View: Negreanu should look into the PLO rake situation as promised on J.Ingram Podcast
04-28-2015
, 10:55 PM
Hi Daniel,
As you know PLO is the new NLHE for online cash games and the ecology of PLO is something that not only the community but also the operators should protect to avoid killing the potential new golden goose. This thread is designed to provide you with more detailed and accurate information on the rake issue so you hopefully can consult PokerStars to make some changes.
You mentioned on the Joe Ingram podcast that you could look into the PLO rake issue, which has been a major concern for PLO players over past few years. The reason for concern first of all that PLO players pay significantly higher rake in bb/100 compared to the NLHE players, data shows that the bb/100 rake is more than double at micro stakes PLO compared to respective NLHE game. As we all know, the structure of a pot limit game with closer equities preflop will play different than a much tighter no limit game. Therefore I believe it should not be raked under the same rake system when the end result for the players is so unreasonable.
On top of that the PLO games are getting tougher through natural evolution of the game, hopefully it does not have the same fate as online Limit Hold’em... There are also less recreational players per regular in the Zoom games and thus winrates are getting smaller or even negative (as one of the threads linked below shows) in those games. The introduction of fast-fold poker, Zoom, had a significant negative effect on winrates. At regular tables there usually 1 recreational player for 5 pros, at Zoom pools it’s often 1 recreational player for 10-20 pro entries. It seems natural to me that when the poker operator offers a game with smaller chance of winning due to less attractive recreational/pro ratio that the operator would also take a smaller cut of the profit before the game completely dies. In some of the smaller games it’s close to impossible to win pre-rakeback unless you are a mid- or high stakes grinder who drops down to play small stakes.
It would be great if such a strong poker ambassador as yourself who also happens to be close to Pokerstars would take this matter into your heart and first educate yourself on the subject and then discuss it with PokerStars. The issue has been brought up at the PokerStars and players meetings continuously without real changes even there has been some focus on the PLO rake and small improvements have happened over time. In the end the online cash games would need help from someone like you or the TwoPlusTwo owners to push the subject further.
Issue: PLO has an unfair rake structure compared to NLHE.
Question: How can it not be fair to tax NLHE and PLO the same amount in bb/100? Other games have different rake structures.
Solution: Add rewards trough higher VPP ratio in PLO specific or lower the rake (directly or via a new rake method) so that both games (PLO and NLHE) have the same average rake in bb/100 across the stakes.
There has been a number of threads started on TwoPlusTwo regarding these issues, please find some of them below
Rake analysis between PLO & NLHE incl. Zoom
Petition - PokerStars: Lower the price of PLO Zoom
Pokerstars Profits Hugely at Expense of Players - Important for all Poker Players to Act Now
This quote from Pokerscout shows how hard they are raking PLO games vs NLHE:
As you browse these threads I’m sure you’ll quickly realize that it’s very hard a micro/small stakes grinder to eek out a profit from these games, even with the VIP rewards.
There have also been talks about why recreationals have trouble beating or at least not getting slaughtered in online poker recently.
Here's an excellent post from Sauce from another thread where these issues are currently being discussed:
(What Happened to Sklansky and the IGaming North America Conference)
Here is a summarized table on what different players pay in rake on smaller stakes:
...and the lower you go, the worse it gets.
Daniel, I urge you to use your position at the top of the poker world to help fix the PLO rake issue and thus help the poker community and countless poker players, recretional and professionals alike. That would be a great act of good will from PokerStars to protect the longevity of the games and something that we would all be thankful to you for.
As you know PLO is the new NLHE for online cash games and the ecology of PLO is something that not only the community but also the operators should protect to avoid killing the potential new golden goose. This thread is designed to provide you with more detailed and accurate information on the rake issue so you hopefully can consult PokerStars to make some changes.
On top of that the PLO games are getting tougher through natural evolution of the game, hopefully it does not have the same fate as online Limit Hold’em... There are also less recreational players per regular in the Zoom games and thus winrates are getting smaller or even negative (as one of the threads linked below shows) in those games. The introduction of fast-fold poker, Zoom, had a significant negative effect on winrates. At regular tables there usually 1 recreational player for 5 pros, at Zoom pools it’s often 1 recreational player for 10-20 pro entries. It seems natural to me that when the poker operator offers a game with smaller chance of winning due to less attractive recreational/pro ratio that the operator would also take a smaller cut of the profit before the game completely dies. In some of the smaller games it’s close to impossible to win pre-rakeback unless you are a mid- or high stakes grinder who drops down to play small stakes.
