My opinion is that we should have groups. I think there's going to be a lot of people that aren't happy with whatever the outcome is, and it is important for the different groups to feel like someone was speaking up for them.

I think we are taking a dangerous direction here.
it shouldn't be players representing PLO, NLHE 6m, FR etc. it should be a handful of people who are intelligent, good in analysing (large amounts of) data and who are able of discussing, listening, processing and reacting in an appropriate manner.
if we focus too much on persons to represent a certain game, we drift away from the big picture. we need people to represent ALL of us. no matter what games and what volume we personally are playing.
So yes, input from MTT and SNG players might be helpful. they ARE affected by this, just not directly.

my suggestion would be to get mods to make announcements in the strat forums, that our representatives need data. this way they will hopefully have input from all games, including micros, stud and draw games etc.

with that input the players going to IOM should be able to sufficiently represent ALL of us. Keep in mind this is not about grinders getting less VPP. this is about maintaining a healthy pokerenvironment, which means all games and limits and supporting the recreational players.

Has Pokerstars confirmed/denied that invited participants will be fully reimbursed for travel, lodging and food to make the trip to IoM? If not, and if Pokerstars is reading, Pokerstars please make known your position now on whether expenses incurred by participants to meet with you at your house will be covered .

I am sure PS would pay for everything. They only make a bijillion dollars a day.

PokerStars has offered to cover expenses.

they've lost the USA market as steve said few hours ago, now they are only making 500 million dollars/year, so i guess the invited participants will have to pay all the expenses themselves

Exactly.

Let's also keep in mind that a NL FR SNE is not necessarily representing FR but might be more inclined to represent high volume player. 2+2 is not a good representation of the poker community in the first place and having them vote on people to represent the poker community comes with the danger that in reality mostly high volume player will be represented.

If I say, 'screw rake decreases, higher VPP are the way to go!', then I probably will get more support on here then when I try to say, 'let's make the system less top heavy by decreasing the rake!'. That doesn't mean that the first option would benefit the player pool as a whole more and I'm fairly certain it's the opposite.


We should send people that are well informed about every game and keep the big picture in mind, not people who want to lobby their personal interests or the interests of one specific group.

+ to krmont PLO comunity.

btw i really like this guy post...

Originally Posted by ArtySmokes


Winrates on Stars are significantly lower than on any other site because the games are so nitty. If you play a 12/10 style (or looser), you can't make much money against a 10/8 player. Your edge (if it exists at all) is tiny. When you factor in that the 10/8 player is being rewarded with VIPs for the 90% of hands he folds, it's pretty clear that it's hard to make decent profits when you play against him. The opposite is also true. A 10/8 player doesn't have a huge edge over a 12/10 player. All that happens is that money gets pushed around the table between a bunch of break-even players, while the site takes the rake.

If you remove the ubernit's "money for folding", you force him to play more pots. Since the bulk of his earning has until now come from pre-flop play, he's likely to be worse at post-flop play. When the games (eventually) loosen up, you gain a bigger edge against players that are terrible post-flop.
If you have good post-flop skills, you should find that "mass-tabling nits" become easier to beat. Most of the VPPs they were earning in 2011 will now be earned by you.
Maybe you think it's fair that the old system rewarded "bad" players that fold 90% of hands. I think it's better that the new system rewards good players that actually play some poker.

another vote for krmont.

Thanks for asking mike, appreciated.

My $0.02: Give it a month and look at the data then. Let's see exactly how big of a "money grab" we are talking about. There is no point in assuming bad faith from the outset. (Not that you did).

There are plenty of variables to tweak: FPP multipliers, the VPP milestones. The prices for tickets/bonuses in the FPP store. And that is just shooting from the hip.

Unfortunately we are never going to get someone from these forums who represents what is best for the long-term viability of poker. We are only going to get representatives who are advocates for the nits/SN/SNE's type players, who are too short-sighted and blinded by their fake math to realize how the world actually works, and the multiple variables that cause poker players to play that are not as easy to formulate (read psychology of poker if you don't know what I'm talking about, and think about how that can relate to the basic economics of a poker site).

What we need to do, is reduce SN/SNE benefits on a massive scale. These rewards need to be redirected towards the casual players on a massive scale, in the form of targeted reloads and promotions.

+1 for chisness

CAP NL games need a rep that actually plays CAP games and not be lumped under regular NL games. Anyone who plays CAP knows how ridiculous CAP games are and that they desperately need a new rake structure at especially at lower limits.

