https://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/rake/

As shown on the site, maximum rake is always 5% (with a cap ofc).

Varies from 3.5% to 4.5% at the microes.

Isn't that close to what it always has been? And also not that bad?

(Yes the rakeBACK cuts are an absolute annihilation).

That's a very strange way of looking at it. Cutting rakeback is effectively increasing rake. If your grocery store started selling eggs with 8 eggs per carton instead of 12, you wouldn't say "I don't see the problem. It's still the same price it's always been!"

From a business standpoint they still offer a very competitive product. They have better software, better security and better game selection than any other platform. They should be charging a premium for that. Everyone on 2p2 likes to circlejerk about how bad PS is, but the reality is that the blame lies with all the other platforms who simply can't offer a similar quality product.

Instead of being mad at PS for pricing their superior product accordingly, people should be mad at party and ipoker and 888 for having software straight out of 2007 and rampant game integrity issues. That in the past PS offered not only the best product, but also the cheapest product, was frankly a mistake on their part.

Stop making sense 2p2 nvg hates that!

Back in my day, you had to beat the tables with zero rakeback. Imagine that

rite

What day is it today?

Well that was a breath of fresh air

It's not tho. You still get the very same product, for pretty much the same price. You just lose some bonuses for being a loyal customer.

Indeed, this is how the marketplace works. And if you desire that better software, security, and game selection, you will pay for (bitching about the price is optional and always reserverd #Merica)

No, not really. You don't get to blame Macy's high end prices on Walmart not being high end and charging high end prices. Pokerstars is to blame for actions taken by Pokerstars

They aren't mutually exclusive, fair enough to be 'mad' at both simultaneously. But rather than be mad, make a choice that suits your preference and accept what you get.

I know, right? I mean, who would have thought an illegal offshore gambling site would treat its customers so much better than a publicly traded corporation? They were definitely owned by some suckers back then

In terms of net rake paid if you cut rakeback your essentially increasing the rake. I guess they could keep rakeback the same and increase the rake and it'd be 'pretty much the same' in your eyes?

It's amazing this needs to be explained. LOLmath.

This is a disingenuous analogy somewhat.

Obv decreasing rakeback across the board de facto increases rake, but the rakeback system is tiered and progressive. Heavy grinders get more, etc

Whether or not Stars has this system right is a different argument

No, it's not the same. That's what i'm saying.


If a site increases rake to 10% i think that would be horrific, but these bonus cuts are really not hard to survive.

It's not meant to be a perfect analogy, but it works well enough to explain why thinking purely in terms of unit pricing is stupid. The point isn't about ecosystem, just basic arithmetic.

BTW, it's a very common practice for food companies to hide price increases by slightly reducing portions. This is sometimes called the grocery shrink ray. Tomato cans used to be 30 oz, I believe, but now they're commonly 28. People like OP don't know the difference because the price doesn't change.

https://consumerist.com/tag/grocery-shrink-ray-2/

I wish I could play on Pokerstars.

ice cream used to come in half gallon. then 1.75 quarts, then 1.5 quarts. i observed the phenomenon before i heard about it.

ACTUALLY bro, you're getting the same product for the same price. You just lost some bonus ice cream.

Yep. I would play at zero rakeback if I could. I wonder if Stars should actually try to help the US players instead of doing wtf they have been since 2011?

Really? We're doing this again?


Numbers arbitrarily chosen for example:


1.
Rake = 5%
Rakeback = 30%
5 * (1 - 0.3) = 0.035
Actual Cost of Rake = 3.5%


2.
Rake = 5%
Rakeback = 4%
0.5 * (1 - 0.04) = 0.048
Actual Cost of Rake = 4.8%


3.
Rake = 10%
Rakeback = 30%
0.1 * (1 - 0.3) = 0.07
Actual Cost of Rake = 7%




Moving from 1 to 2 is a 37% increase in the cost of rake.
((4.8 - 3.5) / 3.5) * 100 = ~37%

Moving from 1 to 3 is a 100% increase in the cost of rake.
((7 - 3.5) / 3.5) * 100 = 100%




Yes, moving from 1 to 3 is worse than moving from 1 to 2. Moving from 1 to 3 increases rake by 100%. But moving from 1 to 2 increases rake by 37%, which, while not as bad as 1 to 3, still seems quite significant.




EDIT:

Assuming the rake percentage stays the same and rakeback percentages are changed, then whether or not the price before such change and the price after such change is would depend on a person's particular rakeback percentage pre-change and post-change and how one would define "pretty much." For a person moving from 1 to 2 I don't think I would say a 37% increase in price is "pretty much the same price."



SECOND EDIT:

4.
Rake = 6.85%
Rakeback = 30%
0.0685 * (1 - 0.3) = 0.04795
Actual Cost of Rake = 4.795%



Moving from 1 to 4 is about the same as moving from 1 to 2.

100%

I guess Stars has it right then if yourself and others really believe it's not the same.

I screwed up typing one of the numbers in the third line of both 1 and 2 in the above quote. I fixed it in the above quote and put what I added in bold and red.

Cool story bro, needs more numbers and ****

Hmmm, math.

Hmmm, evaluating price changes by calculating the price before the change and the price after the change and comparing the results.

Hmmm.