Chests?! I don’t have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It’s a depression. Everybody’s out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel’s worth. Banks are going bust. Shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there’s nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there’s no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TVs while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that’s the way it’s supposed to be.

We know things are bad – worse than bad. They’re crazy. It’s like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don’t go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is: ‘Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won’t say anything. Just leave us alone.’

Well, I’m not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get MAD! I don’t want you to protest. I don’t want you to riot – I don’t want you to write to your congressman, because I wouldn’t know what to tell you to write. I don’t know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you’ve got to get mad. (shouting) You’ve got to say: ‘I’m a human being, god-dammit! My life has value!’

So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell: ‘I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take this anymore!’

I want you to get up right now. Sit up. Go to your windows. Open them and stick your head out and yell – ‘I’m as mad as hell and I’m not gonna take this anymore!’ Things have got to change. But first, you’ve gotta get mad!…You’ve got to say, ‘I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take this anymore!’ Then we’ll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first, get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: ‘I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take this anymore!’

2% rakeback? I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take this anymore!

Are you sure that is how it works @Chabby36 ?
from their website i read
"Upgrading to a higher Chest type:
If you earn 10 Chests of the same type within a rolling 28-day period"

It doesn't mention that a chest progress can go backwards unless "If you don't earn any Chests during a rolling 28-day period, the next Chest you earn will then be smaller"

I don't really understand what a rolling 28 day period means. and why don't they mention that the chest progress will go backwards ?

Looks like jungleman supports chests

@almony

Over a rolling 28 day period you need 10 chests to upgrade so lets say on April 1st, you get your first chest - you then get 8 more in the next 8 days so your status bar will say 9/10 on the 9th April. If you dont login again until April 30th, it will now say 8/10 because it has been more than 28 days since you earned that 1st chest on April 1st. Hope that makes sense?

Stars should have been able to explain it better but as usual you just got the copy and paste

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Great, i got shafted again basically.
My point requirement is 5950 for 2nd level chest which is about 2% rakeback lol. The problem is im playing part time , so i don't think ill be able to get 10 chests in a month . basically im stuck at 2% unless i take a full day to grind all day.

Will my point requirement drop significantly if I move up to higher chest ?

It seems fairly random , when they updated chests to make them 'higher rewards' I was 15k for diamond chests until i unlocked 7 , then they spiked to 120k points each, I took 3 weeks to clear the 120k diamond and now im back to 15k diamond chests. (This made it so i won't end up upgrading to black chests cause ive slowly dropped to 4/10 chests while i was unlocking the big 120k requirement whereas at 15k id easily get 10 in 28 days)

I think a monkey throws a dart at a dart board when you unlock a chest and you either get 1% rakeback or 15% depending on your rng

Indeed, mine went up for a couple then went back down again to original requirement. Seems fairly random.

@almony The 28 days isn't based on a month - Wasn't sure if i made that clear but same example as above but the 28 days could be April 15th to May 13th for example if that helps ?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Similar happened to me: I was 25k to black chest and after unlocking 9, the chest requirements suddenly increased ridiculously to 335000! Either a software bug or just absolutely stupid idea of Pokerstars, but it will just kill every % of a players motivation to produce rake for chests and leaves me spechless.

So to confirm you don't keep the points - Stars has stolen ~1625 points from me.

The final kick in the teeth - they moved me back a level for an 'easier' target. The number of points required to clear this chest is the same as the last (4250) so anything I earn this month is also going to be taken.

Stars 'rewards' - for when **** you is simply not enough.

Has anyone who had their chest cost increase 10x been able to get them back to normal cost after clearing the expensive one?

My story:
Black chests initially 35k -- earned 14 of them and now they cost 335k
Earned one at 335k so far but the next one still cost 335k.

In a few days I will celebrate one year of not having played on Stars!!!

Feels good man!
And let the othets whining LoL

Mine went up by x10 too

yes, I was 15k for diamond chest, then 120k, after one chest completed at 120k it went back to 15k, but that was probably because I lost a lot in the couple weeks. Now it is at 30k for a diamond chest.

