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.

nice post. nice job stars

why don't you focus on getting better? or do you prefer to be a helpless leech?

cash games at stars is one nit farm. 29 nits waiting on a table to get one fish.

^ [ ] understands difference between nits and bumhunters

bumhuntingnits are table selecting .the same

why don't you post something discussion worthy? or do you thrive on being a helpless one liner troll?

I'll bite on this one.

Nits are easy to beat: You take their blinds and do not give them any action. Even if you are dealt 7-2 every hand this will be profitable. They still ruin the game for everyone. And were getting paid for it.

One last point: There is nothing wrong with playing tight poker. The problem was that the tables, yes even at 0.05/0.1, were filled with VPP farming nits.

And sorry: But accusing people of being PS shills: That's my line for the chat box whenever my KK runs into AA or I lose a pot where I was at least 33% favorite.

Beautifully said.

Your cliffs had in red writing "DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS THREAD", so you saying no one can question what you have written or have a different point of view?

Besides those 'cliffs' didn't show much.

"The tighter players will be affected more than the looser players on the site however most regulars (Nits, TAGs, LAGs, and everything between) will see a decrease in rakeback for the 2012 year if the changes announced remain."

Is that it? Be honest, only the Nits will suffer big time in the long run. Minimal affect to other players.

Last yr my gf wanted to learn how to play poker,I had line 150 bucks just laying around in stars.I put her in the ten dollar rooms and was shocked at how tight the games were.now i find out people are even 24 tabling those games.pathetic.

Id prefer it.

As a HU SnG player, these changes won't affect me at all, so I should have a more "neutral" point of view on this.

Personally, I think switching to WC was absolutely the right thing to do as it's the fairest system of the three (dealt, contributed or winner-takes-it-all).

What's not ok, though, is that Stars seems to be making a ton of money with this change - there should be some kind of a compensation.

Weighted-Contributed:

As a SnG player, you get a fixed number of VPPs for each $ of rake that you generate. It doesn't matter whether you win or lose that SnG, so you can easily plan on how many games you have to play to reach some specific VIP level - like a SuperNova Milestone bonus, for instance.

WTA would obviously get winning players greater rewards, but also introduce variance and thus make it very hard to plan things. I wouldn't like this model very much for this reason.

WC is about what comes closest to what I know from SnG's and I think it's the fairest model. Your rakeback is based on what you actually payed - and why would you want to share it with someone who wasn't even involved in the hand ?

And someone who's playing as nitty as 5/4 is basically an empty chair - why would anyone have to share their rakeback with an empty chair ?

Under the old system - if every single hand at the table goes over the rake cap - wouldn't that even give them more "rakeback" than what they have to pay in blinds ?

Since they're only playing so few hands, weren't they even receiving more "rakeback" than they actually payed in rake ?

Nits:

I have no idea which effects this new system will have on Nits or whether their removal will be good or bad for poker.

However, I really don't like their "business model".

In HU SnG's, it's all about maximally exploiting your opponent and you have to learn really hard to become good.

If someone can make a decent profit playing 5/4 on 24 tables while knowing close to nothing about poker - well, I'm not sure whether I can use the term "not fair" here. Fwiw, one could also argue that they were just maximally exploiting their opponent: the old VPP distribution system.

However, what these people are doing is taking money out of the poker economy. They play a very robotic style that doesn't require much poker knowledge and are draining fish's bankrolls with that.

So if these people are removed from the games, that would leave more money to the "real" regs.

Of course, it most likely won't turn the games into huge fish pools - other regs will almost certainly take their place.

And if the consequence is that more hands will be played over multiple streets, this will largely benefit those who actually know how to play poker.

WC is ok just make multiplier 6.5 or lower the rake and im happy -.-

You are assuming they are capable of this. Big assumption imo.

I agree. I doubt they're capable.

IMO, the multiplier should not be changed.

It simply would not make any sense for cash players to receive different (higher) VIP rewards than tournament players.

For fairness and transparency, everyone should get the same amount of VPPs for every $ they payed in rake.

Instead, the rake structure should be changed to result in lower payed rake.

It is not all cash game players. It is the full ring game players that earn 6x VPP. Everyone else including tourney players, short handed cash, and heads up cash earn 5.5 VPP.

Wow the amount of stupid **** said in this thread is mindbuggling, this game is not dying anytime soon.

but they will turn into 5BB winners 8 tabling!! Well said btw.

Well said.

+1

These are my thoughts exactly.

Quoted for awesomeness!!!!

id rather be a troll than a leech.....

Mass-multi tabling nits not being rewarded for rake they don't pay is good for poker.

Mass-multi tabling nits leaving is NOT good for poker. (unless you hate winning)

Seriously, what is up with players hating nits???
If I could sit at a table with all 10/8 players I'd be printing money...

WTF is wrong with you people