Dear Lee Jones

[waffle]

[ QUOTE ]
Dear Lee,

Your 6 max rake stinks. No 5-10 and up 6max limit player in their right mind would play on Stars. 6 handed you guys are close to even with Party despite being the same rake. 5 handed Party charges less rake than you guys. UB has you both beat, not to mention both sites have rakeback which for a limit player is a lot more useful than FPP's.

Please reexamine and try and see why any mid stakes 6max player would ever want to play on Stars. Stars comes in close to last in this department.

Limit 6-max players pay more rake than anyone and they get the shaft at Stars. Not cool Lee.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about 5/10, but Stars takes significantly less rake than party at 3/6 6m.

Over a decent sample size after party's rake increase:

Stars takes $83.93 off a 3/6 6m table every 100 hands.
Party takes $112.26.

Both of these are v. close to avg players = 5.5.

[timprov]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't know about 5/10, but Stars takes significantly less rake than party at 3/6 6m.

Over a decent sample size after party's rake increase:

Stars takes $83.93 off a 3/6 6m table every 100 hands.
Party takes $112.26.

Both of these are v. close to avg players = 5.5.

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of this (I'm not sure how much) is a function of the player pool at Stars being far less maniacal than Party.

[nbajam]

Hey Lee,

How about reversing the doom switch on my account? I'd love to play on stars more, if I could actually win.

[TheIrishThug]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any chance of getting 10-handed tables? I know it's not likely but I thought I'd add my 2 cents. I really dislike 9-handed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Stars ring limit games are 10-handed.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[MarkL444]

man lee jones owns.

[MicroBob]

Can someone provide some info on whether a TAG player is actually doing BETTER with rake-back then with an
across-the-board rake-reduction?

I'm not positive about this...but this is what I believe (until someone tells me otherwise...and feel free to do so if I'm way off on this one):

Example:
Site A has 25% less rake.
Site B I get 25% rake-back.

I still think I'm doing better on Site B because I am playing fewer pots.
I am also winning fewer pots....but they are bigger.
On a 10-player table, for example, I might only be winning 7% of the pots (not 10%).


So, on Site A, Im' collecting a nice, little percentage of the rake that MY OPPONENTS are contributing to the pot.
On site B the pots I'm winning are raked slightly less on average (but not su much....since I'm more likely to drive a winning pot to the max-rake because I attempt to extract maximum value from my winning hands).



Trying to compare it directly and saying that 'you just don't get it...because it's like you're celebrating the EXACT same money that you gave up earlier in the month' (or something like that) is NOT correct.

If the site cuts rake by 25%...I'm still doing better with a higher rake AND 25% rake-back if I am playing decent winning poker.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone provide some info on whether a TAG player is actually doing BETTER with rake-back then with an
across-the-board rake-reduction?

I'm not positive about this...but this is what I believe (until someone tells me otherwise...and feel free to do so if I'm way off on this one):

Example:
Site A has 25% less rake.
Site B I get 25% rake-back.

I still think I'm doing better on Site B because I am playing fewer pots.
I am also winning fewer pots....but they are bigger.
On a 10-player table, for example, I might only be winning 7% of the pots (not 10%).


So, on Site A, Im' collecting a nice, little percentage of the rake that MY OPPONENTS are contributing to the pot.
On site B the pots I'm winning are raked slightly less on average (but not su much....since I'm more likely to drive a winning pot to the max-rake because I attempt to extract maximum value from my winning hands).



Trying to compare it directly and saying that 'you just don't get it...because it's like you're celebrating the EXACT same money that you gave up earlier in the month' (or something like that) is NOT correct.

If the site cuts rake by 25%...I'm still doing better with a higher rake AND 25% rake-back if I am playing decent winning poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what Lee was trying to say was something like this. Who pays more in Taxes?

The guy that gets at 5000 refund or the guy that gets zero?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


The guy that received a 5000 dollars refund had 10000 dollars withheld and had a tax of 5000 dollars.

The guy with a zero refund had 5000 dollars withheld and received no refund.

[B00T]

[ QUOTE ]


I don't know about 5/10, but Stars takes significantly less rake than party at 3/6 6m.

Over a decent sample size after party's rake increase:

Stars takes $83.93 off a 3/6 6m table every 100 hands.
Party takes $112.26.

[/ QUOTE ]

Using your numbers assuming you get 25% rakeback:

Party ($112.26) * .75 = 84.20

We are talking a difference of 30cents every 100 hands in difference. So with a 25% at EVEN (I feel like Microbob capitalizing words for emphasis [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]) 3-6 6max it is basically identical. This is assuming 25% rakeback, which almost anyone who puts 15 mins of effort in, can get higher. Lets say 27%

(112.26) * (.73) = $81.94..at 27% at 3-6 6max Party (well the skins at this point, but I am justifying why I always played at Party as opposed to Stars for the past year) is a lower rake than Stars.

If you make the bump to 5-10 at Party v Stars, the difference is even higher as the rake gets a lot more comprable.

The biggest difference is at 10-20 where that $1.50 $30 threshhold takes less of a meaning and more pots are capped at max rake regardless.

As you go up the rake is closer and closer and the profitability of Party or UB or Absolute or any site is higher and higher with some sort of kickback program.

This is assuming you spend your FPP's on shirts, or other toys which have zero utility to you which I assume most limit players do. The VIP program should definiately have some consideration to these limit players who have NO reason to play on Stars.

The aim of Stars is to obviously gain more players and indirectly nab some party customers. This is a chance to gain a sector of the market that is currently unavailable to them at this current time. This is an untapped resource persay as it is just flat out unprofitable to ever play this type of game on Stars.

It is worth mentioning that unless my analysis is flawed, that shorthanded limit players pay more money in rake per X amount of hands than any other poker player on the net. (Someone please fell free to either agree or disagree).

Why hasnt Stars ever done anything for this batch of players?

[William]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Lee,

How about reversing the doom switch on my account? I'd love to play on stars more, if I could actually win.

[/ QUOTE ]

NH
Same wish.

[mex78753]

Lee I am sure you've received more than a few requests from many players on stars that would like to see bigger stakes hu tables on stars. You already offer microlimit hu tables so I dont see the difficulty in adding some higher stakes.

Please respond with poker stars' plan on this.