**** Official 2012 Pokerstars Regs Thread ****
01-03-2012
, 08:15 PM
01-03-2012
, 08:25 PM
01-03-2012
, 08:25 PM
01-03-2012
, 08:52 PM
01-03-2012
, 08:53 PM
Quote:
I’ve been attempting to explain how reducing the rake paid in order to compensate for reduced VPPs being awarded- through the WC rake- is not as simple as people think, and that specifically, further VPP value would be lost due to milestones taking longer to reach.
To verify what I’m claiming (or otherwise) I’m putting together a model in the hope of getting this point across. Before coming up with a final version of the model though I’d like to first post this initial version and ask for help from others to “proof read” it for me, and to identify any possible errors, and make any comments. If I'm wrong, great- that's better for me, but I currently think this is a very important implication that virtually everyone seems to be missing.
Model V1.0
The model is based around a “typical” break-even 2011 NL100 SNE player. The first row shows that this player managed 4,000,000 hands in 2011 at an average rate of 0.25 VPP/hand. He made $160k at the tables, but paid $160k in rake to finish the year level. However he received $120k back in SNE value for a total profit of $120k.
The second row shows the same player under the 2012 WC rake, where this particular player earns VPPs at a 20% slower rate. To compensate it is calculated that if his rake paid is reduced by 15%, then this will make up for his reduction in VPP rate, and it looks to work fine. After all, that reduction in rake paid makes him an extra $24k at the tables which seems to balance perfectly with the 20% reduction in total VPP value (from 120k to 96k.)
However, the major problem is that he has now actually only reached 80% of the way towards SNE. So, the third row gives a truer picture of how his year would end up, as his individual VPP value has now been reduced by 20% from $0.1200 to $0.0960. So his Total Profit for the year has decreased by 15% from $120k to just over $100k.
NB:
1. $120k has been used as an estimated worth of reaching SNE. It is not meant to be precise, nor does it matter.
2. Rake Paid has been reduced by 15% in this example. This is not the same as a 15% reduction in Rake %age. This is because the rake cap is not reduced by the same percentage, so many pots that were raked at $3 previously would still now be raked at $3. (To see a 15% reduction in Rake Paid, the Rake %age would have to decrease by significantly more than 15%.)
3. The final picture (row 3) would actually be even worse than is portrayed (G7) because reaching 80% of the way towards SNE is worth less than 80% of SNE value.
4. To clarify, this post is not claiming that reducing the rake isn't a bad thing compared to not reducing the rake and making no others changes either.
5. I also think that, by the same token, all store items became effectively more expensive for cash players too.
To verify what I’m claiming (or otherwise) I’m putting together a model in the hope of getting this point across. Before coming up with a final version of the model though I’d like to first post this initial version and ask for help from others to “proof read” it for me, and to identify any possible errors, and make any comments. If I'm wrong, great- that's better for me, but I currently think this is a very important implication that virtually everyone seems to be missing.
Model V1.0
The model is based around a “typical” break-even 2011 NL100 SNE player. The first row shows that this player managed 4,000,000 hands in 2011 at an average rate of 0.25 VPP/hand. He made $160k at the tables, but paid $160k in rake to finish the year level. However he received $120k back in SNE value for a total profit of $120k.
The second row shows the same player under the 2012 WC rake, where this particular player earns VPPs at a 20% slower rate. To compensate it is calculated that if his rake paid is reduced by 15%, then this will make up for his reduction in VPP rate, and it looks to work fine. After all, that reduction in rake paid makes him an extra $24k at the tables which seems to balance perfectly with the 20% reduction in total VPP value (from 120k to 96k.)
However, the major problem is that he has now actually only reached 80% of the way towards SNE. So, the third row gives a truer picture of how his year would end up, as his individual VPP value has now been reduced by 20% from $0.1200 to $0.0960. So his Total Profit for the year has decreased by 15% from $120k to just over $100k.
NB:
1. $120k has been used as an estimated worth of reaching SNE. It is not meant to be precise, nor does it matter.
2. Rake Paid has been reduced by 15% in this example. This is not the same as a 15% reduction in Rake %age. This is because the rake cap is not reduced by the same percentage, so many pots that were raked at $3 previously would still now be raked at $3. (To see a 15% reduction in Rake Paid, the Rake %age would have to decrease by significantly more than 15%.)
3. The final picture (row 3) would actually be even worse than is portrayed (G7) because reaching 80% of the way towards SNE is worth less than 80% of SNE value.
4. To clarify, this post is not claiming that reducing the rake isn't a bad thing compared to not reducing the rake and making no others changes either.
5. I also think that, by the same token, all store items became effectively more expensive for cash players too.
01-03-2012
, 08:57 PM
I think losing 31% of your rakeback should be the LEAST of your concerns brah...How about becoming a winning player?? Where does that rank on the concern list?
You're welcome for keeping your SN our little secret...don't say i never did anything for you.
01-03-2012
, 09:03 PM
01-03-2012
, 09:03 PM
01-03-2012
, 09:10 PM
01-03-2012
, 09:18 PM
01-03-2012
, 09:24 PM
Might be, my ****in cars off road though cus i'm throwing a new engine in it, innit! so i'd have to get the train or summat gay like that.
Somehow I've managed to get to the ripe old age of 24 and never visit our country's capital so i might actually pop down one weekend if that's cool? I'm a bit of a dick tho......
so i'd have to get the train or summat gay like that.Somehow I've managed to get to the ripe old age of 24 and never visit our country's capital so i might actually pop down one weekend if that's cool? I'm a bit of a dick tho......
01-03-2012
, 09:30 PM
01-03-2012
, 09:39 PM
01-03-2012
, 09:45 PM
