Right before they had Jason Mercier, when Mike & Adam were clarifying the GPI on I was reminded of this

http://youtu.be/sShMA85pv8M?t=1m15s

This might put in question future appearances as the third man in the booth but I sort of felt a correction was in order.

Starting at 26:32, Adam says:

"Having said that, a lot of these guys lose. If they make 110k in the VIP program and lose 40k doing it, they still made 70k. So, where did that 40k they lost go? Well, they went to the other players on the site. Not saying all of them do, but some of them do."

I could say I feel like this qualifies Adam to be an economist for the government but that would be unfair to Adam.

If someone lost 40k pre-rakeback (VIP bonuses, whatever you want to call it) and netted 70k, then they didn't lose money to the player pool at all. Unless they are somehow getting >100% rakeback in which case Stars should probably fix that. Because when you are down 40k, that includes the rake you paid. Even if the guy in this example has 50% effective RB then he paid 55k in rake which means his actual net of playing poker would be +15k (excluding the fact that previously he was getting RB based on the dealt method).

Rakeback isn't money just magically generated out of nowhere. It's money returned from rake you (or people at your table, before WC) paid. So the person in question is actually a winning player, he's just not a winning player after the rake. But whether he is a winning player post-rake has nothing to do with whether he adds or removes money from the site player pool.

Standard disclaimer: I believe in Stars' right and its obligation to maximize the long-term value of the company within whatever ethical means it deems necessary. Furthermore I have no sympathy for 9% VPIP nits who won't be able do their noble work grinding out that rent money. Just wanted to point out this common misconception.

^^
I was going to mention this.

If a player makes sne and is $40k down before rewards, he actually beat the other players at the table for around $140k, but paid $180k in rake.

One thing that I'm not sure if it has been mentioned. Pokerstars VIP program is not a year long program, its a multi year program. For many, especially supernova elite, you really reap the benefits in year 2. Basically for a lot of players, pokerstars has reduced their benefits AFTER they have earned them. This doesn't seem fair to me.

Personally I don't think I will be hugely affected, I may even slightly benefit. I'll guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens with these negotiations later this month.

Well, given whats happened, believing our VIP status will retain a fixed or relatively consistent value from one month into the next is a critical mistake. This isn't the most subtle way of putting it, so if I'm totally wrong here please correct me.

From what I can tell, Stars did not make a large effort to inform players that the value of their VIP status could change at any time on a moments notice. Though, I think players are brushing up on their facts pretty quickly now.

If all this is accurate then maybe we were a little ignorant and our player confidence is slightly misplaced? This is not a comfortable thing to consider.

I'm not sure... but I do think that being uncertain about how valuable our VIP status will be from month to month will create some problems between the players and PokerStars.

Still, we can't go crying over things that have already happened. The release schedule was abrupt and that was probably a mistake. Players didn't really have the kind of time they needed to digest the changes before they were implemented.

Even though I wouldn't change my decision, protesting was also not the most effective or thoughtful thing I could have done. I think (or hope) a lot of other people also took the moderate approach by making an effort to understand the changes, contacting stars in advance, or sitting out on their regular table volume.

Of course the whole lot were swiftly lumped together with a herd of players who appeared to have some pretty malicious intentions... but this is speculation on my part and it almost doesn't matter. The actions of both groups are really questionable.

Regardless, I still like thinking about PokerStars as the kind of darling company it was considered to be at its inception. I really want to believe they care about the things that matter to us, and that the company isn't just some elaborate cash vacuum.

anyways, tl;dr etc.

Have not rea the whole thread, bUt I will say what I think about the changes.
First off, I' mostly an mtt player so this doesnt rly affect me, but I feel like the vip program is a bonus and we should be gratfull for it. Poker shoul be all about beating the other players and not about playing a bunch of hand to breakeven.

I play on a small website for quebec residents and the only rb we get is in the form of tourney $ and it is worth about 3% rb.

Also its a business and if they want to make changes like that, they shouldnt have to justify anything.

Ya, what I was thinking in my head was some players lose money trying for SN or SNE and landed in some pretty stupid territory there.

Hhmmm I dunno Terrance. Of course pre or post rake, profit is profit. If it's in the form of a deferred payment from rakeback, so what? In Adam's example the $40k the SNE player 'lost' (pre rakeback) went to the site, but we mustn't forget the rakeback grinding nits still contribute significantly to those of us with positive winrates (even if these contributions just subsidise the rake the big winners pay). I won't post a direct link but check out how much Nanonoko has taken from the biggest 400nl regulars...

