As PS Steve has pointed out, Stars wants a simplified adjustment so that it is easy to compare to other sites. All of these elaborate scenarios are not going to fly, you need a short and simple solution.

IMO the following is a good balance for all players and is pretty close to what the end result will be:

1- 4.5% rake
2. Increase to 6VPP multiplier, FR remains as is.
3. Reduction of rake for a small segment of small stakes.

4.5% has already been offered by Stars, but combined with removing the incremental rake and adding WC it was not enough.

Increasing the VPP multiplier to 6 gives some relief to the high volume players. Going to WC eliminates most of the earlier imbalance between FR and 6max because the rake is no longer divided among everyone at the table.

Reduction of rake for a small segment of small stakes gives regs a reasonable limit to shoot for, it encourages moving up in stakes, and it isn't too big of a hit on Star's income.

Nobody is going to be ecstatic with these changes, but it addresses most issues to a certain degree, and you can't just ask Stars for everything.


.

Sigh...


I am not missing anything, I am pointing to you that you are derailing from your own argument:

The votes for how Stars prioritizes it issues. I imagine they make them based on current and future rake expectations. Maybe I misinterpreted what you guys were talking about though.

The likelihood of #2 happening is very very small. Steve has said that the site regards 5.5 as the standard and that full ring got a boost because of an exemption. And if cash players get 6x across the board, they will have to do the same for SNG and MTT eventually.

So that would be a 9% increase in rewards paid out. I just don't see Stars giving in on this as they are in a strong bargaining position.

No imagination required at all, they will base their decisions on current and future rake expectations.

The plan is to try and reduce the hit to all players as much as possible, by way of negotiating with Stars.

Overall, seems interesting and simple (simplicity is a plus for easier negotiation, i believe).

FL games rake structure need a proper approach though that is not being covered there...

@Gregg777

I think I misread your post the first time. You are sugesting mantaining the incremental structure and lowering the % each step from 5% to 4.5%, all across the board, right?

Simple is good, but it doesn't need ~8 people to fly around the world to achieve it.

Stars has drawn the line in the sand, offered some concessions but these weren't good enough for the majority of players so they were withdrawn.

The skill of the reps will be their ability to show stars (via input itt) that the players request adjustments to various games and stakes (global rake reduction being just one of many), and present a reasoned argument as to why they are needed.

An argument of "I lost 25% rakeback so give me 15% of it back because I live on your site" won't quite work imo

FR got the 6x VPP modifier following the VIP program change of 2010 because it impacted them more. If Stars were to implement the proposed 2012 rake change, it's logical that 6max player should get an higher VPP multiplier because the higher 5 handed rake cap affects them a lot more. And by higher, I mean the same.

It seems that Stars for some reason doesn't see 1$ in rake at every game type as worth the same, so giving cash game players more VPP for their rake then SNG player doesn't have to stop at Full Ring. It's a flawed logic IMO, but it's a continuation of the same flawed logic that Stars has been using for the last two years.

edit: The increased VPP multiplier can be done by stakes. 2NL to 10NL already get higher VPP multiplier. There's no reason why this should not be extended to bigger stakes. Especially since the VIP levels are harder to get there.

Completely random example:
Obviously this is the kind of thing that you'd need access to PS data in order to make a valid proposal. The goal is to help stakes where winrate are lower and more impacted by the rake (even with the proposed "decrease" to 4.5%).
Stake current proposed
2NL 10x 11.5x
5NL 8.5x 9.5x
10NL 7x 8x
25NL 5.5x 7x
50NL/100NL 5.5x 6.5x
200NL 5.5x 6x
400NL+ 5.5x 5.5x
It's hard for me to say if these changes even make sense without access to the proper data. But it's a suggestion that's similar to one of Stars current policy.

I think this line of thinking as it's quite realistic.

Individual game types should also be looked at in relation to feasible winrates. But these concerns should be worked on around the edges and not as the big picture.

How do most of you feel about a revolving happy hour from game to game and at various limits as a semi permanent thing.

Obvioulsy this won't affect any of us at any given time but would be a nice bonus when it targets our game and at a close enough stake?

Obv. this is a bit of a gimmick but it could be something that Stars considers.

Stars has been making some insistence in the solution being reached through a meeting at IoM. Could this be resolved online, faster and on a more open manner, personally, I would be in favor...




