Ok then explain it to me. How can stars not afford to give 35% of its rake back? And he said "stars system paid everyone". Please explain that statement because hat went way over my head. As far as I know I could sign on to full tilt and play 10 hands a month, if that's all my real life let me do that month, and I would still get RB on those 10 hands. I played thousands of hands on stars and never got anything. Was I doing something wrong or missing something?

I understand the various methods of calculating rake and rake back pretty damn well. What I am saying is that in a system where only a fraction of the people get rakeback, the percentage they get is more than what they would get if everyone got rakeback.

Let me illustrate further: Say a 5 handed table produces $500 in rake over the course of some time, and 2 players had 35% rakeback. Lets say MGR was even split, too. Now the site pays $70 out. If all 5 players had RB, the site would pay $175 out. That is a big difference. So if everyone was on RB, they would probably have to drop the percentage considerably.

You might argue that they could cut into their margins, which may or may not be feasible. But the fact remains that if they can pay back X% of the total rake they take in, then the fewer players getting a piece of that the more each of those players is going to get.

Actually, if you are super nova elite on stars (at least when they were still US facing and I bothered to evaluate their VIP system) you were getting over 50% effective rakeback. If you were bronze it was closer to 10% I think. Sites have a budget for incentivizing people to play there, RB is part of that, and they make their reward systems / RB based on what the expected total payout will be. Trust me, FT's 27% to players was based on an estimation of how much of the rake was being generated by RB players, which was much less than all of them.

Let's keep this thread on-topic please. If you wish to continue to discuss rakeback, start a new thread. (But even then, that thread will have to be in relation to US legislation/regulation or it will be kicked to the Internet Poker forum, where you can no doubt already find extensive discussions of rakeback vs. reward programs.) Further discussion of rakeback in this thread will be considered a derail.

On AGA vs. PokerStars

don't worry. You'll have many choices. It's not just PS and one other online room.
They are trying to shut Stars out because they are starting 20 steps behind them, in terms of experience, player pool, and name recognition.
Legal jumbo like this happens all the time. I'm not saying it's right, but it's not surprising either.

nevermind, don't want to get this thread off topic again.

I think it's only bad for consumers to have a top company included when the top company has shown they can and will limit other companies and produce an inferior/more expensive product as a result.

Given the rake is higher on Party/888/Ongame/MPN and pretty much every other site, the software, security, rulings and rewards are worse too than Stars, I think it's safe to say that Stars is just a better run company and we as players should want them there if we're talking about what is good for the consumer.

If you're talking about what is fair, I'd ask you to start back further, on how the UIGEA was even passed in the first place, how the casinos went against player interests back then by not opposing a bill, and then look at the bigger picture on what is fair to you.

FYP.

I agree. Poker players need to be wary of folks who want a "fair" playing field. When a corporate campaign is designed to effect protectionist legislation, to secure protection for its own interests against competition, it is NOT fairness to players they seek, nor are they playing a game.

There was no "Fair" or "Play" in FairPlayUSA. That some industry front group appears to promote "policy", it should have a tough row to hoe if it wants to be more seen as more than than a paid-for ho. (The PPA has done plenty for players, much more than just FPUSA's trotting out paid spokesmodels like Mr. Freeh and Mr. Ridge .)

There is no "fair" in this protectionist attack by the AGA.

Look at who benefitted the most from UIGEA. -Pokerstars. Overnight they took all US players from Party and Paradise who had a larger market share at that time. And from the years 2006 to BF I get the feeling Stars profitted from US players much more then the fine that they paid to the DOJ.

FairPlayUSA
Fair Play Technology (Revolution Network)
Fair tax
Fair use
Fair & balanced

It is, in fact, an interesting naming convention.

So the main question is does the AGA have a strong enough pull to actually prevent Pokerstars from buying the Atlantic Club? Who ultimately decides this, the gaming commission? What is their stance on this?

PokerStars has sent a letter over to the New Jersey Commission, basically saying, in cliff notes .....

" Look, the AGA has no interest, standing, or anything to contribute to your investigation.What they ARE doing is crapping all over you, your regulatory processes, and the State of New Jersey. Also, they are crapping all over 2400 casino jobs. Kick this AGA arrogance to the curb."

http://www.igamingbusiness.com/conte...on-against-aga

The url has a link to the actual Letter. Nice job, Jeff.

Thought folks ITT would be interested to see some survey results on how PPA members in New Jersey feel about the AGA effort to block PokerStars from purchasing the Atlantic Club. You can see the survey results in this blog from NJ.com.

John A. Pappas
PPA, ED

Thought folks ITT would be interested to see some survey results on how PPA members in New Jersey feel about the AGA effort to block PokerStars from purchasing the Atlantic Club. You can see the survey results in this blog from NJ.com.

John A. Pappas
PPA, ED

Survey results look good for us, seems like people clearly want Pokerstars in NJ. I know i do!!

My preference would be to keep the unreformed con men and fraudsters out, but I think this discussion has been moved to another thread.

It may have been moved out because nobody at PS has been convicted of, or confessed to, breaking any laws.

It's hardly an unbiased sample... Let's survey popes to see if they're Catholics!

Once it is explained to Christie the fiasco that went down at Revel and someone explains to him the risk involved after United States v. Scheinberg of granting PS a license, he will choose to keep his political career alive and tread more carefully in AC. It is unthinkable that one of the front-runners in 2016 is going to throw caution to the winds and play with fire...

Revel? What are the details? All I'd seen was that PS were thinking about buying that but went for the Atlantic Club Casino instead: http://calvinayre.com/2012/12/07/bus...c-club-casino/

And what are the risks?

Nice spin.

Any feedback/tension now between the PPA and the AGA and/or Caesars ?

How likely there is going to be a PPA event at the Rio for the WSOP this year ?

It's not supposed to be a survey of the general population. It's a survey of the poker community to gauge their wishes.

I think you do good work but that survey result would have been equally as surprising if you'd have asked about bears and woods.

the Revel fiasco is well documented in the NJ/NY/Penn newspapers and on the 2+2 Revel thread. The Democrats will have considerable ammunition should Christie run for re-election or in 2016, just based on this mess. The risk to Christie's political future should there be another scandal in Atlantic City à la United States v. Scheinberg is also clear. (see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._v._Scheinberg)