How big were your samples? What are the highest number of hands you have for people who had a positive winrate?

Actually, I think that was proven to be wrong several times throughout multiple treads concerning rake changes.

Also, you can't just play what you want. I don't have the roll to just sit out at a $50/$100.

Also, what starvingwriter82 said.

The rake must be lowered at the micro/small stakes to allow people to move to higher stakes. Those players will play more rake for stars, the games will be softer making it more difficult to move down (in all stakes), people will lose slower which make them happy and consequentially play more, etc etc.

I don't think sample size matters much for any conclusion. Is very well known that rake at plo/plo8 is about 20bb/100 at the micros. That's just pure rape.
That means that fish are losing at a crazy rate, break even players could be winning if it wasn't for the high rake. So in the end almost all the money in this economy ends up in stars hands, and that is just wrong.

Is like you lived in a country where you earn 50k/year but pay like 45k for taxes that would be crazy if that existed. Maybe 40%, 50% or even 60% but not almost all your income.

You work for Stars? Cause that is about as insulting to thousand upon thousands of players as some of their latest declarations have been.

In regards to Kmonts question.

Yes I have believed pre 2012 that Pokerstars has had my best interest,as a high volume,high money producing customer of theirs. Now I do not believe they have mine nor the poker communities best interest in mind. As a business you find a middle ground,now it's just a pay raise for them while hurting their loyal customers. Some,myself included, who have up and changed countries to continue doing business with them. I feel very disrespected by their recent reward reduction.

'loyal customers'...there it is again....loyal to who exactly?

..........because to say high volume players (myself included) are loyal to Pokerstars just because they generate large amounts of rake for the company is laughable.

Well, he kind of does. Not out in the open like Steve, still... reading a few of his posts will suffice. Ignore list is the answer

lol +1 to sqwertys post

nl1k, 2bb/100 rake = $20

nl50, 10bb/100 rake = $5

micro stakes players pay more rake

[IMG] Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]

It's been discussed already itt, but reading must be hard. Your logic is flawed, because Stars charges a percentage, not flat tax for hands dealt. If we're talking percentages, 1 BuyIn/1000h is five times higher than 0.2 BuyIn/1000h, so I guess your statement is true.

On a more optimistic note http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...aives-1155687/

Nah its your business acumen that is flawed.

In the long run, there are two overwhelming probabilities. 1) The poker economy will collapse as win rates continue to decline and rake causes everybody to be a loser at virtually all stakes. 2) Rake will be cut by 33-50%.

I believe both are inevitable, because companies will not take step #2 in time to prevent #1 from occurring. Short term profits/greed will outweigh the long-term health of the game. However, I have high hopes that some company will eventually accept much lower profit margins to capture what is left of the poker economy. It will be no frills, secure software with a simplified, rewarding VIP system. Because that's what makes sense.

I played $5/10 LHE 6max last year. I broke even at 5 tables. On average, Pokerstars made $150 per table every hour...that's $750 total per hour. So, $30+ per person per hour to play poker for each of my opponents.

Today, I spoiled myself. I went out for a massive plate of sushi for lunch. Margaritas for happy hour. All you can eat @ a Brazilian steakhouse, along with a bottle of wine. Finished with a 3D movie at a nice theater. Add all that decadence up and it's still less than my fair share for 5 tables of 6max LHE for ONE HOUR.

The thing is...Pokerstars IS the best. They've been the best run poker site for a long time, and I am a loyal customer. And I believe they are trying to do the best for their players as long as it does not interfere with the expectations of their ownership. But ownership's expectations are based on a history of profit gouging. Again, Pokerstars does less of it than ANYBODY else. But the bottom line is that profit margins are extremely high because the rake structure is unsustainable.

The poker economy will die from the top, but it will die slowly enough to prevent the radical change that is needed for long-term health. It's already happening. High stakes and midstakes games have lost so much steam. At LHE, I am frightened by how often I go online to find 2 or fewer games at $10/20 and above. And these are games where the rake is supposedly reasonable (at least by those measuring in terms of bb/100).

Look, all stakes are raked way too high; some monumentally so. For that to change, Pokerstars would need to radically alter their profit expectations. And they probably don't see any incentive to do that right now. Voluntarily throw away profit when there is no competition? Who does that?

Ironically, now is the best time for them to cut rake in half. It would strangle the struggling competition and lower the profit margins so much that new companies might actually hesitate to pony up the big bucks to enter the market. Pokerstars already has the customer base...that was the difficult part. Keeping it is as easy as "Boom...super-low rake."

My friend asked me the other day, "I want to play poker. Which site should I play?" I said, "Well, it depends..." Then I gave him all his options. If Pokerstars had really low rake, there'd only be one option to give.

^Very nice post.

Do you think if Stars lowered the rake "significantly" (however much that is I am unsure), do you think they would see an influx of new deposits? What types of players would it bring? Would people increase their volume?

Maybe a few one time reg deposits, however how would they drum up fresh deposits with a smaller advertising budget? Concider that lowering rake may actually result in a smaller player base long term baffeling i know.

Presumably a lot of regs (including mediocre ones) would come back who had left the site in search of softer games and better rb deals, but ya, fish intake requires advertising, no way around that one really. Stars would have to decide/be convinced that sacrificing profits now (while keeping the advertising budget high) would reap bigger rewards longterm.