It would be great if such a strong poker ambassador as yourself who also happens to be close to Pokerstars would take this matter into your heart and first educate yourself on the subject and then discuss it with PokerStars. The issue has been brought up at the PokerStars and players meetings continuously without real changes even there has been some focus on the PLO rake and small improvements have happened over time. In the end the online cash games would need help from someone like you or the TwoPlusTwo owners to push the subject further.
Issue: PLO has an unfair rake structure compared to NLHE.
Question: How can it not be fair to tax NLHE and PLO the same amount in bb/100? Other games have different rake structures.
Solution: Add rewards trough higher VPP ratio in PLO specific or lower the rake (directly or via a new rake method) so that both games (PLO and NLHE) have the same average rake in bb/100 across the stakes.
There has been a number of threads started on TwoPlusTwo regarding these issues, please find some of them below
Rake analysis between PLO & NLHE incl. Zoom
Petition - PokerStars: Lower the price of PLO Zoom
Pokerstars Profits Hugely at Expense of Players - Important for all Poker Players to Act Now
This quote from Pokerscout shows how hard they are raking PLO games vs NLHE:
Quote:
Thanks to its gigantic and diversified player base, top online poker provider PokerStars is able to spread more games at a wider variety of stakes than any other operator in the world. Which of those games and stakes generate the most revenue for the site, and how does that list compare to the most popular games by player count?
The five highest grossing games on PokerStars are all of the fast-fold variety. This isn't entirely surprising, as fast-fold formats generally average upwards of 200 hands per hour, more than twice that of a regular table.
More unexpected is that one of the site’s highest revenue generators is a PLO game. Considering the low popularity of Omaha relative to Hold’em, the fact that fast-fold $1/$2 PLO made the top five is a testament to both the power of the fast-fold effect, and the tendency of Omaha games to produce massive pots. In general, PokerStars reaps the most profit from its mid-stakes games, where high average pots intersect with decent traffic levels.
The five highest grossing games on PokerStars are all of the fast-fold variety. This isn't entirely surprising, as fast-fold formats generally average upwards of 200 hands per hour, more than twice that of a regular table.
More unexpected is that one of the site’s highest revenue generators is a PLO game. Considering the low popularity of Omaha relative to Hold’em, the fact that fast-fold $1/$2 PLO made the top five is a testament to both the power of the fast-fold effect, and the tendency of Omaha games to produce massive pots. In general, PokerStars reaps the most profit from its mid-stakes games, where high average pots intersect with decent traffic levels.
There have also been talks about why recreationals have trouble beating or at least not getting slaughtered in online poker recently.
Here's an excellent post from Sauce from another thread where these issues are currently being discussed:
(What Happened to Sklansky and the IGaming North America Conference)
Quote:
The crucial point that gets missed in these rake discussions is that the health of the games and the rake taken are dependent, NOT independent. The amount of rake taken in bb/100 seems to be the single biggest factor influencing game health. I appeal to an intuitive argument for this point; if (in a zero rake environment) winrates fall roughly around a normal distribution (or some other distribution of your choice), with the peak being at 0bb/100, then picture a line on this distribution where the rake is set, say 10bb/100. The portion of the curve above the rake line will be the winners. Currently, the rake is 10+bb/100 at low stakes, and so only a tiny fraction of "giant" winners are beating the games.
PokerStars makes the claim that the rake has stayed relatively constant throughout the history of online poker (Zoom notwithstanding), and then makes the hand wavy argument that the current poor game conditions can't be caused by current "high" rake because rake was always as high as it is now. It's true that rake has always been high, but the conclusion doesn't follow. What Stars' argument misses is that if the rake was set at a lower level in the Boom era, then games might have been even better during the Boom era, and good (or at least better) game conditions might have lasted far longer. The great games from the boom era should be explained by the massive influx of new players and the lower skill disparity between professionals and recs, which allowed games to thrive even in a high rake environment. I don't think PokerStars has ever addressed why a Boom era rake level will be sustainable in a more competitive poker economy.
