The myth of PS rakeback
 

So many on this forum appear to have a very strong and vested interest in pushing Pokerstars and putting down any and all competition. Especially FTP since it's the closest rival.
Is anyone else sick of hearing PS shills drone on about about PS actually having 30%+ RB?
It seems to me that PS employs several people to post on this forum in any way they can to push PS and criticise other sites.
Just to illustrate my point...

If an average person were to play 10k hands a month at PS how much RB would they get and how long would it take them to get it?
The preceeding question will no doubt be drowned out and left unanswered by the PS shills flaming the hell out of me for bringing this up in the 1st place.

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]

The preceeding question will no doubt be drowned out and left unanswered by the PS shills flaming the hell out of me for bringing this up in the 1st place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gogogogogo.

And to answer your two questions:

no
and $texas

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZz

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

OMG I'm so happy now! I woke up this morning thinking to myself that it's been at least a couple of days since we've had a PS vs FT RB thread...PLEASE let this be the day we have another one. Low and behold, my wish has been answered!

As to your comparison question, I'll go out on a limb and suggest it's likely been answered numerous times in the endless parade of threads on this tired subject. And in those threads, people might have actually been specific about things like the game & limits they play!

I've never understood the endless fascination with this subject. Do people really find a 5 or 10% difference in RB actually sways their decision in favour of one site or the other? Are people's preferences in software, customer service, quality of players, etc, etc not worth more than that?

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

The myth is that other major sites return more to their players. Stars has one of the lowest rake structures. The FPP/VIP program costs us multiple million dollars every month. We have a great relationship with our customers and I believe this is the reason they defend us when someone posts something they believe to be untrue.

Scotty

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]
and $texas

[/ QUOTE ]

i died laughing at this but i cant remember where its from.. remind me?

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

WAIT LOL i just died laughing .. SNL jeopardy?

Re: The myth of PS rakeback *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by Mike Haven

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]
If an average person were to play 10k hands a month at PS how much RB would they get and how long would it take them to get it?


[/ QUOTE ]

Depends what stakes they play.

You can always do the calculation yourself if you care to know the answer.

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

Nintendo Rulz!!! Xbox and PS3 SUX!!!!

[ QUOTE ]
If an average person were to play 10k hands a month at PS how much RB would they get and how long would it take them to get it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone played 12,422 hands of $100NL a month, every month they would earn about 4000vpp per month. That would make them Gold Star.

They would then earn 8000fpp/month.

Their MGR would be about $771.75.

They would be able to buy a $285 bonus every 25,000VPP which is every 3.125 months.

This bonus would be cleared after 1,995fpp which would take them 6195 hands to clear.

This is the equivalent to 11.81% rakeback.

(Yes I did the math for 12K hands instead of 10k because it's not unreasonable that someone aware of the benefits of Gold Star would get in the extra hands when they're so close)


Of course at Stars ANYBODY can get this rakeback. Unlike FTP where if you didn't sign-up with the right affiliate you're [censored] out of luck.

For me FTP rakeback in a myth. I get 0% rakeback on FTP because I signed up directly through them shortly after they opened.

I'm a Supernova on Stars which means that at $100NL I get over 30% in rakeback.

The numbers speak for themselves. Even with rakeback at FTP, Stars would still be a better deal for me. Since I can't get rakeback at FTP it's no contest at all.

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

CryMeARiver,

Why didn't you get the FT rakeback when they had that 1-2 week period where they were allowing non rakeback accounts to receive rakeback? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm just wondering since it's obvious that you are a serious player so I'm just surprised you didn't take advantage of that.

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]
CryMeARiver,

Why didn't you get the FT rakeback when they had that 1-2 week period where they were allowing non rakeback accounts to receive rakeback? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm just wondering since it's obvious that you are a serious player so I'm just surprised you didn't take advantage of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

probably because they didn't give it to everyone

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
CryMeARiver,

Why didn't you get the FT rakeback when they had that 1-2 week period where they were allowing non rakeback accounts to receive rakeback? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm just wondering since it's obvious that you are a serious player so I'm just surprised you didn't take advantage of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

probably because they didn't give it to everyone

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I think you are right. If you signed up through an affiliate, then you couldn't get it, but if you signed up directly with FT, then you could.

