Vote No Supernova+? Rake Theory - Page 2

the great walls of tldr in this thread can be seen from space

On November 03 2014 11:16 Romm3l wrote: the great walls of tldr in this thread can be seen from space

reminds me of the present walls of ignorance viewable from the future.

On November 03 2014 10:00 RunGoodMan wrote: "But if rake is lowered down, then winning rates are increased a lot for winning players. Which means they will eat up the recreational players even faster while these fishes will see less money back because they would have paid less rake. All that does is favours the top end that are winning players, not the average players/mass of players. So actually the ratio rec players to sharks would be even worse." Difficult to read the rest of what you wrote and assume it has any base in logic after reading this statement.

I don't understand what math you're doing to come to a conclusion that makes no sense. Lower rake is definetely better for the poker eco.

There is no math issue as what you don't understand is the main issue the poker eco-system is facing.

It's not the rake itself, it's the way rake is generated? Like I said, rake is generated from deposits. Period.
No fresh deposits = no viable system. Period. So Pokerstars not running campaigns to attracts new players or mass public versus Pokerstars running a rake free game but with no ad to be seen nowhere. How long a model where there is no rake and no ads/marketing would last?

The value of the cardroom is the service they provide you: software, games, players to face.
If you think you can run a cardroom where you'll bring tons of rec players and soft games because you charge no rake (or lower rake), feel free. The door is wide open but funny enough nobody invested in that yet.

Lower rake = all players money lasts longer. Period. There is no other logical end result of that. Why would regulars get more of the fishes money faster if they were paying less rake? Most recreational players probably don't even know they have FPP's in their account and they also take the worst possible transfer rate of like 10% for their value. The only difference in a lower rake system is more money goes to players instead of directly to Pokerstars which absolutely softens the games.

Do you think Pokerstars giving more money to the players soften the games more than them doing big marketing campaigns and targeting mass public? Regulars are sitting out each others but is it only because they are afraid of not beating the rake? How much action do you think that would create to lower the rake? Much more? Or would they continue avoiding each others because they think waiting for new rec players or constant supply of rec players is better?

In a lower rake system or rake free system, rec players would lose faster because the true winning rate of each players will be shown. That's why I'm saying that only the top end players would benefit from it. Let's say you lower down the rake by 50% and you usually rake $1,000 per month. Does that mean that you would be winning an extra $500 if you would pay only $500 in rake? You seem to be taking for granted that the rake "saved" would automatically be added as winnings for you... Are you sure?

Anyways, I'm just doing the devil advocate, I'm not saying the rake shouldn't be lowered.

I'm just saying you guys are not tackling the real problem: the lack of new players and constant mass of rec players.
You can have a free rake model as much as you want, if you don't have the "spots" to play against, not paying rake will not change the fact that the games will be tight and hard. Not soft. If you think the rec players are playing less nowadays because they realized they are paying too much rake I think you need to wake up.

Also you'll find lots of players making a living thanks to RB (them being slight losers but positive after RB) all quit. Because they might be losing to the rake a bit, but remove the rake. Will their skill level against the competition increase magically...? Or would they be losing maybe slower but for real this time since they would have close to no RB? Who will be left in the games if you get no more (or less) rec players and bad regs?

Oh yeah I see you'll be left with softer games with regs battling each other because now there is no rake?

There is no math issue as what you don't understand is the main issue the poker eco-system is facing. [QUOTE] It's not the rake itself, it's the way rake is generated? Like I said, rake is generated from deposits. Period. No fresh deposits = no viable system. Period. So Pokerstars not running campaigns to attracts new players or mass public versus Pokerstars running a rake free game but with no ad to be seen nowhere. How long a model where there is no rake and no ads/marketing would last?

When the pros realize its not a profitable game they will quit, because that is what smart people do. With those pros will follow the majority or all of recreationals as they find out being a pro or winning player is no longer possible. I doesn't not matter how much stars advertises a rigged game. NO ONE WILL PLAY. And with such redic reasoning stars should just rake the game 100% or even 200%. I mean what is the ideal number here you are claiming other than total bs?

