PokerStars VIP Program & Ring Game Rake Changes for 2012

[doubleup]

The 40% thing is obv not true. In a game where you are playing 30% of hands vs 5 nits playing 20% of hands or less, you will get more vpps allocated by the new system than the old.

Have to say that I have assumed stars used weighted contribution and was quite surprised to find out they didn't, since it is so obviously better for everyone in the long term. Fuck the nits.

it takes two to create rake.  Stealing or restealing creates no rake.  And anit is just as likely to iso a fish as a lag.  So the only difference is really that laggier players create more coolers between each other.

[KarmaDope]

Now if Stars would standardise 6vpps per $1 for every game - I'd be happy.

LOL @ all the FR nits moaning though, deal with it. It's not 2005 anymore!

[doubleup]

Now if Stars would standardise 6vpps per $1 for every game - I'd be happy.

LOL @ all the FR nits moaning though, deal with it. It's not 2005 anymore!

go look at the threads on 2+2 when FTP changed over.  It was all great f the nits, then 2 weeks later - wat! I'm 40 vpip at plo and I'm getting less rakeback.

[smashedagain]

wow. player power threatening a sit out stops the change.

[Royal Flush]

wow. player power threatening a sit out stops the change.

[  ] this was the reason

[chatban]

wow. player power threatening a sit out stops the change.

[  ] this was the reason

What was then? I can't see why a company would not respond to a large section of their customer base kicking off for the world to see?

No point trying tto make 10% off your regs if you lose 15/20% of their custom/volume.

[skolsuper]

go look at the threads on 2+2 when FTP changed over.  It was all great f the nits, then 2 weeks later - wat! I'm 40 vpip at plo and I'm getting less rakeback.

it takes two to create rake.  Stealing or restealing creates no rake.  And anit is just as likely to iso a fish as a lag.  So the only difference is really that laggier players create more coolers between each other.

So you're saying everyone gets fewer vpps? Obv not true unless stars change how many vpps are paid out.

Appreciate vpip isn't the be all and end all, but the people who create more rake than average do better from weighted contribution rakeback, that average is different in different games. 40 vpip at plo was probably tighter than average on full tilt. Think about it logically: If you are on a table with 5 identical tighter players (perhaps shortstackers kindly supplied by badbeat or brs) and are in 60% of the raked pots whereas they are in only 30% each, which system is better for you? It doesn't matter if your vpip is 20 or 50, all that matters is the relative difference.

[doubleup]

go look at the threads on 2+2 when FTP changed over.  It was all great f the nits, then 2 weeks later - wat! I'm 40 vpip at plo and I'm getting less rakeback.

it takes two to create rake.  Stealing or restealing creates no rake.  And anit is just as likely to iso a fish as a lag.  So the only difference is really that laggier players create more coolers between each other.

So you're saying everyone gets fewer vpps? Obv not true unless stars change how many vpps are paid out.

Appreciate vpip isn't the be all and end all, but the people who create more rake than average do better from weighted contribution rakeback, that average is different in different games. 40 vpip at plo was probably tighter than average on full tilt. Think about it logically: If you are on a table with 5 identical tighter players (perhaps shortstackers kindly supplied by badbeat or brs) and are in 60% of the raked pots whereas they are in only 30% each, which system is better for you? It doesn't matter if your vpip is 20 or 50, all that matters is the relative difference.

Just pointing out at the levels where the rake cap matters there isn't as big a difference between a lag and a tag as some seem to think.

[skolsuper]

go look at the threads on 2+2 when FTP changed over.  It was all great f the nits, then 2 weeks later - wat! I'm 40 vpip at plo and I'm getting less rakeback.

it takes two to create rake.  Stealing or restealing creates no rake.  And anit is just as likely to iso a fish as a lag.  So the only difference is really that laggier players create more coolers between each other.

So you're saying everyone gets fewer vpps? Obv not true unless stars change how many vpps are paid out.