What is the level of consensus over Greg proposal?

note: i added "incremental" for clarity purposes


Maybe it would be usefull at this point to see how many are in favor and how many are against.

I think this is a very good idea, and should be an easy sell to Stars, as the site makes more money during this hour because of increased activity. For games with a smaller player pool it could provide a significant boost. Loads of marketing possibilities for the rec player: "looking for variety? Try our draw games during special happy hours, where you get a 50% increase in FPP".

Make sure you ask them to put a smiley face in the lobby while happy hour is on!

Stars argument is that in order to negotiate, player reps need to see Stars numbers as to how each VIP level is affected. And Stars will not make this information public. Hence the NDAs and personal visits. I think the chances of they caving in on this is zero.

I am aware of that and I even exchanged a PM with Steve about this matter, I was just trying to keep it short there...

I would change #3 to ALL small stakes. It will be easy to show that every single small stake is paying huge rake in terms of BB/hand. A strong argument can be made that lowering the rake here will create healthier games and increase long-term revenue for Stars.

There is also the issue of split pot games, which suffer under the highest rake rates of all. Special attention should be given to them if Stars wants to prevent their death.

The best changes are ones that are also in Stars' best interest.

They'd get sued for copyright!

a general observation i want to add that really baffles me is that Pokerstars seems to treat us like employees who have to take a hit to their payment due to "bad economics" and alot of players seem to follow this line of thinking and now try to negotiate a smaller hit.
Thats ridiculous, we are customers and the rake we pay is a payment we make for the service pokerstars provides (software, cs, marketing, money processing etc.) and the RB we get is not the paycheck from our boss, it is a rebate that pokerstars gives to customers that "buy in lots" like alot of companies do.
Now the question is: do we negotiate as employees because of the fact that pokerstars is more or less the only real option to play professionally, or do we negotiate as customers because the paycheck of every pokerstars employee comes from our pockets?

Customers, of course. The reps are not representing only the winning players, but all players.

you're customers and pokerstars realizes this

What about the representation of mid-high stakes? I remember a few players unhappy with the increase of the rake cap 3-5 handed before the cancellation. Will they have to take a hit for the benefit of the lower stakes if the issue arises again?

RE: Antz

Keeping incremental would be good because it would give some relief to all small stakes. I just don't know if Stars will go for it. If so, great. If not, then 4.5% actual.

1- 4.5% incremental rake
2. Increase to 6VPP multiplier, FR remains as is.
3. Reduction of rake cap for a small segment of small stakes.

Regarding the rake cap reduction for a small segment of small stakes, IMO it should be 50NL and 100NL.

The micros already have an increased VPP multiplier: 10 VPP for 2NL, 8.5 VPP for 5NL, and 7 VPP for 10NL, and Stars already offered $2 cap at 25NL.

By reducing the rake cap to $2 at 50NL and 100NL it would give a rake relief that isn't entirely out of reach.

Right now you pretty much have to shoot for 200NL or 400NL which is impossible for most SS regs and why there has been a stagnation of advancing players.

But if you have a nice rake relief at 50 and 100NL, it will really encourage 10NL and 25NL players to move up.

Many of the regs at 10NL and 25NL are playing a lot of tables, so a move up to 50NL with one or two tables to take a shot is not that far of a reach, especially with the rake cap reduction.

But the way it is now, if you are at 10NL, you are just going to get raped at 25NL anyway, so why move. Same goes for 25NL to 50NL. But put in the relief at 50NL and 100NL and you should get some significant movement up in stakes.

Most people agree it is good for the poker economy to keep the players and money flowing upwards. With a nice rake relief step at 50NL and 100NL you can accomplish this.

This was in the Pokercast forum which few read. I for one do not remember the bolded part mentioned before.

This seems very positive and a good place to start negotiations. Apologise if I have missed something about this earlier but otherwise, why on earth hasn't Stars mentioned this before? Could have save a lot of us a lot of anger.

Greg777,

I didn't see this mentioned earlier, what stakes do you play and at what volume?

Pokerstars says they want more clear comparison between the rake of sites. I think this is a very fair point. What we really need is an independend information source on rake between sites. Some independend site should make a calculation of expected rake on different sites, where you yourself can fill in things like the number of hands you play a month, limit, your stle of play and your usage of bonus systems (deposit bonusses, vip tournaments, enz). Rake should become more clear and online poker def needs more competition!