The value of the cardroom is the service they provide you: software, games, players to face. If you think you can run a cardroom where you'll bring tons of rec players and soft games because you charge no rake (or lower rake), feel free. The door is wide open but funny enough nobody invested in that yet.

Yes players will flock to the rooms that have the lowest EFFECTIVE rake IF they have the option, because that is what poker players do. Being a poker players means looking for the best tables right? There are a ton of sites on the market and more and more with lower and lower rake coming. I have outlined them and wrote about all this but you are ignorant to the facts. I am not guessing like you.

Do you think Pokerstars giving more money to the players soften the games more than them doing big marketing campaigns and targeting mass public? Regulars are sitting out each others but is it only because they are afraid of not beating the rake? How much action do you think that would create to lower the rake? Much more? Or would they continue avoiding each others because they think waiting for new rec players or constant supply of rec players is better?

Your argument is that corporations spend our money the most efficiency? Or that killing the game from being overraked unprofitable game is the best to attract new players? I'll give you a hint, most of those regs are breakeven or losing players already and they don't know it. The rest I dont' know what you are asking but over raking kills the game and less rake does the opposite. STOP TYPING OTHERWISE.

In a lower rake system or rake free system, rec players would lose faster because the true winning rate of each players will be shown. That's why I'm saying that only the top end players would benefit from it. Let's say you lower down the rake by 50% and you usually rake $1,000 per month. Does that mean that you would be winning an extra $500 if you would pay only $500 in rake? You seem to be taking for granted that the rake "saved" would automatically be added as winnings for you... Are you sure?

listen I am a pro player, I am very well versed in mathematics and economics. You clearly didn't do well in these areas. You are not a strong player clearly. STOP arguing this nonsense in player forums. Yes I am sure you are being ignorant and clueless to what is obvious. Someone taught you getting beat is the best thing for you.

On November 03 2014 14:04 BadGoNe wrote: Oh yeah I see you'll be left with softer games with regs battling each other because now there is no rake?

I KNOW when you typed this you were thinking "fuck my point doesn't really make sense but im going to make it anyways"

stop typing, and start educating yourself. I posted links clearing up your bullshit, read them.

If rake was significantly lower I would battle almost everyone at my stakes all the time.

On November 03 2014 15:25 KeyleK_uk wrote: If rake was significantly lower I would battle almost everyone at my stakes all the time.

And that's a key concept. Players would feel less need to hunt the absolute weakest players with seat scripting and the like. Lower rake 100% improves the poker economy and it's something we should all be working together for lobbying for. Other issues are a matter for group debate and we can put forward only those the mass of players in the union agree with on a 2/3rd's majority. The key is to build numbers, raise awareness of how expensive rake is and then work on building a big enough presence for poker sites to take notice. Whether its Pokerstars or the competition. Someone will eventually listen if you become a big enough group of wallets.

People arguing against this should all open up HEM and Pokertracker and look how badly they are crushing the game with 100% RB. It's a good number even for me so I'm sure many of you are much better players. I'm not advocating for 100% RB because I don't think that's possible. We could however advocate for less rake on the grounds that this will soften the games (more winners, more weaker players moving up stakes) as well as be a marketing strategy (winners brag about it) long-term.

My basic premise of all of this would be that having 1% or less of your total player base as "winning players" because of where the rake is set can't possibly be the ideal number for Pokerstars. I don't pretend to know the exact merits of where that number should be. Maybe it should be 10%, maybe it should be 30%, but banding together to form a union will at least make people think about it. Recreational and regulars alike.

I'm not asking for any money up front it's not like there will be some sort of membership fee. It will be a completely free website. Any funds raised will be through donation only. I think that's perfectly reasonable. And as I said I will never take an hourly of more than $25-30.00 per hour for work done. The ballpark figure is just a wild guess. It could be $2000 for all I know. I don't know how much work it's going to be that really depends on how well I can get it off the ground.