**** your chests - just won 11 bucks in my Share of the Deal jackpot!

I can't even play The Deal since I don't get any coins (or cash) in my chests, only tickets to the bingo spin & go.

Stars rewards in a nutshell

hehe that pretty much sums up Stars Rewards System in 2019.

And thus u start to have close to no volume on that site.

But they are fine, they wanted poker player base for their casinos/betting anyways, or whatever has left of it.

So basically someone paid for that photoshoot and he joined his robot sex doll later that night. GOOOO Jungle!!! Smash that Terminator poon!!!

Do you guys know how it works out? I'm speaking for Czech market where only Party and Stars have a licence

Like NL25
STARS 4.5% Rake $2 cap 5+ players only SEEN FLOP POTS are raked, 2.3% Rakeback
PARTY $0.01 per $0.20 I can't find any restriction on preflop, $3 Cap.

Party has 10-25% rakeback on my client so it's gonna be either a wash or Stars net rake is marginally lower, with Party withholding your money between milestone hits

With way more traffic, better security and less bots for people at these stakes where rake hits the hardest Stars seems like the clear option?

Just to show you that 0 Rewards means nothing
The only thing that matters is NET RAKE you pay

compared to other factors like variance and frequency of payment of the extra rake you pay (Hello Rio), Software quality (Hi Rio), security (Hello Party), Traffic, softness etc.

It could get much MUCH worse on Stars, and I suspect it will keep getting gradually worse and they will increase their price structures as they have been doing across the board...because they can.

file bankruptcy and buy yo ass a yacht


i like the ufc theme they gave to spin and goes. fits the game.

'no flop no drop' is pretty much standard in casinos (for my experience) and most poker sites too. what would be really nice and appropriate is 'split pot no drop' (which my home casino does too btw, also some sites i think). especially in PLO where you have this quite often with big pots and both players pay full rake but in the end both have significant net losses with the nuts. its so bad that sometimes im thinking about just calling with the nuts (e.g. straight) to avoid the rake.

also the rake caps are absurd. i remember a couple of years ago when Stars actually lowered the rake percentage for NL/PL micro stakes because it was so bad they couldnt deny it, but no one really cared about the insanely high caps, which remained the same (stars knows why). they lowered the rake % something like 15% compared to higher stake but this also means that the caps will be reached even less often. the game at small stakes is pretty much uncapped and i think this is the biggest factor for the hard to beat very very high bb/100h in rake you pay. for example its around 15 big blinds per 100 hands for PLO10. this would mean you pay 1.5 cents for EVERY hand you get dealt. like dnegs says: more rake is better right..tell this to the recreational player who will have lost 15% of his whole stack after only an hour of play to the site alone. they are printing money...

at first glance you might think 'oh stars has way better rake caps than party' for example, but if you look closely you'll realize that the micro caps at stars are already so high that its basically uncapped and it probably doesnt matter for most micro stakes games if the cap is 2$ or 3$, since its not reached unless there are multi-way all ins.
i once calculated how many big blinds have to be in the pot to reach rake cap at small stakes on stars:


upload images

if another site has the same cap for PLO25 for example but 5% rake percentage, rake cap would actually be already reached at 160BB, so cap would be reached more often than on stars but on all other hands you pay more %, which is probably still worse but this serves as an example how important caps are to rake. if cap was at 1.5$ it might make more sense to play on the 5% rake percentage site (capped @120BB) than stars with 4,25%.

there actually are some sites (like 1-2) which have reasonable rake caps for lower stakes, something like 3 big blinds max, which is favorable in small stakes but gets kind of bad at higher stakes, where other sites have caps that are less than these 3BB.
in the end its hard to tell if 30% rb at party with 5% rake percentage but a high cap is better than 4.25% (which is only 15% lower) and a lower caps but almost no rakeback. i once tried to rougly estimate if it makes a big difference in the end but probably does not and structures are sometimes so different that it would make sense to play $25 on this site but $20 on another site...

Except it adds absolutely nothing to the format, nor does it give anything to the players, it’s just advertising for UFC. Why are the players supposed to be happy about this?