***!!2011 Official Pokerstars Regs Thread!!*** - Page 734 - Small Stakes Full Ring Games

Just finish a session under new rake system:

2934 hands, 14.8/11.3/3.0

HEM: New Stars VPP 822.62, 0.28/hand
Pokerstars: 676

VPP reduction 822.62-676/822.62=17.8%

ps: first time posting, please dont be mean

01-01-2012 , 04:12 AM

#18328

NL__Fool

veteran

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 2,602

Quote:

Originally Posted by gay_on_tse

Just finished 2,568 hands. Had a 8% reduction in VPP's
Stars says 1,122, HEM says 1,212.

Games were/still are crazy good, just like every year at this time. Pretty much every table was a throwback to 2004

01-01-2012 , 04:38 AM

#18329

ment52

veteran

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,092

0.72 vpp/h at nl200 today in 5,4k hands lol made 20 buyins

01-01-2012 , 05:03 AM

#18330

vinivici9586

Breakfast?

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 11,618

2011 ****ing sucked. somebody lock this abortion. and blaabar start the 2012 thread plz. nominate rom 2nd. twosmeets or r1aki 3rd, depending who ran worse. tuma as darkhorse

01-01-2012 , 06:31 AM

#18331

hurt

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 7,142

anyone else's pokerstove not working?

01-01-2012 , 07:47 AM

#18332

Slugant

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 7,164

yea my pokerstove is expired as well :S

at 12:00 eastern time is the mass sit out right? till how late runs it, an hour?

01-01-2012 , 09:19 AM

#18333

NatisFinest

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,707

wtf is pokerstove

01-01-2012 , 09:23 AM

#18334

geo8o2

old hand

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,449

maybe i'm a calling station preflop, but i'm getting 100vpps more/ per 1k hands

only played 2k hands so far this month soo.... we'll see

01-01-2012 , 09:28 AM

#18335

Slugant

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 7,164

you do play a style that would benefit from this change, ure one of the few

01-01-2012 , 09:40 AM

#18336

NatisFinest

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,707

i got more vpp's than hem says in my first session also, 6k hands in, 21/16 w/ 32% wtsd% ftw this year boys n girls

01-01-2012 , 09:50 AM

#18337

baebba

banned

Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 477

i got more vpps too... 100nl FR i used to get .25vpp/hand last year, i've played about 4500 hands today and got .3vpp/hand... i play normal 16/14/5 .. still in for a strike though

01-01-2012 , 09:58 AM

#18338

aljufo

journeyman

Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 365

Quote:

Originally Posted by NatisFinest

i got more vpp's than hem says in my first session also, 6k hands in, 21/16 w/ 32% wtsd% ftw this year boys n girls

Natis whats ur estimated vpp/hand on 100 or 200 this year?

Last edited by aljufo; 01-01-2012 at 10:04 AM.

01-01-2012 , 10:18 AM

#18339

NatisFinest

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,707

0.34 @ 100nl for 2012 - was 0.31 last month over 160k hands

and

0.52 @ 200nl for 2012 - was 0.48 last month over 60k hands

01-01-2012 , 10:19 AM

#18340

ment52

veteran

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,092

Quote:

Originally Posted by baebba

i got more vpps too... 100nl FR i used to get .25vpp/hand last year, i've played about 4500 hands today and got .3vpp/hand... i play normal 16/14/5 .. still in for a strike though

your vpprate is bound to be higher since its the softest day of the year, instead of comparing vpp/h to last years, compare actual vpps with hems estimate.

also stop posting in this old thread.

01-01-2012 , 10:21 AM

#18341

pontylad

banned

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 8,724

extremely fishy days such as new years day etc will likely give a distorted vpp rate compared to "usual" grind days.

Last edited by pontylad; 01-01-2012 at 10:21 AM. Reason: ment beat me too it

01-01-2012 , 10:52 AM

#18342

Perfection

veteran

Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 2,349

ROM

re: your example for the guy with 80% RB

He goes from paying $100 rake total and after RB effectively paying $20 to paying $80 in rake and effectively $28.80

BUT that doesnt account for the extra $20 that stayed on the table in the pots he played to be won/lost. So if we assume hes a winning player then surely at least $10 of that would go to improving his WR - thus his bottom line of rake paid went from -$20 to at most -$18.80

So I think saying hes 'worse off' is a little incorrect.

PLUS, even if your numbers are to be taken at face value, Im pretty sure thats exactly what Stars are trying to do ie. give less money back to the SN/SNEs and more to the lower VIP levels. I dont think anyone has a right to say 'I want my RB% to remain the same.' The reason Im going to be sitting out is because its important that the total given back to everyone stays the same, which atm it isnt.

01-01-2012 , 11:10 AM

#18343

NatisFinest

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,707

whats previous/new revenue share perecentages between players and pokerstars?

I was telling gutter a few weeks ago we need a players union, sorta looks like that maybe was done by sending 4 guys to stars headquaters, but now that ftp is gonzo and stars has a monopoly we don't have the market competition to keep our numbers fair and close to what would be considered "standard" in a competitive market.

01-01-2012 , 11:19 AM

#18344

Perfection

veteran

Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 2,349

I think a players union would be a very good idea. PPA isnt really operated in that way for online players.

01-01-2012 , 11:33 AM

#18345

justDgmt

grinder

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 676

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROM Amnesty

Right, SNE completed so I'll address this.

Disclaimer: I've been playing for 16.5 hours straight so I'm too tired to double check these following calculations right now.

-----------------------------

Of course I understand the point you're making, but there are a couple of mistakes.