What I know is the main mission statement should be something everyone can basically get behind - and other changes should require a 2/3rds majority of present voters to pass. I'd make the process as transparent as possible. It's not about my personal values or opinions. I'd want everyone to have a say and then put the ideas that seem to have steam behind them up for a vote. That's really all it's about. Crowdsource solutions to the poker economy problem and the support them as a union of players willing to put our wallets where major Poker sites step up to the game to go to bat for us.

Imagine if we had a union of 100k recreational and pro players and we make "X request" which is somewhat reasonable. And we pledge to take our wallets to the site that meets this request. That's real power. It's something to think about and it's far from impossible to achieve this. We don't need to be sheep in this.

ffs here is a project that has no owners it is decentralized, it is rakeless by any standard you could imagine. its a year old..

You are talking about the telephone when we have the internet, if you want to do something smart and good for poker, read what I wrote, learn about it and respond to me.

If you aren't going to do that, nobody is going to let you near our union, I appreciate the vigor but you have to do some homework:

https://nxtforum.org/stark-industries-%28nxtdice%29/this-project-is-over/

i am not reading any of this...can we get a TLDR for the thread?

i saw something about eliminating hand histories...whoever presented that idea, i hate you just a little bit now.

also, i was a supernova and liked it. what is wrong with given people who play a ton of volume and contribute the most rake elite rakeback programs? should we get rid of frequent flier miles and credit card reward points and bottle service at clubs?

NYC should get rid of its monthly rail passes and make everyone buy per use instead because the people with the monthly passes get a cheaper per use rate than those who buy per use.....

seems like a long bitch thread but maybe i am wrong....so a TLDR please

cliff are: communist practices of government social welfare leads to a sick economy and society, where as survival of the fittest is best. OP calls for a system in between the two which is better than today but not yet ideal.

(edit: significant colon)

That chart is ridiculous, when has PS have had a problem with random number generators, house bots, payout problems or heavy collusion?

Pay out problems on pokerstars ?

On November 03 2014 14:04 BadGoNe wrote: Anyways, I'm just doing the devil advocate, I'm not saying the rake shouldn't be lowered. I'm just saying you guys are not tackling the real problem: the lack of new players and constant mass of rec players. You can have a free rake model as much as you want, if you don't have the "spots" to play against, not paying rake will not change the fact that the games will be tight and hard. Not soft. If you think the rec players are playing less nowadays because they realized they are paying too much rake I think you need to wake up. Also you'll find lots of players making a living thanks to RB (them being slight losers but positive after RB) all quit. Because they might be losing to the rake a bit, but remove the rake. Will their skill level against the competition increase magically...? Or would they be losing maybe slower but for real this time since they would have close to no RB? Who will be left in the games if you get no more (or less) rec players and bad regs? Oh yeah I see you'll be left with softer games with regs battling each other because now there is no rake?

You do realise that people who make their money off rakeback are actually winners in the game right..? Remove rakeback and they win their money from a positive winrate instead of rakeback.

100% agree

Bovada has already made all of these changes; done everything they need to do to protect their games. Now that site is #1 imo

On November 03 2014 20:39 Baalim wrote: That chart is ridiculous, when has PS have had a problem with random number generators, house bots, payout problems or heavy collusion?

Yes I agree, and you will find I already went to explain it and basically called them out for it. I'm not concerned with that specific project I just am projecting a bigger idea than the current perspective. There are many "decentralized projects in the works, so as the community shifts towards a different kind of economic structure it is helpful to understand the ideal we are moving towards. (btw I changed the picture to the thread @ nxtpoker, mostly so the OP here can have less of a giant derail picture).

You do realise that people who make their money off rakeback are actually winners in the game right..? Remove rakeback and they win their money from a positive winrate instead of rakeback.

Yes this is the type of thinking we need to make sure is prominent. I might even have some or much to add but as long as we are thinking collectively in this direction we have a chance to bring out a profitable and sustainable game (again?).

