"The Online games are not fair anymore"

[AndrewT]

How would lowering the rake disproportionately benefit recreational players? (which is presumably Party's goal here).

They play less, and do their money anyway. They're also least aware of rake and its effects.

[rfgqqabc]

How would lowering the rake disproportionately benefit recreational players? (which is presumably Party's goal here).

They play less, and do their money anyway. They're also least aware of rake and its effects.

How would removing Huds benefit disproportionately recreational players? They will continue to play and lose their money anyway. They're also least aware of huds and their benefits.

[muckthenuts]

How would lowering the rake disproportionately benefit recreational players? (which is presumably Party's goal here).

They play less, and do their money anyway. They're also least aware of rake and its effects.

Their money would last longer on the whole, particularly at micros.

[Honeybadger]

I had this idea about rakeback/player rewards. I am sure there is a reason why it would not work, but I just cannot think of a problem with it.

Imagine if rakeback/rewards worked like this:

1. Rake is reduced a bit. So everyone pays a bit less up front.

2. The total amount of rakeback/rewards the site pays out is also reduced (so the site still makes about the same amount overall).

3. Instead of allocating this rakeback based on volume, it is allocated based on how much a player has lost at the tables over that week.

High volume winning regs would lose out a little bit under this system - they would pay less upfront rake but would not get any rakeback if they have a winning week. But weaker players would benefit - they would also pay less upfront rake, but would get a much higher amount of the rakeback since they would have more losing weeks than the winning regs.

So every player who has a losing week will get at least some money back (from the 'rakeback kitty') at the end of the week, and this amount will be in direct proportion to the amount they have lost. The way RB is distributed is changed to reward the losing players rather than the winning high volume players.

Since every player who has a losing week would get a chunk of money put into their account at the start of the next week, this would keep players in the games (e.g. every player who busts their roll gets a small reload the following week for free) and keep the liquidity high.

I cannot think of a reason why this system could not work, and also cannot think why this would not be good for the long-term health of the games. Am I missing something?

[AndrewT]

How would lowering the rake disproportionately benefit recreational players? (which is presumably Party's goal here).

They play less, and do their money anyway. They're also least aware of rake and its effects.

How would removing Huds benefit disproportionately recreational players? They will continue to play and lose their money anyway. They're also least aware of huds and their benefits.

Because the HUDs provide a benefit to the players that use them, so removing them means those players win less money, which is of benefit to the non-HUD users, fewer seats in games filled by better players.

[AndrewT]

How would lowering the rake disproportionately benefit recreational players? (which is presumably Party's goal here).

They play less, and do their money anyway. They're also least aware of rake and its effects.

Their money would last longer on the whole, particularly at micros.

Everyone's money would last longer, the effect wouldn't benefit recreational players more than others.

[AndrewT]

I had this idea about rakeback/player rewards. I am sure there is a reason why it would not work, but I just cannot think of a problem with it.

Imagine if rakeback/rewards worked like this:

1. Rake is reduced a bit. So everyone pays a bit less up front.

2. The total amount of rakeback/rewards the site pays out is also reduced (so the site still makes about the same amount overall).

3. Instead of allocating this rakeback based on volume, it is allocated based on how much a player has lost at the tables over that week.

High volume winning regs would lose out a little bit under this system - they would pay less upfront rake but would not get any rakeback if they have a winning week. But weaker players would benefit - they would also pay less upfront rake, but would get a much higher amount of the rakeback since they would have more losing weeks than the winning regs.

So every player who has a losing week will get at least some money back (from the 'rakeback kitty') at the end of the week, and this amount will be in direct proportion to the amount they have lost. The way RB is distributed is changed to reward the losing players rather than the winning high volume players.

Since every player who has a losing week would get a chunk of money put into their account at the start of the next week, this would keep players in the games (e.g. every player who busts their roll gets a small reload the following week for free) and keep the liquidity high.

I cannot think of a reason why this system could not work, and also cannot think why this would not be good for the long-term health of the games. Am I missing something?

This is the way things are going - the days when a player's value to a site is measured purely by the rake they generate are over. Instead, the amount of money a player puts into the ecosystem (lose) is given greater weighting.

[GreekStein]

I had this idea about rakeback/player rewards. I am sure there is a reason why it would not work, but I just cannot think of a problem with it.

