Listen Up PokerStars

[MicroBob]

yes.

it's not just the fact that to a bad player it is 'the illusion' of making more money.

for the tight-agg player you really ARE making more money.


For a TAG, 25% rake-back is better than an across-the-board 25% rake-reduction.
Your opponents are playing more hands and you are making the additional rake-back off of the hands that you AREN'T playing.


I am guessing that 25% rake-back would still be better than 30% rake-reduction for many players.

[Losing all]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey Pokerstars. Do you want to double your business? Do you want to be the number one online site? Listen up. All you have to do is offer EVERYONE who plays at Pokerstars a 25% rakeback deal deposited into their account on the first of every month. No affiliates. No BS. No strings attached. The more you play, the more you make--period. Easy as pie.

Watch em come runnin.

[/ QUOTE ]




they are running to them without having to rebate 25%.

absurd

[/ QUOTE ]


they don't even spread royal hold'em, pfffft.

[Shoe]

There are not 70k people out there waiting for stars rakeback. There might be 1k 2+2'ers. That's about it.

[mbpoker]

>Your opponents are playing more hands and you are making >the additional rake-back off of the hands that you AREN'T >playing.

That's in case your opponents are loose agressive types. But there are many weak players who are tight passive and then you play more hands than them, and pay more rake. If there is RB for everybody the game will inevitably become much tighter, and you will pay at least your fair share of rake if not more to win in such game. In summary it's far from clear that RB across the board is better than rake reduction for a good player.

There is another bigger problem. If everybody gets RB including fish who now doesn't pay any attention to rake, they will suddenly see how big the rake is, and that is not going to encourage them to play more.

[Adde]

You know what's funny, I'll bet a lot of people would rather have this than Pokerstars reducing their rake by 30%.

I'd take 25%, or even 20% RB before a 30% rake reduction without blinking. Getting money back (instead of paying less) has so many psychological benefits.

It would encourage me to play more; it would lessen the mental burden with short term variance; it would help preventing tilt; etc. Worth considerably more than a 10% rake reduction IMO.

Adde

[solucky]

i never will understand people that play on stars

[_dave_]

[ QUOTE ]


it's not just the fact that to a bad player it is 'the illusion' of making more money.

for the tight-agg player you really ARE making more money.


For a TAG, 25% rake-back is better than an across-the-board 25% rake-reduction.
Your opponents are playing more hands and you are making the additional rake-back off of the hands that you AREN'T playing.


I am guessing that 25% rake-back would still be better than 30% rake-reduction for many players.

[/ QUOTE ]

People who use Poker Tracker, and also who know their MGR, are able to verify the validity of this statement.

For me it was true last month.

I played approx. 25,000 hands of poker on a popular site. I played about mainly at $25NL, a little $50NL, and the rest taking shots at $100NL.

I played like a nut pedalling nit (TAG). I have stats of VPIP 13 / PFR 6 / AGG 2.35 on average.

In Poker Tracker's "General Info -> Total Rake" column, I have paid just under $580 of rake. My MGR was significantly higher than this - not large considering some of the players on these forums, but large enough for me - just over $710.

Therefore, a 30% rake reduction would net me:
580 * 0.3 = $174

A 25% MGR based overhead reduction plan pays me:
710 * 0.25 = $177.50

The difference is tiny, but for my play last month, a 25% MGR based player rewards scheme pays $3.50 better than a 30% rake cut across the board.

If both numbers are the same, the difference is greater - +$39 if both are 30%, +$32.50 at 25%.



I'd love to know the results from some of the high volume players round here - are these calculations still valid for the play at higher levels?


Dave.

EDIT:

[ QUOTE ]

The form you have submitted is no longer valid.

Please use your back button to return to the previous page.


[/ QUOTE ]

Man, am I glad I used the Notepad trick before i clicked submit on this post [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Losing all]

[ QUOTE ]
You know what's funny, I'll bet a lot of people would rather have this than Pokerstars reducing their rake by 30%.

I'd take 25%, or even 20% RB before a 30% rake reduction without blinking. Getting money back (instead of paying less) has so many psychological benefits.

It would encourage me to play more; it would lessen the mental burden with short term variance; it would help preventing tilt; etc. Worth considerably more than a 10% rake reduction IMO.

Adde

[/ QUOTE ]


I hate to admit it, but same here.

[Adde]

I hate to admit it, but same here.

No need for hate. It's not mind games (i.e, it feels like more money when getting back instead of paying less), it's actual things that make me play better poker.

Adde

[Fraubump]

Seems to me any rakeback scheme would be dumb not to have graduated %'s to encourage more play.