Here is some ammo for the current important dialogs for the next few days, I don't have time to put it where it belongs here, but perhaps someone might find it useful for here, or places such as twoplustwo:

http://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com...tting-out-to-protest-what-is-optimal/
http://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com...aked-poker-and-rakeless-poker-differ/
http://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/ideal-rake/

#idealpoker #idealmoney

On November 04 2014 03:59 diggerflopboat wrote: Show nested quote + On November 03 2014 20:39 Baalim wrote: That chart is ridiculous, when has PS have had a problem with random number generators, house bots, payout problems or heavy collusion? Yes I agree, and you will find I already went to explain it and basically called them out for it. I'm not concerned with that specific project I just am projecting a bigger idea than the current perspective. There are many "decentralized projects in the works, so as the community shifts towards a different kind of economic structure it is helpful to understand the ideal we are moving towards. (btw I changed the picture to the thread @ nxtpoker, mostly so the OP here can have less of a giant derail picture).   You do realise that people who make their money off rakeback are actually winners in the game right..? Remove rakeback and they win their money from a positive winrate instead of rakeback. Yes this is the type of thinking we need to make sure is prominent. I might even have some or much to add but as long as we are thinking collectively in this direction we have a chance to bring out a profitable and sustainable game (again?).

Its not a good way to start this teletubbie community thing by blatant lies

On November 02 2014 23:10 Skoal wrote: poker economy is a hilarious phrase

poker ecosystem is better.

there is no incentive for a poker site to reduce rake or give regulars more.

in fact, it is in poker site best interest to get rid of all regulars and only have fish.

asking for less rake and more rake back is an exercise in futility.

everyone always argues for things that would benefit them, from seeing this post, it looks like you are someone who plays in the supernova level and thus you want to earn more by having the system advantage you.

On November 05 2014 03:44 Zalfor wrote: there is no incentive for a poker site to reduce rake or give regulars more. in fact, it is in poker site best interest to get rid of all regulars and only have fish. asking for less rake and more rake back is an exercise in futility. everyone always argues for things that would benefit them, from seeing this post, it looks like you are someone who plays in the supernova level and thus you want to earn more by having the system advantage you.

This is not actually accurate though, the ideal for a Pokersite is to have a good stream of fish that can be continually remined for deposits as a renewable resource - and then lots of mass volume breakeven regulars to churn the fishes money into rake. Remember that fishes don't really play a lot of hands or lose everything to rake. They tend to just busto. If the players winning the fishes money are cashing it out that's not the preference for the site. The preference is for that money to be broken down into rake.

So high volume regulars going for Supernova or Supernova x2, x3, x4 etc... is actually what Pokerstars wants. They want the games to be tough enough that most players who are semi-good (killing games before rake) still need that 40%+ Rakeback to survive and be profitable on any level. That way players will grind insane volume to get that level of Rakeback (because for many it's the only way they can win) and Pokerstars collects most of the coin as rake.

Now - my argument is this. The best poker ecosystem may not be the best for Pokerstars as a business, but perhaps there is a healthy balance between the two. Advocating for lower rake to create a bigger % of winning players before Rakeback will dramatically soften the games, and result in many more casual regs being able to win and brag to their friends. More recreational players that aren't completely horrible will also win more often. Players don't come to Poker to lose money. They come with the idea that they too can be a poker star. The games sex appeal comes from winning players who live next door to you bragging about how welll they are doing.

So what I'm suggesting is 1% of players or less in the pool as winning players isn't an ideal formula. Not for the health of the games, and not for Pokerstars long-term survivabilty as a business plan. I don't know what the ideal % is to bring in the maximum amount of new deposists through word of mouth advertising, but it's probably more like 20%... maybe even 30%. It's about finding a balance where average players can be winning players, and the best will win big. And all of them will brag. That's how you grow the grassroots of the game.

Just my opinion. This other guys posts I'll have to read more about but he seems to be more about propagating his personal solution of a bitcoin poker site. I think it will be a while before bitcoin stabilizes enough to achieve that dream, but eventually big sites will use it. One day.