You seem to not have read my posts. -_-" But then again, even if I would want to be a representative, 2+2 probably wouldn't want me to be.

I know everyone was upset about the change to a true % rake because it works out that you pay more compared to the incremental system but if someone can calculate a way to make the effective rake paid the same then I think true % rake makes more sense.

I don't know what the best way to do it is, either putting in a minimum pot size before it's raked, lowering the max or lowering the % but if it can done then I think it makes sense.

I just read your posts in this thread and completely agree with them. Do you have any other good posts to link to or key words that I can search for?

Yeah, I posted a lot since the discussion started. It's a lot to read, the bottom line is that I would want to redistribute by lowering the rake. I made some concrete suggestions that would sooth out the bb/100 rake curve from micro to high stakes. I did some calculations to show how a rake decrease would effect different people compared to last year as well.

This is a post I made like two days ago, my math might be somewhat off, idk. I stand behind the direction of my suggestions though.

many people on this forum who play on other sites have said that a move to a more casual-player oriented business model hasn't worked and has actually resulted in tougher games. i'm not saying i agree with this but i'd like to hear more from these people and its definitely something worth considering.

Equal VPP/$ across the board should be first on the agenda imo

The problem with his logic is that he doesn't care at all about effective rake.

I'd define effective rake as the amount that a player pays in rake in bb/100, after you take into account the rewards, bonuses, and rakeback. In short, when all the dust settles, how much am I actually paying to play poker?

The problem with reducing benefits on the scale Shoe is talking about is that any reduction in VIP benefits results in a higher effective rake, but the rewards then given to casual players don't translate into increased winrates on a 1:1 basis.

Win rates go up a little, effective rake goes up even more, and the result is less actual money won.


I strongly suspect that Shoe would rather win $2 an hour playing poker and not have any of his rake refunded, than win $1 an hour playing poker and have $5 of his rake refunded.

No, I am all about the net-hourly, not just now but for the long-term as well.

I feel like SNG rake is pretty fine. Would it be better if it was lower? Sure, but it's probably fine. $3.5s are raked at ~10.5%, $60s are raked at ~7.5%, and $200s are raked at ~6% With topend 18m winrates around 10-15% at abi 50ish, true nonrake winrates are probably around 20%. Obviously anything that decreases rake is good for game health longterm, but SNGs (at least 18mans, which is all I can speak to) are probably close to fair at this point.

It's certainly not as bad as the 20+bb/100 raked from the micro cash games. Even the worst of the SNG fishes can expect at least 30bi of play off a 10bi deposit.

Preferably I'd like to see the negotiations done in a more open setting but I can see why Pokerstars would like it held in private.

I would be happy to go to represent LHE at the lower stakes. I have been playing Limit for 6 years starting as a HU player on Paradise and then moving my play to Pokerstars in '07. I have played for a living on Pokerstars since 2009 playing a mix of FR and 6 max LHE at the 2-4 to 5-10 buy ins. Over this time I've made about 1 million VPP's.

The change to WC has little affect on me personally but I am very concerned about the projected losses of my peers. This game has been slowly dying over the past few years and if too many of these regs leave to softer sites/switch games LHE will seize to exist. I honestly don't have much of a personal bias. I play LHE because I truly enjoy the game, as for profits per hour I am much better off playing MTT's so my only mission is to help keep this game from not going the way of Stud.

Without some concesions by Pokerstars I don't think this game will survive these changes. Even the very best of players at the stakes I'm reffering to have laughable winrates on a bb/100 hands basis, edges are so small, and this game is brutally raked in relation to pot sizes. Players rely on RB. Since WC is here to stay I would do my best to have Pstars see the need for either or a combination of:

1) lower rake caps at each Stake
2) higher VPP multiplier
3) reduced rake

+1 to krmont representing

I personally would like to see someone from Subject:Poker involved here. I have come to trust their objectivity and I think they are well versed in the process of getting good information and making it available to the poker community at large.


Also, I can imagine its very exciting for players to have the chance at representing thier games.

I think this task is more difficult than some realize. For those who are chosen, I'd like you guys to prepare extensively for your trip. Create a list of the most pressing concerns that are relevant for your community/stakes and get clear / exhaustive explinations for how those concerns will be met.

I don't feel I'm in a strong position to choose a representative for my format (LHE, low stakes). However, I think there are many excellent people that are capable as long as they prepare for their task.

Sect7G has been making a good effort for LHE players, and if he believes he can do this job then I'd support that.

+1 to Sect7g to rep LHE