Forgot about that little nugget.

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]
So many on this forum appear to have a very strong and vested interest in pushing Pokerstars and putting down any and all competition. Especially FTP since it's the closest rival.
Is anyone else sick of hearing PS shills drone on about about PS actually having 30%+ RB?
It seems to me that PS employs several people to post on this forum in any way they can to push PS and criticise other sites.
Just to illustrate my point...

If an average person were to play 10k hands a month at PS how much RB would they get and how long would it take them to get it?
The preceeding question will no doubt be drowned out and left unanswered by the PS shills flaming the hell out of me for bringing this up in the 1st place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lucky, if i had to guess, Full Tilt's rakeback (provided you are eligible) is far better deal than Stars for about 90 percent of the players out there. If not more. However, for those few players that can log hundreds of thousands of hands a year the Poker Stars program is pretty much the same.

The reason why lots of people jump on here to defend stars is because they have been rejected by Full Tilt's rakeback program because they signed up without rakeback.

I play more poker than just about everyone i know and i could never reach supernova. So playing on FT is a no brainer for me.

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]
Stars has one of the lowest rake structures.
Scotty

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you elaborate a bit on this?
According to the stars homepage it is 5% with a 3$ cap, like every other site.

But the other sites got rakeback and bonus programs...

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stars has one of the lowest rake structures.
Scotty

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you elaborate a bit on this?
According to the stars homepage it is 5% with a 3$ cap, like every other site.

But the other sites got rakeback and bonus programs...

[/ QUOTE ]

$1.00 per $20 in the pot is less rake than 1 cent per 20 cents.

In certain games a $19 pot will be raked 0 at Stars, and 0.95$ at f.ex. Prima

ToT

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

why is everyone with this shaking hands avatar so silly? seriously. what's the deal with that.

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

Here are two small examples

Turbo SNG events
FT $11 + 1
PS $15 + 1

FR Limit tables
FT 9 handed
PS 10 handed

90 players playing on each site, the site with the extra table will drop more rake.

Scotty

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

"Is anyone else sick of hearing PS shills drone on about about PS actually having 30%+ RB?"

I've read plenty of posts that went through the math and approximated what the actual value of various levels of play were/are.

I doubt the posters going on about this are employees of PS. It's just that Pokerstars has had several years now of high level service, reliability and consistency. Many here, including me, trust them more than the other sites.

I've had very negative experiences with FullTilt. If any problem arises with them, their customer service is awful IMO.

Play were you want. I like Pokerstars better. I trust them to do the right thing. Even the TeddyFBI worked out in the end. What's the big deal? Just ignore the 'rakeback' comparision threads.

Chunwah.

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

Let's ask them.

Scottyy,

Does Pokerstars employ unidentified posters on this forum to promote/shill Pokerstars.com?

Thought you might like to refute that.

Chunwah

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here are two small examples

Turbo SNG events
FT $11 + 1
PS $15 + 1


[/ QUOTE ]
I'll agree with that.

[ QUOTE ]

FR Limit tables
FT 9 handed
PS 10 handed


90 players playing on each site, the site with the extra table will drop more rake.

Scotty

[/ QUOTE ]

That example isn't necessarily true. What if the extra person on the 10 man tables add a % chance that the pots get bigger and therefore drop more rake?

What does that all mean for the individual anyway? As far as I can tell the NL and PL rakes are identical between the two with the exception of Full Tilt only raking 50 cents if it's HU and PS raking $1. Actually, it looks like FT has a better rake structure after looking it over.

PS Rake

Fullt Tilt

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]
WAIT LOL i just died laughing .. SNL jeopardy?

[/ QUOTE ]

bingo. French Stewart wagers it.

transcript


I also whole-heartedly agree with this comment...

