player's profits at PLO than at NLHE. It's more common at PLO for a successful player to be breakeven or losing at the tables but still have a sufficent winrate when taking rewards into account.

A minority of players earn our highest levels of rewards. For games at which top players rely on their rewards for a significant portion of their winrate, less frequent players find it difficult to earn a sustained long-term profit. We discussed in both April 2012 and April 2013 the possibility of making changes that wouldn't significantly alter the overall net rake taken at games but would make winning easier for players with low VIP status.

After evaluation of all options available, it was clear to us in both April 2012 and April 2013 that lowering both rake and VPP multipliers is the correct way to decrease the difference in results experienced by players of differing VIP status while keeping overall winrates the same. However, we knew that such a change would be very difficult to implement successfully.

Many players are more aware of reward levels than rake levels. Such reductions would affect their more visible rewards negatively, positively impacting only the less considered rake. Rewards would have to be decreased by a percentage multiple times larger than the percentage decrease for rake in order to balance the impact of the two changes. The result would likely be many disappointed players.

Additionally, both reduced rake and reduced VPP multipliers would make it more difficult to earn status. Players accustomed to earning certain VIP statuses would be disappointed to learn that it would take substantially more play, perhaps double or more, to earn the same VIP status.

Last but certainly not least, forum reaction has been negative in response to other combinations of changes that include both benefits and drawbacks for players. Our experience has taught us that even if such changes balance in favor of the players, the presence of any single component that impacts players negatively results in a strong negative reaction.

Even if the changes would result in theoretically better conditions for players, this would not do the site nor the players as a whole any good if players would be less happy as a result.

We decided that additional discussion was necessary with leaders of the PLO community. In the April 2013 meeting, we agreed to host additional meetings with such players.


June 2013 Meetings
We reviewed past findings with the players and listened to their input. Our prior conclusions still seem correct, and in fact match up well with data independently gathered and analyzed by players.

Between June and April meetings we took the opportunity to further discuss internally the challenges of implementing a VPP multiplier reduction along with a rake reduction. We came to the conclusion that such a change would simply not work, in large part due to the challenges listed above. We simply do not think that such a change would be peceived positively, nor would it result in a happier player base overall. The negative sentiment would likely overwhelm any benefits from the reduced importance of VIP Status in determining overall results.

The players brought with them some ideas for comparing rake levels at different games and stakes that were similar to some we had been considering internally over the past month or two. We look forward to maturing these ideas and completing data analysis based on the results. We will work in parallel with players, keeping in contact and sharing ideas along the way. Such work will take many months to complete.

For now, the evidence we have suggests that PLO games are healthy, though PLO winnings are more heavily dependent than NLHE winnings on VIP status. We will continue to evaluate regularly based on all available information, including any results of analysis completed using new methods.

We believe we already offer the lowest rake of any major site and that our VIP rewards are extremely competitive at a minimum and for many players the best around. We are also extremely proud of our software, customer service, game integrity, and segregation of player funds. We hope you share our belief that we are offering the best product for the lowest price.


Rake Change
The rake reduction announced today for microstakes PLO will go into effect on July 1. This reduction makes our already lowest rake even lower while maintaining the elevated VPP multipliers for these players.

We did consider reducing both rake and VPP multipliers for microstakes PLO, dropping the VPP multipliers to the 5.5x/6x amount used for higher stakes and all limit games. For the reasons mentioned above, we decided to simply reduce rake instead.


Looking forward
This is not an indication that we will be changing rake for other stakes of PLO. We do not currently have any such intentions. We will review the impact of this change in the coming months and consider the learnings when making future decisions about rake.

We look forward to continuing conversation with player representatives about PLO rake.

Rake Reduction

Its possible :||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Haha, yeah, some good news for a change. :-)

Cool, Poker Stars lowers rake, while Merge raises theirs.

PS Steve, do you have the numbers of what this will result in terms of rake in bb/100?

thanks Steve and Stars.
I don't play PLO (for now at least) but I'm glad to see that Stars cares about the players.

This gives us some hope that these player meetings do serve a purpose. Thx to the reps and Stars for helping to identify and act on a good part of the problem for PLO.

Quick question. Is there a mistake in the OP or am I misunderstanding something? You say the vpp multipliers have not been reduced at these stakes but then say players will earn at the following rates:

$0.01/$0.02: 10x
$0.02/$0.05: 8x
$0.05/$0.10: 6x

However the current rates taken from http://www.pokerstars.com/vip/earn/ are:

^^ Was just about to post the same, super sneaky if true

I can't see them doing anything underhand/sneaky to be honest. Its bound to be a mistake or misunderstanding.

I don't play PLO, but I seem to remember that PLO rake at $0.25/$0.50, $0.50/$1 and $1/$2 is too high as well from reading other posters.

Since pretty much no winners at the microstakes regularly withdraw as the winning's are too low in absolute dollar terms; most of the micro winnings go towards building a bankroll for moving up to $0.25/$0.50 and higher. Essentially the main withdrawers from the poker economy are winners at small stakes, mid stakes and high stakes. The micro stakes are for people to learn the game and to help trickle the money up to small stakes.

So the rake being decreased at the micros isn't that amazing, since it will mean that more micro players move up quicker to small stakes PLO, but then they struggle once they get there because the rake is not being changed at these levels and they're playing the same near-impossible to beat games that the current small stakes regs are playing, and so there are still few winners after rakeback at the key stakes where regular withdrawals can potentially take place.

No?

But at least the games will soften up at the .50-1.00 tables as a result of players moving up.

