I don't know about him but I want to see 5.5% and button 'Tip Stars' for 5% my BR.

I've made myself a little spreadsheet to try to compare rake structures for playing 50NL using the method indicated by my rb provider and the rake structures that I could find on the sites.



Steve, could you explain how I can compare Stars $0.50, $1.50 and $2.50 True Rake to say, the "industry standard" 5% incremental + $1, $2 and $3 caps even if I just look at the sites that have very transparent rake tables that are reasonable such as Cake, Everest, Merge, Party and PKR?

Not asking you to comment on those sites' specific rake tables, but just need some help on how I go about comparing your rake caps and true rake % to their rake caps and incremental rake %.

Well it is in a weird spot.

I mainly use it after blufraising the river.

Instead of removing it they can hopefully make it an option to yes or no show it at the table.

Okay, first can we agree that if you play 20% of your hands five handed, and 80% six handed, that the net rake change is 0 (compared to 2011) in capped pots?

Once you have those numbers in mind, ask a group of six max players for a percentage breakdown of the number of hands they play with 2-6 players.

It should be fairly apparent then why those players are experiencing a rake increase.

Yup.

Goes back to my whole view of why this whole thing of bringing you guys out there wasn't so terrific.

Anything that might even be an actually productive idea is not likely to get very far. Stars protecting their bottom line and not wanting to give back "too much." And hurtung themselves, the players, and the game of poker in the process.

Non-capped pots are (mostly) raked less though? It's not that simple. o_O

edit: as pointed out below, i made a mistake and misread the text lol

We've reviewed a substantial selection of hands played over the site over a four week period in January, randomly chosen based on hand ID #. We've compared the rake that was taken using the old rake structure with the rake that would have been taken under the new rake structure.

The resulting numbers are similar to those posted based on the November/December data. The one significant difference is for PLO. The difference is entirely due to increased play at $50/$100 PLO due to Isildur1 being active in January but not in November or the first half of December. The increased rake at that stakes weighed in more heavily due to the increased number of hands played, altering the final rake change for PLO.

Unlike previous posts, this data separates HU/6max/9max.

While that table is a start, don't forget that you need to also factor in total value of VIP rewards/bonuses/rakeback. If you don't take that into account, then yes, of course stars still has lower rake than many of its competitors.

But once you realize a lot of networks are offering rakeback superior to what Stars offers, and the total effective rake paid after RB paints a very different picture.

I feel bad for all involved at this point. With a few decisions, they managed to increase prices for a core customer base, stir up a PR **** storm, pay to fly players to come talk with them, burn up years of generally good will in a matter of weeks, and decrease their own profits in the process.

Seems like the special level of "wacky incompetent screw up" normally reserved for Ben Stiller romantic comedies and pro wrestling villains.

anyone interested in setting up a fund to buy HHs for last month to verify those numbers?

The bit you've highlighted is something that they ARE allowed to discuss.

This is correct. It's the reason why the "omg rake increase" reports are coming from players in games where the cap is hit more often. For those that don't hit the rake cap often (if at all), the changes are quite good.

It's essentially rake relief for the micros at the expense of higher stakes players. For guys playing nosebleeds shaving a little extra off isn't a huge deal (as they were paying comparatively so little anyway), but for, say, a 2/4 PLO or CAP grinder, this "decrease" is a square kick in the balls.

20bb games will probably have a high number of all-in pots. Therefore you should not adjust the rake percentage but the rake cap. A cap of $0.5/$1 for 50/100 NL Cap seems reasonable.

Steve,

Even if the numbers posted are true, for what reason is FR given a 2-5% bigger reduction (or small reduction while 6max is given a small increase) at many stakes?

Examples:

$.50/1.00 NLHE and higher
$.50/1.00 PLO and higher
$3/6 LHE and higher

All of those games/stakes see a larger difference between 6max and FR and FR is already getting a 6x VPP multiplier and paying less rake.

Also, if Steve's numbers are right (again, suspect), the following "nosebleed stakes" have rake increases at 6max:

$2/4+ PLO
EUR 1/2+ NL
$15/30+ LHE
$2/4+ Omaha/8

These don't even qualify for high-stakes...


I would not be shocked given Poker Stars history in these matters to see the actual stakes where rake was increased to be a few levels lower.

I'd like to see the rake at no more than 3bb/100 for the low limits.

I don't think Stars is trying to raise the rake on anyone here, really (other than maybe the actual nosebleeds). It's just that they feel the need to use the same rake structure for PLO, NL, CAP, 6 max, and FR.

There's plenty of knobs and levers they can use to adjust the rake, but not every change impacts each game the same.

This time around, they pulled one lever (five handed rake cap increase) that is almost totally irrelevant to one group (micro stakes players and FR players) and extremely important to another (mid-high stakes six max players) and the resulting mess is reflected above.

Then be more specific in your post. It just mentioned 6-max and the general tone in other posts seemed to be that tables like NL 100 or 200 got a rake increase, which is just not likely, even if you don't believe the numbers Steve just posted.

But now that the numbers are out, we certainly can criticize that 1/2 PLO 6-max got a rake reduction of just a bit over 1%, while NLHE FR received over 6% at those stakes. That's what I've been unhappy about all along, the biggest cut got to NLHE FR which already gets a higher multiplier, while PLO is raked just so much. Any 50k hand samples for PLO are also laughable with variance being so high.

Maybe someone with better math skills can figure out what, for example, the likelihood of someone winning with a winrate of -5bb/100 over 100k hands with a variance of 160bb/100 is. It really shouldn't be that low. Given that in PLO there are far fewer players with a lot of hands, I really can't see what data could be used to be sure that PLO mid stakes are indeed beatable by more than just a tiny percentage of players. It's not like NLHE CAP where multiple people have played absurd amount of hands in a lower variance game.

PokerStars Steve,

How big was the sample of hands representing each stake on average? Please exclude high stakes samples as those are obviously much lower than average.

What percentage of hands of 6max, on average, were 5 handed?

The biggest outrage has come from NLHE mid stakes regs who believe they saw an increase in rake. If you can answer the above two questions, the spread sheet above could go a long way in providing positive answers for those people. With out answering those questions however, I don't believe the numbers will mean much to these players.

Also you might want to reupload your Omaha table :P

Hi,

So according to Steve's tables, I'm actually paying LESS rake now @ 50Nl rather than more? (which is what I thought looking at JH1's posted tables earlier)

Thanks

According to the posted table, midstakes regs ARE experiencing a rake increase. Steve's info confirms it.

I don't quite understand where you're coming from here. From my understanding, Stars is taking a loss. They could've avoided that by not moving from Dealt to WC.

To me, either that .5% they were originally getting was extremely important to them, or their motives are not immediate profit. My opinion is that they're working to improve their games, and this was a necessary step that upsets a lot of people.

Also, I still don't get why there are still so many complaints about how Stars should've given more. Really? They're taking a loss, how much more do you really think they owe you?

Excellent write up from Chisness. Hopefully people can get it into their skulls now that drastic rake reductions where never a possibility but might be in the future. Same for treating PLO differently, split games differently etc. Let's quit the whining and start looking forward.

Happyeaster,

The tables represent the average player for the sample size that was used. The difference in rake from now and before could be very different for you.

No, the table shows a decrease in rake for NLHE midstakes regs at both 6max and FR. You might be looking at the limit spread sheet :P

Yes, but how many times do you need to be told maybe next time before you realize it may never come. Each poker game is completely different and deserves it's own rake structure.