The reason I ask if looser winning players are happy with the changes is because there's a possibility the changes could affect the long term bottom lines of the looser winning players. If the changes force the nits to leave or adapt, the make-up of the tables at 100NL + might well start to look similar to some of the tougher Euro sites: tougher games with the avergage skill level increased and looser regulars bumhunting.

I'm personally still in favour of any changes that reward players equitably according to skill.

That in itself constitutes a choice IMO

What gives you that idea? True, the rake is high, but the nano stakes are still extremely beatable. They allow people to deposit $100 and build a roll from that. I'm a recreational player, and I'm still playing on the $60 I deposited in 2007. And yes, I did feed the higher games.

One remark in general: The only obligations that Stars has IMO are towards its shareholders. Welcome to capitalism. Whether the current changes are a good business decision I don't know.

The VIP program is not simply a bonus program.

Table Rake - VIP Program = Total Rake Paid.

It is not something to be grateful for. But it is integral to the overall cost to play poker. The VIP program is simply one of three components on your poker balance sheet. Lowering the value of the VIP program is exactly the same as raising table rake when it comes to total rake paid to the site.

Expenses:
Table Rake (rake component 1)

Revenue:
Table Winnings before rake
VIP program rewards (rake component 2)
____________
Profit

Poker is not just about beating other players. You have to look at the overall bottom line for your balance sheet. By your logic you would have no argument against total rake being raised or being too high in the first place regardless of what the site wants to charge or give back because it's only a "bonus." Are you still "grateful" for 20-40% rb if the Sunday Million were to go to $200+$20? $200+$30? $200+$40? If you're a winner, you'd still beat the other players for more than your share of the prize pool so whether you beat total rake paid is inconsequential, right?

Like TChan said, those that end up with losses before the program is applied are winners, they just don't beat the rake. I suppose Stars could just make it 7% up to $5 rake cap site wide or completely scrap the VIP program and leave the rake structure where it is and everyone could still tell those arguing against this rake increase to suck it up and learn to play better.

Thanks for a great show!

After working as professional poker player and poker site consultant for two years (2005-07), I feel like a well-informed recreational player. Although this episode sounded as if it were paid by Stars, it is important to express what's best for the game. The Games at PokerStars were being destroyed due to very good conditions for mass-tabling.

Br,
Jalla van Balla

i kinda vomit when pokerstars steve comes on. You are both act like ur boss just walked in.
Poker world is really at a low point now, and it seems that people in the poker world will do ANYTHING for alittle pay. This is supposed to be a podcast for the BENEFIT of 2+2.
I guess in a few years when there are more options this won't be so pronounced, but as it is at the moment your podcast just comes across as an advert.
I don't know if the podcast is your main income, pretty sure you both do other things, so i can't blame you for protecting ur incomes.
But it would be nice to have a podcast which wasn't owned by pokerstars. Can't you atleast get rid of pokerstars steve? I guess you contractually can't.....

This statement would only make sense in a situation where everyone on 2+2 was in universal agreement on every subject and issue. This is of course never the case and particularly isn't the case on the subject matter of this episode. Seems you are saying the program is only of value if reflects your personal opinions and takes up your causes. As others have observed ITT, we did our best to discuss the changes from many angles and how it effects ALL 2+2'ers, all poker players adn the online poker industry going forward.

While 2+2 is the home of this program, I know from years of interacting with listeners that a significant portion of our audience are recreational players who spend little or no time posting on these forums.

you aren't representing the views of a silent majority of poker players. you are representing the views of a company who pays you. EVeryone has to get paid, so that is cool, but don't be saying stuff that isn't true

Count me in among those who tune out during Steve's portion of the podcast, although my reasons have more to do with the way he talks than the actual content. He always sounds like someone who rolled over to answer the phone after being shaken out of his sleep -- which might not be that far from the truth.

Disinterested, when you say the podcast "comes across as an advert," are you talking about this specific episode or about the show as a hole? This particular show was very PS-heavy (as one would guess by the title) but most episodes are hardly infomercials for the site.

Yes, they actually wrote the part where I brought up that some are asking if the changes were a "cash grab" similar to FTP with multi-entry tournaments and rush etc.

Great show. Thought that Steve's response was over and above what ANY company would provide after making a change to it's conditions that are in it's favour. Compare stars then to other sites and again they are ahead of the game. They've seen off their major competitor and have lost a huge chunk of their market this year and steve quite openly stated that the positive impact on their bottom line was a factor. I think they have quite rightly surmised that the change may improve the games for casuals and there is likely not going to be a mass exodus of grinders. Where would they go?