The reductions aren't quite as good as the % that's posted as the rake caps are all the same and many hands will still be hitting the unchanged Cap. But still I'm happy that there has been a rake decrease. If these changes are deemed a success for Pokerstars perhaps they'd consider adjusting rake at other stakes and or game types.

sure the rake is high at 50-200 as well but it's a good start.
PS will probably evaluate the move and decide if they will lower it for 50-200 in the future I assume

You are right; my error, and my apologies. The actual numbers are better for players so it is clearly just a mistake.

nice to see it lowered, but its still too high.

Don't understand how I'm only reading about reducing rake % and the VPP multiplier as a solution when most of us had valid arguments
why it would be best to increase the VPP multiplier for PLO and keep the rake % as it is/was.

By not including midstakes with the rake % reduce Stars beat my lowest expectations, which were set pretty low.

I mean people were talking about a ~50% decrease including midstakes, stars comes up with 5-6% and excluding any midstake level.

25PLO and below is a waste of time. The problem is the rake at .25/.5 and .5/1. Those are stakes worth playing but the rake makes it impossible.

Yeah, and my guess is that they won't as they're the levels where 'damaging' withdrawals start.

They basically have lowered the rake at stakes where it isn't costing them much in potential revenue, making it appear that they are giving something back to the community, only they know full well that this will allow more money to rise up to 50-200 and they will rake the money back once it gets there.

They should have decreased the rake for all stakes, to be credible in my opinion, and I don't even play PLO.

Yeah, I mean, it's something, but then again, it's the bare minimum.

In before eldodo writes a beautiful sonnet about Isai's eyes, I suppose.

Not really, no, because it's not like 50PL and 100PL will be getting massive influxes of new fish, they will just be getting more reasonably good regs that have managed to move up through the micros. Yes, these players moving up won't be as good as the regs already at 50PL and 100PL, but they won't be complete mugs either and they'll be anything but soft, easy money.

Therefore the 50PL and 100PL regs will probably still lose to them due to the rake, since they are unlikely to have a 20bb/100 edge on them. Also, there will now be less fish per reg then their currently is, since there are no new fish, but there are now more ok-standard regs to share the fish with.

Pokie,

The way you look at this is like this was a bad thing done. I've been critical of Stars on a whole host of issues. But I never forget to mention when they do something right or have a successful promo. This is an improvement. Is it ideal??? maybe not but it's better then it was yesterday.

All I'm saying is this minor rake reduction is nowhere near as good as it seems, it will make virtually no difference to people other than some of the winning regs that play $0.10/$0.25 and don't move up, because they live in 3rd world countries where grinding the upper micros gives them a solid enough income that they can withdraw from there.

The problem is that a lot of people seem to be hailing this rake decrease as wonderful news, which is exactly what Stars wants you to think so that they can then use this as evidence that they do sometimes listen to the players and do occasionally make a change in the players' interests.

Then in the future they will enact some bigger changes that hurt the regs substantially and improve Stars bottom line a great deal, and Stars will just point to it as a balancer, a bit of give-and-take, and then some members of the player pool will back Stars and defend them, like you will according to your bolded comments above, even though the micro stakes PLO rake decreases gave the player pool virtually nothing.

Again, I'm not saying that this rake decrease is not a (slightly) positive thing for the games in and of itself; I'm just saying that I'm worried that this is being used as a tool by Stars, a fake, almost worthless olive branch and an apparent show of good faith, so that they can screw us over properly further down the line and make it all look like you win some, you lose some.

its a step in the right direction, good job to all involved.

to confirm: there will be no changes to plo50-400? if not i still think this is quite a big issue and more needs to be done, but as ive said, at least the problem is finally being recognised and something is happening.

[Edit: Everywhere in my post that I write "qualitative" I mean "quantative".]:

It is my impression that this is the level stars felt that they can commit to right now, *before* looking at more data. The more effort the players put into proving their point that the rake is too high in PLO relative to NLH (notice: "prove", not "hypothesize"), the more information will be out there about the rake being too high, and the more momentum there will be inside stars to reduce the rake. I think stars is looking at this independently. Right now I don't have a single qualitative method to say which amount of rake makes sense: does anyone here have one? If anyone has such a method, put it out there, and I'll run the numbers.

Let's put our heads together, and figure out what levels of rake make sense. I encourage everyone that thinks the rake is too high to come up with one -- just one -- qualitative argument for why that is. I will probably get my hands on a ton of HHs, from many stakes of PLO and NLH, in the coming weeks (from independent sources, not from stars). I will run any stats that people want on those HHs. I challenge to community to come up with qualitative tests to determine what level of rake is "fair" or "optimal". I will try to develop such qualitative tests on my own as well. These methods could certainly determine that the rake on PLO is too high by 50%. They also might not. We should keep working on this to figure out a good number, not a guess that is not based on anything concrete. Make poker rake into a science, rather than a guessing game.


bingo. Making this kind of rake reduction is a complicated process (more than you think -- I'll explain some of the considerations in my trip report). I'm led to believe that further rake reductions can certainly happen in the not-too-far future, but that they are more likely to happen based on hard data, rather than on ballparking figures.

LOL. I tried to start such a sonnet just to prove the point, but I'm too exhausted. On my trip report I'll tell all about the hookers and blow, though.

To make it clear: I meant I'll run any stats that people want on this HH as long as the purposes is rake analysis, and all the results will be publicly published in 2p2.

It takes a lot of money to keep Merge afloat providing their superior product. If they wanted to be cheap like Stars, they certainly could do that. But when you play on Merge you are having the ultimate online poker experience.

Plus their cashouts take much longer than Stars. You get more bang for your buck that way. Instead of having one cash out be over almost instantly, you can savor it for months. That way you don't get too burned out on cashing out.