Stars makes an additional argument that continued high rake is necessary in order for Stars to invest in ways to improve the poker economy, notably by attracting new players and pushing for legalization/regulation throughout the world. There's certainly some truth to this, and we as pros should realize that in many respects Stars' interests coincide with our own, and some sizable fraction of the money raked by Stars gets reinvested into our business via Stars' efforts at marketing poker. PokerStars Michael J summarizes this view here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...75&postcount=1).
I disagree that Stars' efforts towards marketing and legalization can fully justify the current rake being charged. It appears that Amaya is "operating on a a profit margin of approximately 38 percent after taxes and operational expenses"
http://www.cardschat.com/news/amaya-...#ixzz3YQmXcc00
which I think shows that Amaya is operating at an excellent short term profit even while spending money on player acquisition and pushing for regulation.
Summing up, poker is a negative sum game, and the magnitude of the negative sum is determined by how much rake is taken. It's silly to argue about qualitative reasons why games are getting tougher when a quantitative one is staring us right in the face. Stars' twin justifications for high rake, (1) 'that high rake doesn't cause poor games because rake has always been high and games used to be better', and (2) 'that current high rake is necessary to attract new players and help fund Amaya's efforts to re-create good game conditions' do not tell the whole story. The simplest way to make games better over time is to lower the rake.
PokerStars makes the claim that the rake has stayed relatively constant throughout the history of online poker (Zoom notwithstanding), and then makes the hand wavy argument that the current poor game conditions can't be caused by current "high" rake because rake was always as high as it is now. It's true that rake has always been high, but the conclusion doesn't follow. What Stars' argument misses is that if the rake was set at a lower level in the Boom era, then games might have been even better during the Boom era, and good (or at least better) game conditions might have lasted far longer. The great games from the boom era should be explained by the massive influx of new players and the lower skill disparity between professionals and recs, which allowed games to thrive even in a high rake environment. I don't think PokerStars has ever addressed why a Boom era rake level will be sustainable in a more competitive poker economy.
Stars makes an additional argument that continued high rake is necessary in order for Stars to invest in ways to improve the poker economy, notably by attracting new players and pushing for legalization/regulation throughout the world. There's certainly some truth to this, and we as pros should realize that in many respects Stars' interests coincide with our own, and some sizable fraction of the money raked by Stars gets reinvested into our business via Stars' efforts at marketing poker. PokerStars Michael J summarizes this view here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...75&postcount=1).
I disagree that Stars' efforts towards marketing and legalization can fully justify the current rake being charged. It appears that Amaya is "operating on a a profit margin of approximately 38 percent after taxes and operational expenses"
http://www.cardschat.com/news/amaya-...#ixzz3YQmXcc00
which I think shows that Amaya is operating at an excellent short term profit even while spending money on player acquisition and pushing for regulation.
Summing up, poker is a negative sum game, and the magnitude of the negative sum is determined by how much rake is taken. It's silly to argue about qualitative reasons why games are getting tougher when a quantitative one is staring us right in the face. Stars' twin justifications for high rake, (1) 'that high rake doesn't cause poor games because rake has always been high and games used to be better', and (2) 'that current high rake is necessary to attract new players and help fund Amaya's efforts to re-create good game conditions' do not tell the whole story. The simplest way to make games better over time is to lower the rake.
Here is a summarized table on what different players pay in rake on smaller stakes:
...and the lower you go, the worse it gets.
Daniel, I urge you to use your position at the top of the poker world to help fix the PLO rake issue and thus help the poker community and countless poker players, recretional and professionals alike. That would be a great act of good will from PokerStars to protect the longevity of the games and something that we would all be thankful to you for.
Last edited by napsus; 04-28-2015 at 11:01 PM.
04-29-2015
, 05:31 AM
04-29-2015
, 07:01 AM
04-29-2015
, 12:57 PM
04-29-2015
, 01:55 PM
Quote:
Totally on board and have been for some time on this issue. Coincidentally I have a meeting later today and was already planning on bringing this issue up again. Obviously I can't make any promises since I don't have the power to make these decisions, but I can promise you that I will do my best to make a case for an adjustment here. Thanks for the additional summary showing the rake differences between NLHE. I will log that and bring it to the meeting.
I think you are a very good guy and you streaming on twitch is very good for the game.
Keep this up!