Appreciate vpip isn't the be all and end all, but the people who create more rake than average do better from weighted contribution rakeback, that average is different in different games. 40 vpip at plo was probably tighter than average on full tilt. Think about it logically: If you are on a table with 5 identical tighter players (perhaps shortstackers kindly supplied by badbeat or brs) and are in 60% of the raked pots whereas they are in only 30% each, which system is better for you? It doesn't matter if your vpip is 20 or 50, all that matters is the relative difference.

Just pointing out at the levels where the rake cap matters there isn't as big a difference between a lag and a tag as some seem to think.

not talking about the rake cap, talking about dealt vs weighted contribution vpp/rakeback distribution

[doubleup]

go look at the threads on 2+2 when FTP changed over.  It was all great f the nits, then 2 weeks later - wat! I'm 40 vpip at plo and I'm getting less rakeback.

it takes two to create rake.  Stealing or restealing creates no rake.  And anit is just as likely to iso a fish as a lag.  So the only difference is really that laggier players create more coolers between each other.

So you're saying everyone gets fewer vpps? Obv not true unless stars change how many vpps are paid out.

Appreciate vpip isn't the be all and end all, but the people who create more rake than average do better from weighted contribution rakeback, that average is different in different games. 40 vpip at plo was probably tighter than average on full tilt. Think about it logically: If you are on a table with 5 identical tighter players (perhaps shortstackers kindly supplied by badbeat or brs) and are in 60% of the raked pots whereas they are in only 30% each, which system is better for you? It doesn't matter if your vpip is 20 or 50, all that matters is the relative difference.

Just pointing out at the levels where the rake cap matters there isn't as big a difference between a lag and a tag as some seem to think.

not talking about the rake cap, talking about dealt vs weighted contribution vpp/rakeback distribution

I'm talking about lowish limits where the rake cap  -$60 pot - is rarely exceeded.  So the bigger pots are as much lag vs fish as tag vs fish.  Higher limits are different as the big pots that the tags play are usually way over $60 and the numerous small pots that the lags play are usually under.

I'm slightly pished, but do you know what point I'm trying to make?

[skolsuper]

go look at the threads on 2+2 when FTP changed over.  It was all great f the nits, then 2 weeks later - wat! I'm 40 vpip at plo and I'm getting less rakeback.

it takes two to create rake.  Stealing or restealing creates no rake.  And anit is just as likely to iso a fish as a lag.  So the only difference is really that laggier players create more coolers between each other.

So you're saying everyone gets fewer vpps? Obv not true unless stars change how many vpps are paid out.

Appreciate vpip isn't the be all and end all, but the people who create more rake than average do better from weighted contribution rakeback, that average is different in different games. 40 vpip at plo was probably tighter than average on full tilt. Think about it logically: If you are on a table with 5 identical tighter players (perhaps shortstackers kindly supplied by badbeat or brs) and are in 60% of the raked pots whereas they are in only 30% each, which system is better for you? It doesn't matter if your vpip is 20 or 50, all that matters is the relative difference.

Just pointing out at the levels where the rake cap matters there isn't as big a difference between a lag and a tag as some seem to think.

not talking about the rake cap, talking about dealt vs weighted contribution vpp/rakeback distribution

I'm talking about lowish limits where the rake cap  -$60 pot - is rarely exceeded.  So the bigger pots are as much lag vs fish as tag vs fish.  Higher limits are different as the big pots that the tags play are usually way over $60 and the numerous small pots that the lags play are usually under.

I'm slightly pished, but do you know what point I'm trying to make?

no tbh, sorry :S

[doubleup]

go look at the threads on 2+2 when FTP changed over.  It was all great f the nits, then 2 weeks later - wat! I'm 40 vpip at plo and I'm getting less rakeback.

it takes two to create rake.  Stealing or restealing creates no rake.  And anit is just as likely to iso a fish as a lag.  So the only difference is really that laggier players create more coolers between each other.