Imagine if rakeback/rewards worked like this:

1. Rake is reduced a bit. So everyone pays a bit less up front.

2. The total amount of rakeback/rewards the site pays out is also reduced (so the site still makes about the same amount overall).

3. Instead of allocating this rakeback based on volume, it is allocated based on how much a player has lost at the tables over that week.

High volume winning regs would lose out a little bit under this system - they would pay less upfront rake but would not get any rakeback if they have a winning week. But weaker players would benefit - they would also pay less upfront rake, but would get a much higher amount of the rakeback since they would have more losing weeks than the winning regs.

So every player who has a losing week will get at least some money back (from the 'rakeback kitty') at the end of the week, and this amount will be in direct proportion to the amount they have lost. The way RB is distributed is changed to reward the losing players rather than the winning high volume players.

Since every player who has a losing week would get a chunk of money put into their account at the start of the next week, this would keep players in the games (e.g. every player who busts their roll gets a small reload the following week for free) and keep the liquidity high.

I cannot think of a reason why this system could not work, and also cannot think why this would not be good for the long-term health of the games. Am I missing something?

This is the way things are going - the days when a player's value to a site is measured purely by the rake they generate are over. Instead, the amount of money a player puts into the ecosystem (lose) is given greater weighting.

Don't Ipoker already do this?

[Doobs]

I had this idea about rakeback/player rewards. I am sure there is a reason why it would not work, but I just cannot think of a problem with it.

Imagine if rakeback/rewards worked like this:

1. Rake is reduced a bit. So everyone pays a bit less up front.

2. The total amount of rakeback/rewards the site pays out is also reduced (so the site still makes about the same amount overall).

3. Instead of allocating this rakeback based on volume, it is allocated based on how much a player has lost at the tables over that week.

High volume winning regs would lose out a little bit under this system - they would pay less upfront rake but would not get any rakeback if they have a winning week. But weaker players would benefit - they would also pay less upfront rake, but would get a much higher amount of the rakeback since they would have more losing weeks than the winning regs.

So every player who has a losing week will get at least some money back (from the 'rakeback kitty') at the end of the week, and this amount will be in direct proportion to the amount they have lost. The way RB is distributed is changed to reward the losing players rather than the winning high volume players.

Since every player who has a losing week would get a chunk of money put into their account at the start of the next week, this would keep players in the games (e.g. every player who busts their roll gets a small reload the following week for free) and keep the liquidity high.

I cannot think of a reason why this system could not work, and also cannot think why this would not be good for the long-term health of the games. Am I missing something?

This is the way things are going - the days when a player's value to a site is measured purely by the rake they generate are over. Instead, the amount of money a player puts into the ecosystem (lose) is given greater weighting.

Don't Ipoker already do this?

I don't know about Ipoker, but ongame started this a couple of years ago.  As I saw it, the problem with the ongame redistribution was that they didn't tell anyone the formula.  I think a lot assumed they were just getting less rakeback for no benefit.  Speaking for myself, I just want to know how much rakeback I am supposed to get.  Back in the day, Betfair used to mess it up fairly frequently when it was simple, I just had no trust left when they made the whole system invisible. 

I think flattening the rewards is going to be better than having a secret rakeback system.  So instead of a bunch of multitabling slow coaches getting 70% rakeback, everybody gets the same or the rake just falls for all.  I am not even sure supernova is great for many of those that have it.  You end up playing too many tables, for too long, to keep supernova and your net profits don't really change or get worse.  All the time you are ruining games for others as your decisions seem to take too long to them. 

[Rexas]

while there is interest on this thread, can anyone tell me why it is that party poker keeps on going down? I honestly think this is a much bigger problem than any third party software is for attracting new players, if people keep having the site crash mid session and then have to wait a while for the "technical team" to tell them if they're going to get a refund then they aren't going to stick around for long. This isn't a moan, it doesn't affect me as much as others since i predominantly play cash (although it can be pretty annoying), but doing something to lessen the breakdowns seems like a more sensible thing to focus on rather than the evil regs with their cheating huds.

[BorntoBubble]

Party dont want to go for anonymous tables because they want a community feel.

Sky has a community feel, no HUD's but it is not a large site because it is only based in the UK.

With party rolling a similar model out to the global market it may have a chance.