Firstly, the rake would have to be lowered by a lot more than 20% (5% --> 4%) in order for things to remain in equilibrium.

Imagine a hypothetical reward system where for every $100 paid in rake, you get 80 VPPs, each worth $1. This results in a total cost to the player (rake paid less rakeback) of $20.

Now, if the value of each VPP was reduced by 20% but the rake was also reduced by 20%; over that same sample you will now pay only $80 in rake. This will give you 64 VPPs (80% of $80), each worth $0.80. This results in a total cost to the player of (64*$0.80 - $80) $28.80. You are 44% worse off!

Amazingly, in order to remain the same as before, the rake would have to be reduced by 44.8%!! If this happened then rake paid over the same sample is $55.20. This gives 44 VPPs worth $0.80 each. Total cost is (44*$0.80 - $55.20) $20.

Secondly, which I mentioned in my previous post, the targets for each milestone (and cost of each item in the store) would need to be reduced. This is because each VPP isn't directly related to a cash value. Rather, the VPPs get you to a milestone, and the milestone itself holds the value.

E.g. Adapting our original hypothetical rewards system above, let's assume that instead of each VPP being worth $1 there is instead a 100VPP milestone worth $100. Now, in our revised hypothetical system where each VPP was reduced by 20%, if we are to simply reduce the value of reaching 100VPPs to $80 this won't work because we wouldn't reach the milestone in the same amount of time/hands as we're earning VPPs at a slower rate.

confused, where did $20 u save on rake go?

01-01-2012 , 11:35 AM

#18346

NatisFinest

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,707

ppa isn't ran by players either, by players i mean current .5/1 - 5/10 multi table grinders who are active in the community. Pretty much as of right now Pokerstars can do whatever they want cause there's no immediate competition, its not like we can just go to party poker if they lower our revenue share by 30%.

I'm sure Pokerstars has a near future plan and the changes this year are probably just step one of the rape process. Personally I don't care if they switch to a weighted rakeback thing, even if it negatively effects me, but if they are going to start to reduce our equity of the revenue brought in... well then that just puts me on tilt.

Pissing off your best customers can never be a good business move Pokerstars Steve, and you don't want to go to war with a bunch of degenerated 20 year olds.

01-01-2012 , 11:59 AM

#18347

gNt

journeyman

Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 224

Plz ( to the ppl who potentially go to Isle Of The Man) please consider this post made by ROM (MeleaB).

Vouch to increase the vpp multiplier for FR to something like 7.

not to decrease the rake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROM Amnesty

I'm cross posting this because a potential reduction in rake paid %age is not a good solution (especially for everyone who is a SNE,) and I'm concerned that virtually no one is aware of this fact. I fear if that change was made it would be disastrous hence I'd like everyone here to understand why. No doubt people will then cease to support that particular idea.

----------------------------------------------------

I'm re-quoting this as I think that it's very, very important that everyone understands that a reduction in rake paid %age is not a good solution for compensation for the reduction in VPP value. (Especially for players with high rake back %ages. Although it does reward the players with low rack back %ages.)[/COLOR]

The following highlights how reducing rake paid by 20% to compensate for a loss of 20% in VPP value would effect players differently, depending on their rake back %age:

>>>>>>>>>> Someone who has equivalent of 80% rake back on Stars, would effectively see the amount of rake they pay increase by 44%. (The example quoted above assumes 80% rack back, and the calculations are detailed there, and repeated below.)

>>>>>>>>>> Someone who has equivalent of 50% rake back on Stars, would effectively see the amount of rake they pay decrease by 4%. (Details at bottom of post.)

>>>>>>>>>> Someone who has equivalent of 20% rake back on Stars, would effectively see the amount of rake they pay decrease by 16%. (Details at bottom of post.)

On top of this, and another very important point is that everyone would earn VPPs at a 20% slower rate, hence milestones would be far harder to reach, resulting in significant further reduction in the value of VPPs. (Milestone targets and cost of store items would therefore also have to be reduced by 20%.)

In Summary, simply reducing the %age of rake paid is not a good, fair, or simple solution to compensating for a loss in VPP value.

---------------------------------------------------------

Detail for player with 80% rack back:

Imagine a hypothetical reward system where for every $100 paid in rake, you get 80 VPPs, each worth $1. This results in a total cost to the player (rake paid less rakeback) of $20.

Now, if the value of each VPP was reduced by 20% but the rake was also reduced by 20%; over that same sample you will now pay only $80 in rake. This will give you 64 VPPs (80% of $80), each worth $0.80. This results in a total cost to the player of (64*$0.80 - $80) $28.80. You are 44% worse off!

Detail for player with 50% rack back:

Imagine a hypothetical reward system where for every $100 paid in rake, you get 50 VPPs, each worth $1. This results in a total cost to the player (rake paid less rakeback) of $50.

Now, if the value of each VPP was reduced by 20% but the rake was also reduced by 20%; over that same sample you will now pay only $80 in rake. This will give you 40 VPPs (50% of $80), each worth $0.80. This results in a total cost to the player of (40*$0.80 - $80) $48. You are 4% better off.

Detail for player with 20% rack back:

Imagine a hypothetical reward system where for every $100 paid in rake, you get 20 VPPs, each worth $1. This results in a total cost to the player (rake paid less rakeback) of $80.

Now, if the value of each VPP was reduced by 20% but the rake was also reduced by 20%; over that same sample you will now pay only $80 in rake. This will give you 16 VPPs (20% of $80), each worth $0.80. This results in a total cost to the player of (16*$0.80 - $80) $67.20 You are 16% better off.