So you're saying everyone gets fewer vpps? Obv not true unless stars change how many vpps are paid out.

Appreciate vpip isn't the be all and end all, but the people who create more rake than average do better from weighted contribution rakeback, that average is different in different games. 40 vpip at plo was probably tighter than average on full tilt. Think about it logically: If you are on a table with 5 identical tighter players (perhaps shortstackers kindly supplied by badbeat or brs) and are in 60% of the raked pots whereas they are in only 30% each, which system is better for you? It doesn't matter if your vpip is 20 or 50, all that matters is the relative difference.

Just pointing out at the levels where the rake cap matters there isn't as big a difference between a lag and a tag as some seem to think.

not talking about the rake cap, talking about dealt vs weighted contribution vpp/rakeback distribution

I'm talking about lowish limits where the rake cap  -$60 pot - is rarely exceeded.  So the bigger pots are as much lag vs fish as tag vs fish.  Higher limits are different as the big pots that the tags play are usually way over $60 and the numerous small pots that the lags play are usually under.

I'm slightly pished, but do you know what point I'm trying to make?

no tbh, sorry :S

No need to be sorry - get pished and read it all again.

[skolsuper]

go look at the threads on 2+2 when FTP changed over.  It was all great f the nits, then 2 weeks later - wat! I'm 40 vpip at plo and I'm getting less rakeback.

it takes two to create rake.  Stealing or restealing creates no rake.  And anit is just as likely to iso a fish as a lag.  So the only difference is really that laggier players create more coolers between each other.

So you're saying everyone gets fewer vpps? Obv not true unless stars change how many vpps are paid out.

Appreciate vpip isn't the be all and end all, but the people who create more rake than average do better from weighted contribution rakeback, that average is different in different games. 40 vpip at plo was probably tighter than average on full tilt. Think about it logically: If you are on a table with 5 identical tighter players (perhaps shortstackers kindly supplied by badbeat or brs) and are in 60% of the raked pots whereas they are in only 30% each, which system is better for you? It doesn't matter if your vpip is 20 or 50, all that matters is the relative difference.

Just pointing out at the levels where the rake cap matters there isn't as big a difference between a lag and a tag as some seem to think.

not talking about the rake cap, talking about dealt vs weighted contribution vpp/rakeback distribution

I'm talking about lowish limits where the rake cap  -$60 pot - is rarely exceeded.  So the bigger pots are as much lag vs fish as tag vs fish.  Higher limits are different as the big pots that the tags play are usually way over $60 and the numerous small pots that the lags play are usually under.

I'm slightly pished, but do you know what point I'm trying to make?

no tbh, sorry :S

No need to be sorry - get pished and read it all again.

 

[Royal Flush]

wow. player power threatening a sit out stops the change.

[  ] this was the reason

What was then? I can't see why a company would not respond to a large section of their customer base kicking off for the world to see?

No point trying tto make 10% off your regs if you lose 15/20% of their custom/volume.

How do you see it as large? I am assuming it was a few hundred at the absolute max of winning players who post on 2+2?

I see that as a tiny group and a group which pokerstars would most benefit (in the long run) if they got rid of them.

[chatban]

wow. player power threatening a sit out stops the change.

[  ] this was the reason

What was then? I can't see why a company would not respond to a large section of their customer base kicking off for the world to see?

No point trying tto make 10% off your regs if you lose 15/20% of their custom/volume.

How do you see it as large? I am assuming it was a few hundred at the absolute max of winning players who post on 2+2?

I see that as a tiny group and a group which pokerstars would most benefit (in the long run) if they got rid of them.

I agree with the numbers but other forums such as this use NVG etc as a quasi RSS feed for poker. I think even if this manages to effect even 500 regs play thereyou have to bare in mind the volume/amount of tables they play. Pokerstars even announce these events to 2p2 so they obviously value the communities opinion and from what i can see there is no overt mutual financial interest.