"For me FTP rakeback in a myth. I get 0% rakeback on FTP because I signed up directly through them shortly after they opened."

I get benefits at stars and not at Full Tilt for this reason.

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

Stars have the best software and service bar none and that is why most people are loyal to them and stick up for them.

However, blindly sticking up for Stars on this issue is mad. I think 99% of regular Stars players would sooner have rakeback than the convoluted FPP/VIP system. Everyone is trying to work out if this equates to good rakeback and for the majority it doesn't.

I appreciate Scottyy coming on here and trying to justify it by way of smaller rake and the VIP system. But seriously, if it equates to rakeback just change a system that you say is costing millions and give us what we would really like and that is rakeback. Would that not make sense.

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

Stars is never going to offer normal rakeback so stop whining like a bitch about it...simply go play elsewhere.

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

------That example isn't necessarily true. What if the extra person on the 10 man tables add a % chance that the pots get bigger and therefore drop more rake?

I think we would agree more rake is taken per player from a 6 max game vs FR. I'm sure we would rake more per person if all games were changed from 10 to 9 handed, of course there might be a couple exceptions.

-----if it equates to rakeback just change a system that you say is costing millions and give us what we would really like and that is rakeback. Would that not make sense.

There are many advantages doing it the way our current program operates.

Scotty

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]

However, blindly sticking up for Stars on this issue is mad. I think 99% of regular Stars players would sooner have rakeback than the convoluted FPP/VIP system.


[/ QUOTE ]

I hear what you are saying and for many people the merits that FT is a better deal on the rakeback issue may be correct.
In my case however it's not so much blindly sticking up for a site as much as it is one site gives me something and one gives me nothing. Just because the site that gives me nothing gives others something doesn't make their argument that they get a better deal than I do mean anything for me.

I'll flip it around here. If Full Tilt allowed me to switch to a rakeback account I would be more willing to split my time instead of spending 90+ percent at Stars. They don't.
I'd be willing to explore a better deal from either site as someone who doesn't play for their livelihood but plays a reasonable amount.
But only one currently gives me anything.


That's all.

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

"There are many advantages doing it the way our current program operates.
Scotty" - For PokerStars yes - you pay less rakeback.

apefish - I can see it is better for you obviously.

The first site out of FTP and Stars to do something right for their players would gain significantly. If FTP allowed everybody rakeback many would switch from Stars. If Stars allowed rakeback many would switch from FTP.

And why do neither do anything - may I suggest they perhaps have an agreement between themselves not to. After all, they don't want their customers to benefit too much.

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]

FR Limit tables
FT 9 handed
PS 10 handed

90 players playing on each site, the site with the extra table will drop more rake.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but I'm way more comfy at a 9 handed table.

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]

Why didn't you get the FT rakeback when they had that 1-2 week period where they were allowing non rakeback accounts to receive rakeback? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm just wondering since it's obvious that you are a serious player so I'm just surprised you didn't take advantage of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because amazingly, a lower rakeback rate was not enough to woo me over to FTP from Stars. Perhaps I should have been thinking more ahead that I might someday want to play at FTP. But there was never an announced deadline either, they just stopped allowing it one day. The assumption was that if I ever got around to wanting to play at FTP they'd just switch me over.

I cleared FTP's initial deposit bonus more than a year and a half ago and it was a miserable experience. Rock garden plus doomswitch. Never thought I'd go back, I'm happy 12 tabling at Stars.

However, earlier this year FTP offered me a reload so I decided what the hell and I gave 20 tabling a try... 12 at Stars and 8 at FTP. Worked out pretty well.

However 20 tables is considerably more work than 12. At the end of the day playing 20 I'm drained. 12 is far more casual. So both on principle and because it's not worth the extra work without rakeback I only play FTP when they offer me a reload.

The only reason I would play regularly at FTP would be to exceed the 12 table limit at Stars. (FWIW I can't do this at Party or Ongame because the software is crap and won't work the way I multi-table - with tables stacked, not tiled.)

