Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Galfond
No promises here - I don't want your hopes too high
I mean that we'll definitely discuss and very seriously consider it when the pool is big enough, but it's not something worth spending a lot of energy on right now because we can't achieve it.
Thanks for the feedback and kind words <3
"I mean that we'll definitely discuss and very seriously consider it" -
I very much like the sound of that I was hoping you'd say that.
non-anon tables with screen name alias is an important piece of the puzzle, that will help bring the masses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Galfond
I'm not understanding how pros, who have to have a good understanding of expected value and variance, don't see this as a lot of money in their pockets.
---
All that said, it's clear that I'm wrong about everyone understanding EV the way that we do, and as such, we're completely failing on the very important marketing front that is optics.
We have rake much lower than major competitors yet a subset of players think it's higher - that's an absolute disaster, and a big failure for us.
It's something that we didn't see coming from the reg community and we're going to have to do a lot of thinking about how to address, what previously planned changes to bump up the priority list, and what new changes to make to our pricing/rewards.
I really think you are on to something here. I think this is what a lot of people in this thread are saying (in their own unique way).
So I wanted to try and help show the perspective of potential customers.
Our experience of variance, is that it can be absolutely brutal. So when we look at what's on offer we assume the worst (i.e. 0% rakeback won in STP, or close to 0%).
(even if that may seem illogical to you).
So even though I understand what your saying about '51% rakeback' on average, I would still assume a worst-case scenario.
Nobody wants to be that guy who moves some of their action over to another site, to get higher rake - it's much easier to stay where you are.
Ok so somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but it looks like this (for example):
RIO rake: 5.75% . . . . Star rake: 4.50%
4.5/5.75 = 0.7826
5.75 * 0.7826 = 4.5 ; Stars 4.5% is 78.26% of 5.75%
Or in other words, this is exactly equivalent to saying Stars gives 21.7% more direct rakeback (compared to the RIO base rake, for this stake).
So we need to make 21.7% rakeback in winning the random STP hands, to even match what we already get at Stars right now.
Also your caps are higher, but it's the same sort of problem.
This further calculation of the STP variance, is a step too far, to expect anyone to work that out, rather than assume the worst (0% STP, or less than 20%).
I mean in terms of your marketing.
Maybe change the '51%' or don't be too tied to that number ? (seeing the higher base rake & caps quickly puts a downer on it anyway).
Anyway like you said, something needs to change here.