Few points:
- while you can argue about relative merit of the different player types one thing that can be said with certainty is that losing players are mandatory for a poker site so it follows that even if they are not most important group they must be a factor in decisions.
- would be great if possible to have some sort of global time bank so that automatically players that are slowing games are immediately penalized for that fact and would be forced to play a number of tables that would limit their negative impact on the games.
- I have seen figures suggesting a 25% reduction in the rewards for some players. Would imagine that losing USA had at least that much of a reduction or more to stars bottom line. I don't really understand the sense of entitlement there seems to be from the grinders.

...and, just so I understand you, are we suggesting here that the podcast was more objective because of it?

While my views are my own and I would never claim to represent anyone else, I regularly make it very clear that I speak on many subjects as a 'typical recreational player', which is exactly what I am. I figure this point was made clear about 5-10 times during this specific episode. The fact you yourself refer to that group as the 'majority of poker players' confirms the importance of making sure those points of view are expressed on the show.

As a morbid curiosity, which company were you referring to that you thought I was speaking for, 2+2 or PokerStars.

thing is though, stars games are redic nitty. not because of dealt rake, but because of the VIP club system itself.

flat rakeback would improve game quality alot. But stars isnt that stupid. These changes will get rid of the bottom few % of regs and the rest will just play that extra 10-20% to meet their goals.

lets not forget steve D has now said stars is thinking of INCREASING the number of tables a person can play.


would also appreciate it if you could highlight the fact that mass-multitabling legend nanonoko couldnt beat the rake in 50nl

obvious reply is obvious. 1 session means he can't beat the rake? It's pretty well documented that Randy is a known winner over his career. Not sure what his bb/100 winrate is but his graphs are legendary.

edit - not to mention the whole purpose of the exercise was to do something fun and exhibit his ability to play a massive volume of hands in a specific period of time. You'd have to be a pretty special kind of dumb to think the circumstances of this novelty exhibition(guinness world record attempt) reflected exactly how one of his normal sessions unfolds.

In other news, Father Andrew Trapp is a better poker player than Daniel Negreanu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_gK2Z0SiOM

i agree nanonoko is sick!!!! and that is the point. he couldnt beat the micro rake.

ofcourse he was playing almost 2x the number of tables he is used to but all this attempt has done is highlight the rake. Im also not going to pretend that if he played his normal game he wouldnt beat it but still, ofcourse he would he would crush it. Effective rake is so so much lower in his games http://www.pokertableratings.com/pok...imit-hold%27em


quite simply this attempt has highlighted the rake issue


edit: lol at saying one session though. it was 20k hands long!!!!

surely as an objective pokercast and as an avid fan of poker (which you are) you only have the best interests of the game at heart, this WR has given you the excuse to highlight the rake issue

35 tabling isn't even 'poker' IMO so whether he can beat the rake under those conditions is irrelevant. What I don't agree with is that Randy Lew can't beat the rake in general. He's proven that he can. I personally think not beating the rake in this incidence had way more to do with how many tables he was playing than the current rake itself. I'd be shocked if Randy couldn't beat the rake at .25/.50 over, say...a years time, playing 8-12 tables. That would be an awesome prop bet but he'd never do it as he can make far more money playing higher stakes.

Personally, for the quality and speed of the games, I believe 12 is the max # of tables that any online site should permit players to sit at simultaneously.

Fwiw, I really do believe you guys aren't being "bought out" by stars.

in my view, you're just people trying to do something kinda good... when possible.


However, I do think that its a very tricky discussion to prove that you are as non-biased and objective as you can be.

I'd guess that you might spend a lot of time trying to prove your objectivity, and that this might not even be the most effective way to appear objective.

I also think people are painting you guys into a corner. With everyone cherping about how bad the changes are, its only natural to play devils advocate in order to get the whole story out. Then of course, you must be biased since all you do is defend pokerstars right?

I hope you guys continue to make good podcasts, and in the mean time try not to shoot yourselves in the foot.

Nanonoko explaining why his win rate didn't 'beat the rake'

Hey Mike, is there a new episode today? I believe you said that it would be recorded Monday night this week, but don't see any update on the site or twitter.

Thanks and great show as always. Despite a few obvious issues, I think Stars actually handled this situation pretty well and I applaud their frankness in talking about the whole thing.