Re: PokerStars VIP Status
 

[ QUOTE ]
Limit players get reduced rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

could you elaborate please? did you mean that stars charge less than other sites? or that rake is generally lower for limit then for NL? something else? cannot make sense of this "reduced rake" idea, sry [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] and I am a limit player...

Re: PokerStars VIP Status
 

The way rake is taken out of no limit pots results in more rake being taken long term in NL.

Re: PokerStars VIP Status
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Limit players get reduced rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

could you elaborate please? did you mean that stars charge less than other sites? or that rake is generally lower for limit then for NL? something else? cannot make sense of this "reduced rake" idea, sry [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] and I am a limit player...

[/ QUOTE ]

Straight from PokerStars FAQ...

Note also that our rake is substantially lower than our main competitor’s, especially for low and mid-limit fixed-limit games (as was pointed out elsewhere on these pages). For example, our rake is lower by:

39% for $.50/$1
20% for $1/$2
16% for $2/$4
14% for $3/$6
10% for $5$10

Compare that to their NL rake structure in comparison to their competitors (aka Party).

0% for $.50/$1
0% for $1/$2
0% for $2/$4
0% for $3/$6
0% for $5$10

Best regards,

APerfect10

Re: PokerStars VIP Status
 

[ QUOTE ]
Compare that to their NL rake structure in comparison to their competitors (aka Party).

0% for $.50/$1
0% for $1/$2
0% for $2/$4
0% for $3/$6
0% for $5$10

Best regards,

APerfect10

[/ QUOTE ]

Not *entirely* correct but essentially yes. On Stars a $2 pot is only raked 5c, but on Party it is raked 10c. Reason being that Party rake the total pot size including the rake already taken but we don't. It's a very small difference, but a difference none-the-less!

Rom

Re: PokerStars VIP Status
 

[ QUOTE ]
From the horse's mouth, Lee Jones...

[ QUOTE ]

Q15: And finally, for the number one favorite question everybody wants answered: "What about r*keb*ck?"



Frankly, I've never really understood the fascination with rakeback. It's like people who pay too much tax, giving the U.S. Government an interest-free loan. Then they get a rebate in April from the IRS, and go "Whoo-hoo! Free money!"



[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon, Lee Jones is way too smart a man to not understand this.

If Rakeback were typically calculated using the amount of rake actually paid by a player, i.e. the rake taken out of pots the player wins, then his comment would be spot on and there would be no difference between rakeback and reduced rake.

But because mgr is typically based on the rake taken divided by the number of players in the hand its not equivalent at all. Lee knows that a good player plays much fewer hands than other players. Thus he gets credit (and money back) for generated rake that he's not actually paying, that's not actually coming out of his pocket.

Plus, and this is important, it doesn't matter whether the player wins or loses. Reduced rake only effects pots that you actually drag. Rakeback will still give you your 2.5 cents or whatever from pots that you lose. If a player is on a major downswing and wins very few pots during the downswing, he'll see very little benefit from reduced rake, but he'll still get the exact same rakeback as if he were in a major heater and this rakeback can offset a downswing to an extent that reduced rakeback can not.

I don't see how Lee can't fathom that this is extra money in a good players pocket and not at all comparable to reduced rake.

For a smart man like Lee to claim not to understand it, he is either being disingenuous, or downright misleading. I hate to see that from a man I respect.

--Zetack

Re: PokerStars VIP Status
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Compare that to their NL rake structure in comparison to their competitors (aka Party).

0% for $.50/$1
0% for $1/$2
0% for $2/$4
0% for $3/$6
0% for $5$10

Best regards,

APerfect10

[/ QUOTE ]

Not *entirely* correct but essentially yes. On Stars a $2 pot is only raked 5c, but on Party it is raked 10c. Reason being that Party rake the total pot size including the rake already taken but we don't. It's a very small difference, but a difference none-the-less!

Rom

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the clarification. Here are my direct rake comparison numbers for $1/2 NL from Stars vs Party.

Actual Rake Paid
Party 103,404 hands, $6.96/100 hands
Stars 39,500 hands, $6.87/100 hands

Total MGR
Party $10.20/100 hands
Stars $12.24/100 hands

Please explain how Stars is raking more than 1 PTBB per 100 hands than Party? The numbers are actually very discouraging to me. Once again, PokerStars really needs to implement something for NL players.

Best regards,

APerfect10

Re: PokerStars VIP Status
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Compare that to their NL rake structure in comparison to their competitors (aka Party).

0% for $.50/$1
0% for $1/$2
0% for $2/$4
0% for $3/$6
0% for $5$10

Best regards,

APerfect10

[/ QUOTE ]

Not *entirely* correct but essentially yes. On Stars a $2 pot is only raked 5c, but on Party it is raked 10c. Reason being that Party rake the total pot size including the rake already taken but we don't. It's a very small difference, but a difference none-the-less!

Rom

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the clarification. Here are my direct rake comparison numbers for $1/2 NL from Stars vs Party.

Actual Rake Paid
Party 103,404 hands, $6.96/100 hands
Stars 39,500 hands, $6.87/100 hands

Total MGR
Party $10.20/100 hands
Stars $12.24/100 hands

Please explain how Stars is raking more than 1 PTBB per 100 hands than Party? The numbers are actually very discouraging to me. Once again, PokerStars really needs to implement something for NL players.

Best regards,

APerfect10

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly how I feel. I recently switched from Empire to Stars because Stars is a bit bigger and games have been easier to find. I was not concerned about lack of rakeback because I've read that the rake is lower at Stars compared to Empire. What I did not realize is that this only applies for limit, where I naively assumed this was across the board.

I for the most part do like Stars, but without something comparable to rakeback for NL players (or a similar lower rake), I can't see myself (or any other serious NL player) playing at Stars.