I never play online anymore and I am exactly the type of player you want to be attractive, I worry that I will lose to quickly to make it worthwhile and that the gap between pro's to rec's is now to big.

I am not that bothered about HUD's but a lot of rec's are so by banning them you will appeal more to the rec's the games should be targeting towards to the rec's and not the reg's and for to long the reg's have got what they want because they pay a lot of money in rake to the sites when actually that has just been killing the sites slowly from inside.

I think lowering rake and or more rewards for recs and not reg's is a great idea.

[robyong]

Yo

The changes that party are making are not about trying to attract new recreational players, I remember an article written years ago that first mentioned the words recreational and since then, everyone has jumped on this recreational bandwagon.

These changes are about getting poker back to basics  for all players and levelling the playing field for everyone before the cards are dealt and skill & luck take over - NOT trying to stop player X winning etc - in particular those players playing on tablet and mobile (the fastest growth platform) who cannot download hand histories/use HUDs need to play in the same conditions as those players using the download client.

I don't really understand why some players think its a big deal not to use a HUD, the general consensus from HUD users that I have spoken to is that its just data and doesn't give players a massive advantage, so why the big deal for some players I am not sure.

party's stance is not a war on third party software users, they are just making a few tweaks, waiting lists, hand histories become web based and also making sure players buy in/get dealt in at the cash game tables to stop all this stop start / sit out that's been going on.

No third party software is being banned or regulated by party. I don't think these changes really effect anyone except the bum hunter/seating script types who sit in/sit out/waste time/try and avoid posting a blind/watch tables for hours mining hands before they play against you - I don't think most players like playing against these players anyway and these types of players only play a few hands and sit out and are scouring all the sites for fish so they are hardly loyal customers.

I don't see how these changes effect regular, loyal players to be honest. Might also bring a few businessmen fish like me back into the game aswell. I will be opening up 4 tables while betting on the footie. I keep meaning to play on Sky for these reasons as I don't like all this stop start messing about. Sometimes you can be playing heads-up but there are actually always 6 players at the tables but they never play a hand, just keep moving around!

Cheers Rob

[tikay]

Yo

The changes that party are making are not about trying to attract new recreational players, I remember an article written years ago that first mentioned the words recreational and since then, everyone has jumped on this recreational bandwagon.

These changes are about getting poker back to basics  for all players and levelling the playing field for everyone before the cards are dealt and skill & luck take over - NOT trying to stop player X winning etc - in particular those players playing on tablet and mobile (the fastest growth platform) who cannot download hand histories/use HUDs need to play in the same conditions as those players using the download client.

I don't really understand why some players think its a big deal not to use a HUD, the general consensus from HUD users that I have spoken to is that its just data and doesn't give players a massive advantage, so why the big deal for some players I am not sure.

party's stance is not a war on third party software users, they are just making a few tweaks, waiting lists, hand histories become web based and also making sure players buy in/get dealt in at the cash game tables to stop all this stop start / sit out that's been going on.

No third party software is being banned or regulated by party. I don't think these changes really effect anyone except the bum hunter/seating script types who sit in/sit out/waste time/try and avoid posting a blind/watch tables for hours mining hands before they play against you - I don't think most players like playing against these players anyway and these types of players only play a few hands and sit out and are scouring all the sites for fish so they are hardly loyal customers.

I don't see how these changes effect regular, loyal players to be honest. Might also bring a few businessmen fish like me back into the game aswell. I will be opening up 4 tables while betting on the footie. I keep meaning to play on Sky for these reasons as I don't like all this stop start messing about. Sometimes you can be playing heads-up but there are actually always 6 players at the tables but they never play a hand, just keep moving around!

Cheers Rob

You make a great point there Rob - Mobile & Tablet are the saviour of Onliine Poker, the numbers who now use it exclusively are mind-blowing, players would never believe the growth in Mobile during the last 3 years. Without a doubt, it is a game-changer.

[mulhuzz]

You can see why mobile/tablet means recs though right?

Holistic picture means Party have done this for recs. No avoiding that, and it's a good thing.

[Jamier-Host]

All sounds pretty positive. Been getting hammered with DTD emails trying to get me to use some $5 ticket for a while, but this news is of more interest so might dabble in a bit of cash again on the iPad.