MouldyOnions: i believe you should adjust the rake depending on how beatable the games are.
…massive reg abandonment will effectively mean that the rake will get lowered.
I play on bovada and I sampled 500 pot sizes in 1-2 no limit holdem for the purpose of finding the effective rake
…you think of the pre-rakeback rake as being the “real rake” rather than the post-rakeback or effective rake.
As a player the number that matters is the effective rake (i.e. the rake decreased by the rakeback).
…valid points about certain game formats, etc being unbeatable without valid rewards or a lower effective rake
They ARE going to do this by turning each and every game into effective rake traps
No game/ limit should be “unbeatable” and the rake should be adjusted to ensure that is the case
No game/ limit should be “unbeatable” and the rake should be adjusted to ensure that is the case.
Originally Posted by LektorAJ View Post
What games are having their rake increased?
Due to effective rake, every one of them.
…rake has effectively been raised for everyone.
Edit: After reading on apparently this does not take into account the extra rake paid on an ongoing basis either which is effectively a rake increase of 80% making the required payouts a lot higher
The effective rake is how much money that relative to losses and wins.
Lets write down all our concerns about those changes, voice our displease with increasing of effective rake and all sign a petition.
The thing is, effective rake, as I think knircky defines it (beatability of games), is increased for part-time players by having lower rake (or rake back) for full timers.
Due to my tilt about Stars’ recent rhetoric I wrote this TL;DR post about how the new changes actually work,
In Stars’ recent (now deleted) Russian press release announcing their new policies, they wrote: “So, what will change for high-level players? On January 1st 2016, we will review the system of rewards, to limit the motivation to*playing*just for the sake of winning.“ The idea of “eliminating winning players” is nonsense, what Stars’ new policy is actually doing is raising the rake, which reduces winrates, which increases Stars’ share of deposits taken through rake as opposed to (eventually) cashed out by winning players.
Let’s start with a thought experiment. Suppose that after every 10k hands played on an account, winning accounts were banned from PokerStars. Would this eliminate winners? I think it’s clear it wouldn’t, assuming anything resembling a normal distribution of winrates. After each set of winners is banned, the formerly breakeven players become the biggest winners for the next 10k hands, and the formerly slightly losing players become winners, etc, and a new distribution with a similar proportions of winrates as the prior distribution is created.
If exclusion of a group(s) of players won’t work, it should be clear that we’ll need to give a distributional answer. In other words, to effect the distribution of winrates and therefore the number of winners something must be done to effect the shape of the curve not just cut off a piece of it.
The most obvious thing that effects the distribution of winners is the rake level. A simple thought experiment shows that changing the rake level is an effective way of reducing the number of winners. Suppose that the distribution of possible winrates for NLHE is between -100 bb/100 (huge whales) and +25 bb/100 (elite level pros in soft games). If the rake level is just set above 25 bb/100, there are now no winners.
For any distribution of winrates that resembles real poker, it’s easy to imagine various rake levels. If the rake is 0, lots of players are winners. If the rake is 10bb/100 and the game is NLHE, comparatively few players are winners. The rake level is the single most important variable driving the number of winners in the population that the sites can directly control. The second important variable is the softness of games (and relatedly) the possible winrates in the form of poker offered (the more -100bb/100 losers as opposed to say -12bb/100 losers, the more pros can survive in even a high rake environment).
There are some other ways to effect the distribution of winrates. One is to drive traffic to games that aren’t capable of high winrates, typically because of a comparatively low skill cap. For example, CAP games have lower winrates than deep games because (arguably) there’s less skill, but certainly because the effect of decision making on EV is lower than in deep games.
Another is to spread games that have variance so high that it’s difficult or impossible to derive a stable enough income to live on through professional play. Spin and Gos are (arguably) an example of this. It’s easy to imagine a game like Spin and Gos where say 80% of the prize pool goes to a 1 in 1 million spin; that sort of game would be hard to play professionally.
If this analysis makes sense, then what is actually meant by the statement “to limit the motivation to*playing*just for the sake of winning.”? Well, we know that Stars’ proposed policy change is going to decrease the rewards drastically for SN and SNE players. Since there isn’t an accompanying increase in the rewards for lower tiered players, what’s actually occurring is that Stars is raising the rake for the population of poker players taken as a whole. Raising the rake for the population as a whole just means there’s a higher rake level, and therefore fewer winners. Additionally, Stars is raising rake drastically for higher volume players who overwhelmingly are winning players. Using the distributional logic laid out before, it’s clear that this will flatten the distribution of possible winrates in the population as well as raise the rake level. Both these effects will reduce the number of winning players at PokerStars, and ultimately increase the percentage of deposits raked by Stars as opposed to won by players.