What are the best ways to obtain rec player deposits? What made you start playing poker back when you were almost assuredly a rec player?

Word of mouth is as important as ads, when I first started playing poker I asked my friend where he plays, I saw no ads on tv for the sites and had no idea about where was best. In fact stars was the 4th site I tried out. One of my friends kept going on about how it was really good so I went there.

Ads may bring people to try out a site but it does not keep them there if someone tells them there are better places to play.

ha, my introduction to poker was when my mother bought me a chip set for christmas in 05. This lead me to google search to learn the rules to play. First site displayed was a site called "Party Poker" or something like that, on there i discovered that you could play online for free. I then proceeded to become a poker boom donator.

So i guess offering play money games is the reason i got into poker. Perhaps working on a scheme to transfer play money players to cash players would be cost effective and efficient.

Obviously they have free rolls and what not but maybe there is room for innovation regarding this side of the business.

And this is exactly why the good name and reputation of a site like Stars was a key component in its rise to the top. It remains a mystery to me why they are now willing to forego that rep, I'm guessing short-sighted new management in certain key positions is the answer though.

I'm sure there's not much that the marketing department hasn't already thought of but in general, rec players are attracted by the possibility of a 'big score'. I guess stars has focused on marketing satellites to big tournaments in that regard, as well as the 'you too could work hard and be a micro 'pro' like Chiren80!' stuff. There's a lot more they could do if they wanted to go that direction, like 'clear your deposit bonus within a week and we'll DOUBLE your money!!!', cash volume rewarded with free tourney entries, gimmicky game forms like the jackpot sngs they have on Ipoker, etc...

Beginners' tables/tournaments for accounts newer than 3 months or something would be great to see as well, and could be an effective marketing tool aimed at those who are nervous about making the jump from play money.

Sorta. While lowering rake is not a short-term fix, as RigMeARiver said, there would be a shift in where regulars play. I'm a SNE. The players I know are mid stakes and high stakes players, almost all LHE. And the only ones who play Pokerstars exclusively are SNEs. The others constantly point out the fantastic rakeback and the softer games they get by game selecting IPoker, OnGame, 888Poker, and even PartyPoker. They know it's not a better deal than SNE, but since they don't want to put in 1 Million VPPs of volume, it's their best deal.

Now, if Stars lowers the rake from 5.35bb/100 at $5/10 LHE 6max to 2.75bb/100 (with similar cuts at other stakes)??? Unless IPoker or PartyPoker or OnGame doubles down and undercuts Stars, then it's game over for every LHE game $1/2+ at those sites as soon as grinders can get their money moved. Players go where the games are. Take away the competitors' regs. Without regs, the $1/2+ games don't survive anywhere other than Stars. EVERYBODY who wants to play has exactly one option: Pokerstars. Pokerstars could effectively corner the market for some games (such as LHE) since the market is small enough to allow a virtual monopoly.

Secondly, word of mouth is huge, especially in the modern world of the Internet. I don't buy anything solely due to advertising. I go online. I read reviews. I research prices. Or...I just ask my friends. So, it could be simplified in this way. Win over all the regulars: pros/grinders/wannabes/long-term losers. And they'll do all your advertising for you.

Third, Pokerstars is competing with live games. And the bottom line is that on an hourly basis, online poker costs a lot more than live poker. Live games are softer in part because the fish lost the money sooooo fast online that they couldn't justify it...or just assumed online poker was rigged.

Lastly, Pokerstars should realize that lowering rake is a preventative measure. It isn't necessarily about increasing profits for 2012. It's about preventing the competition from siphoning off players and establishing legitimate alternatives. I mean, that's already happened, because Pokerstars' inaction has essentially permitted sites like IPoker or OnGame to gain a foothold. But the best example is Winamax.fr. That's right...Pokerstars is #2 in France. And it happened quickly. That's the real lesson here. In the online world, change occurs fast. (And imagine how fast things could change once these new US-based casinos get in the mix.)

If Pokerstars fails to capitalize on its advantages, they will fall.

I agree with this.

Lowering the rake a lot might not necessarily bring many deposits from recreational player in right away, but what are marginal losers or breakeven player now will be winning player. They will talk positively about poker to their friends more often and recommend them to play on Stars specifically.

Getting mediocre player who would stop trying to make money with online poker under the current system continue to play is imho not only good for the sites.

+1 for beginner tables, 3 months is a bit much though, maybe 30 days or something.

a) will make the timid feel a bit more confident in depositing.
b) gives players a chance to fall in love with the game before playing stiffer compition increasing the likely hood of them busting their account within 1-2 days. The more players you can get to make their first deposit last over a month the better.

Their must be a tonne of teenagers on the play money tables, how about proposing a happy 18th birthday present from stars as they hit legal age to play, $20 or so.

Excellent post by SuckoutKing couldn't have put it better myself.

Word of mouth is extremely underated, especially since information travels so fast due to the internet.

Many people ask me about online poker and i never recommend it to them because I know that the micros are raked to such an outrageous extent that there is no way any casual player can win, i tell them don't bother and explain why.

Customer retention is more important and easier than finding new customers, i'm sure online poker sites have extremely low customer retention because they over rake the games creating a huge newbie unfriendly environment of rake trapped regs playing against new players in massively raked games in the micros.

Anyway, I'm not surprised to hear stars management has changed. Sounds like accountants are running the show there. Which is always a precursor to fail.
GG