I'm sure FTP don't give a crap about me playing an 8 or 10 or even 12 extra tables at their site full time, but how many hundreds of us Stars regs are there that would throw some business their way if they'd only come up with a system that benefited everybody?

You know, like Stars does...

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

I am a PS shill and I'm not paid to do so, at least not directly.

I support PS because I admire thier business model and philosophy and I like seeing them rewarded.

Their program may not be the best for every player, but I don't think anyone is claiming that. But for any player who consistantly plays a decent number of hands, they are going to recieve more of their rake back by playing at Stars.

You also have additional benefits like having your emails answered in hours, not days and a site that doesn't crash every couple of days.

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

At some stakes on Stars 40%-ish or higher is doable.

If you make all the milestone bonuses all the way up to elite and you take advantage of all the VIP freerolls then I believe you can be pushing 100% on certain games.
Not very easy or realistic. But still possible.

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

MicroBob makes a good point, I get >30% rakeback and that doesn't include milestone bonuses. Nor does it include the almost $5K in VIP freeroll tournament cashes I've made this year. Meanwhile, FT has Iron "Yawn" Man.

If you are a casual player and if you can get rakeback and if you never have to contact support then FTP is probably a better deal for you.

If not, Stars is the pretty clear winner.

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

Nice job CMAR with the math calcs although it's obvious OP wasn't really looking for actual figures and just wanted to whine.

I did the math myself and found I'm better off at Tilt with rakeback than Stars but I'm one of the lucky ones who was able to get it. I just don't play enough for it to be worthwhile. Like others have said, Stars is class act and beats FT in pretty much every other way you would consider choosing a site. If it wasn't for rakeback at Tilt, I'd be on Stars too.

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]


I play more poker than just about everyone i know and i could never reach supernova. So playing on FT is a no brainer for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

you must not know many people who actually get any amount of hands in then, because supernova isn't that hard to achieve.

In fact, I'm pretty confident that I could reach it playing nothing but NL50, and this is while working a job that takes about 50 hours out of my week.


Also, I have rakeback on Full-Tilt, and I still put in almost all of my time at Stars.
I like their software better, I like their games better, I like their support better.

I also like the fact that you don't see a whole lot of threads from people saying how their account was closed randomly, or hacked, or whatever.

FPPs might not be greater than or equal to Rakeback, but that doesn't matter to me because I'm willing to play where I feel more comfortable.

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

-----"There are many advantages doing it the way our current program operates. Scotty" - For PokerStars yes - you pay less rakeback.

100% wrong. We already return more rake per person than any other major site. FT only has rakeback for small amount of their players. The balance of their players, like me, are left earning points which are worth 3.5% RB in Sit and Goes. Our BronzeStars earn FPPs worth 8% RB in Sit & Goes and have a lot more options.

Scotty

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

What it boils down to is, if you have a brain and don't play 8749836598347 hands a month, then you shouldn't ever play on Pokerstars. That is unless you have a strange fetish for stress balls and other useless crap.

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

idk, i don't play that much (usually less than 30K hands a month) usually at 200 or 100nl, and i got supernova

and i do have to say that my fpps are building up fast

and i also have to say that the $1,000 one call gift cert seems to have pretty good value if you need electronics

since i do photography and need lenses and crap and onecall sells them, i'm quite happy w/ the point system thing

and of course the concierge service... haven't done the calc yet to see which is better

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

I hardly play much..weekends only. Pretty much only play MTTs/SitnGos and some cash.

Would never play fulltime on Tilt despite getting rakeback.

Prefer Stars for customer service, software, game selection, yada yada yada. Plus I have no worries keeping large amounts of cash on Stars for extended periods of times doing countless player to player transfers etc. Tilt do not have that same confidence.

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

this supernova says STARS FTW!!!

Re: The myth of PS rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]
why is everyone with this shaking hands avatar so silly? seriously. what's the deal with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

i made a post in the atf chatroom about this very topic.