Looks pretty good so far.

Interested in clarification of the 2% decrease, more than we asked for.

Results seems awsome to me from that post. Looking forward to the full report!

Thanks stars for willingness to discuss with players. And thanks player reps for your effort and time to fly to pizza town! Great job!

Just a plain and simple +1! Respect!

good job but please post the math showing how they are now taking a loss. seems unlikely that they were only gaining 1.5% with the change to WC.

before people get carried away its still a cash grab even if they collected %5 less rake overall they are giving a lot less of it back in rewards and bonus'. This means stars overall profits go up and money left in the poker economy go down. For poker to be sustainable for 5+ years rake needs to get cut in half.

Why? Assuming 1,5% (or 1,7% guess by klaric) and 2% are close to the actual figures i don't see a cash grab. There still is a redistribution of value across different player types/vip levels, but thats intentional and no general cash grab.

You're misunderstanding. The post says they were gaining 1.5% due to giving back less in rewards/bonuses. Then, they reduced rake overall by 2%. In other words, the net effect is a total drop of .5%. That means overall Stars is losing money through these changes.

However, I agree in the end about rake needing to be cut by about half. I just had absolutely no expectation that we'd see that kind of drastic measure right now.

+1,000,000 A site like this with 11th hour changes should not be running a year long vip program.

I think you left out the overwhelming amount of requests regarding lower stakes getting raped to death. It also affects many more people than SNE benefits.

Can you please give us the new expected bb/100 rake for specific stakes?

For example, right now 10NL is raked 10bb/100. Under the new system what will it be?

Current rake NL 6max: Link
2NL 9bb/100
5NL 8bb/100
10NL 10bb/100
25NL 8bb/100
50NL 7bb/100
100NL 6bb/100
200NL 4bb/100

New System:
2NL ?bb/100
5NL ?bb/100
10NL ?bb/100
25NL ?bb/100
50NL ?bb/100
100NL ?bb/100
200NL ?bb/100

I am not expecting a miracle, just want to see what the new numbers actually are.

Any math genius wanna do some quick calcul just so we get a brief idea of how long term
These change can be good, Example I'm a reg winning 2BB/100 what does that 2% rake reduction do to my profit let say after 100-500k hand? Will it really up my profit ( including the vpp lost from that reduction )
Thanks ( making .70vpp a hand )

Txs for all the work the update, looking forward to all the details but sounds like its been very worthwhile.

I'm kind of disappointed we weren't updated a bit as the meetings took place. I just wish rake was calculated in a very transparent way eg. 3bb. Rather than player caps, raking pots in increments and talking about lowering by %'s.

Thanks to the reps for making the journey and effort to discuss the issues. Not sure if it'll be enough for me but maybe when we're told and it's not worded in some lengthy jargon i'll be able to make a better decision what's best.

I will take that he is taking about overall decrease (across all the board).

The example he gave at 1/2NL seems to represent a decrease close to 10%.



Btw, what was the (general) solution adopted for LHE games?

*cross post from SNE thread

It looks like these changes are going to take place on February 1st.

Forgive me if I'm confused, but I don't remember giving these few players sent to IOM the proxy to sign my name in blood. Once again it looks like something is being changed on a few days notice and no chance for the bazillions of players to review and voice problems with plan.

what happened with rake at the micros?

Gonna lmao if they reintroduce the rake raise 5 handed to the max ($2.80 in this case).

I know this was a very short report (if we can call it that) but I'm a bit worried he specifically referred nl200 (small stakes) and said nothing about the micros. Although a rake reduction across the board is positive the cap at these stakes is a very more important subject.

All in all if we don't get any ugly surprise and this is actually a true rake reduction, then we are definitely going in the right direction, which is a significant reduction of rake world wide.

Lets wait and see.

We voted for the reps to represent us. They negotiated for four days and came out with a better deal than we had. They worked 12 hour days poring over numbers, discussing ways to improve both the rake and VIP program. I thought it was pretty clear we gave them proxy to negotiate for us and come up with the best deal possible.

Ummm using like a union negotiation...a team negotiates BUT deal is brought back to the whole union to review and thumb up or down.

4 days from now this goes through no matter what LMAO.

No, not at all. They were the medium.

Worried...

Firstly we gave those players the mandate to negotiate on out behalf. Secondly Stars is not a democratic state but a corporation. They don't need you to sign your name in blood. Rather than complain you should be grateful for the great work that our representatives did for us and also thank Stars for listening to our concerns and agreeing to a rake reduction overall.

Klairic was always about the SNE players and short sighted. It's why I felt very uncomfortable with him going and wanted some representation for other players such as Micros (xperu) , fortunately other players such as krmont seemed to appreciate the issues but my spidey senses made me paranoid about klairic and his involvement with stars.

Nor it is required. Remember, PS could implement the changes they want the way they want when they want...

In a sense, PS gave some kind of chance to the players to have some input/influence on the new changes (apart from the dealt to weighted contributed one) through a small group of players representatives. Now, let's not make this more than what it is: this is not a political democracy or whatever, it is about a private business dealing with their customers.

Moreover, such reps were selected through a voting with a thousand or so participants of one poker forum. They are not the entire poker community either nor they were broadly selected, they were selected by a small sample of the entire poker players community. So, what about every other player that did not even followed this or voted to select a "representative"?


Stars wanted to (hear and) please their customers in some extent at least and it was in that context that the meeting occurred. Namely because the effect it has on players opinions and decisions affect the game and of course their business (for example, if conditions are bad, some players could leave looking business elsewhere). But I don't see that the players reps had to check back with us the "final decision" because this is - ultimately - a decision by PokerStars (with some kind of input from players).

And I am pretty sure that the reps were not the sole influence on the entire process, Stars was reading the foruns too...

I think it is wrong to go over them (the reps) now.

You have always had completely the wrong idea what is going on and what should be going on.

This is nothing like a union negotiation, never was, never should be and never will be.