The myth of PS rakeback

[RikaKazak]

I play on tilt because I LOVE "FullTiltShortcuts" and can't get AHK scripts to work for me on stars.

I'd love it if someone came out with a stars equivalent and just charged $20 a year or something like that.

[MicroBob]

I posted briefly about it in my super-long calculations post. It's also on their website.

At 200k VPP's you get a bonus of $2,000.
At 300k VPP's you get a bonus of $3,000.
Also 400k for $4k, 500k for $5k, 750k for $7.5k.
And at 1 million you are SNElite and you get 2 major tourneys and a WCOOP entry which is combined about a $30k value I believe.


Anyway, for the 200k milestone bonus for $2,000:
You have to spend 50k FPP's to 'purchase' the bonus.
This is roughly $800 worth of FPP's that you COULD have previously spent on other stuff including on regular points-for-cash or concierge or whatever.

So basically you have to 'spend' $800 in points to get $2000 which makes it a $1200 bonus.

All the oher milestone bonuses require a 50k FPP purchase as well. So you should deduct $750 or $800 from each one to gauge the true value of each.

[luckychancer]

Another glaring omission from this discussion is the fact that many mid to even high volume players like to spread their play around several sites. To those outside the USA this is especially relevent. One of the flaws and the benefits (for PS) of the PS FPP systems is it does not allow a lot of latitude regarding this aspect wheras RB allows total freedom to move around and find the best games, bonus offers etc.

For those who crave to be 'right' I have no time. Ignoring several important considerations to bolster ones stance does little to add to any intelligent debate. Nor does making statements pertaining to the lack of intelligence of others that do not share ones view.

I think it goes without saying that many would come to PS if it had RB.


It only has RB if a lot of criteria are met and a lot of contraints as well as ongoing commitments. Really in all honesty can that be called RB?
For a few I can easily conceed the answer is yes. For most it's an overwhelming no and neither the board nor the argument belongs to the few.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
Another glaring omission from this discussion is the fact that many mid to even high volume players like to spread their play around several sites.

[/ QUOTE ]
It has not been omitted. Many (most?) high volume players are not likely to have any trouble hitting SuperNova in a year, and to maintain it year after year - even after spreading their play across sites.
[ QUOTE ]
Ignoring several important considerations to bolster ones stance does little to add to any intelligent debate.

[/ QUOTE ]
The people who I feel this is directed towards have repeatedly implored people to do their own calculations and find whatever suits them individually.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it goes without saying that many would come to PS if it had RB.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some may. Some may not. Meh.

[ QUOTE ]
It only has RB if a lot of criteria are met and a lot of contraints as well as ongoing commitments.

[/ QUOTE ]
To clarify for readers, the criteria is "playing poker." That's not likely to be a difficult hurdle for online poker players.

[ QUOTE ]
Really in all honesty can that be called RB?

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't call it RB then. Call it a Hippopotamus if you want. For the vast majority of players, FPPs can be redeemed for cash. Money in your account can buy the same stuff, regardless of whether it came as "rakeback" or as an "FPP bonus".

This is increasingly becoming a semantic and silly discussion. Play at whatever site you prefer.

[Cry Me A River]

[ QUOTE ]
Really in all honesty can that be called RB?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a really silly, semantic, argument.

We need a yardstick to measure the value of playing on one site versus another. Most (all?) Ongame sites do not offer rakeback, however some Ongame sites offer basically perpetual bonuses. If we were to compare the value of these bonuses to Stars or to FTP we would figure their rakeback equivalent and compare.

Now, if you're so OCD that you have to substitute "Stars equivalent to rakeback" every time you see "Stars rakeback" then you go right ahead. But the bottom line is how much money it costs you to play at a site. Stars may be a little harder to figure out than FTP, but that's what this is really all about. Whether you call it rakeback or not doesn't make a difference to the size of your bankroll.

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really in all honesty can that be called RB?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a really silly, semantic, argument.

We need a yardstick to measure the value of playing on one site versus another. Most (all?) Ongame sites do not offer rakeback, however some Ongame sites offer basically perpetual bonuses. If we were to compare the value of these bonuses to Stars or to FTP we would figure their rakeback equivalent and compare.

Now, if you're so OCD that you have to substitute "Stars equivalent to rakeback" every time you see "Stars rakeback" then you go right ahead. But the bottom line is how much money it costs you to play at a site. Stars may be a little harder to figure out than FTP, but that's what this is really all about. Whether you call it rakeback or not doesn't make a difference to the size of your bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly right. I just add RB into the formula...much of my play is without RB, because I play at sites where the bonus > RB, or even RB + bonus, at other sites. Whether a site wants to call it FPPs, bonus, RB, cashback, points for cash, who gives a [censored]? Figure out what each site offers you, and make an informed decision. Just don't make it based on "Site A has 27% RB, Site B has no RB...Site A is better". Obviously most players go beyond this, or WPEX would be packed.

[LotsOfOuts69]

[ QUOTE ]

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 ]

The Best part about this thread is that the OP was exactly right.

Also, the one thing I do have a problem with is that every time someone questions the rakeback % on Stars Scotty chimes in with the same exact stats about SnG players.

It is obvious that if you play SnGs PS is much better (lower rake and higher Rakeback), but if you play low volume, low stake ring games, and you are in no way every going to get to be a supernova, and you have full tilt rakeback, its not even close.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
The Best part about this thread is that the OP was exactly wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know whether:

a) your post was some sort of level; or
b) you are blind; or
c) you are deliberately trolling; or
d) you have some sort of reading deficiency; or
e) all of the above


The OP's qustion was answered a number of times. Amongst others:

By me:
[ QUOTE ]

Depends what stakes they play.

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


[/ QUOTE ]

By Cry Me A River:
[ 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)


[/ QUOTE ]



In addition, some posters provided the information to allow the OP to make his own calculations in the future.

[apefish]

[ QUOTE ]
but if you play low volume, low stake ring games, and you are in no way every going to get to be a supernova, and you have full tilt rakeback , its not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a huge part of the equation that those castigating Stars here assume to simply be true in order to windmill slam the debate in their minds.
Sure, under those conditions I think it's been pretty much conceded many would be better off switching to Full Tilt on a strictly extra dollars level.

The fact is it isn't true for a subset of people responding, and as such should always have the qualifier this post used.

In addition to those who were willing to take the time to do some math for OP, there were others (myself included) who pointed this fact out and have been dismissed.

In the world where you can get something or nothing, Stars wins every time here. You can't just eliminate that facet of the debate simply because you get rakeback.

OP said "it goes without saying that if PS had RB people would move there" or something similar.
It was said in an attempt to say "see I am right".
But the reverse of it is this...
If Full Tilt made rakeback available to a subset of people who don't have it for whatever reason they have decided, some people would also move their play there. But since they don't- the argument that I would benefit more by playing there is absolutely false for me and for those similarly situated.

This is an apples and oranges argument, and OP is the only one saying "Full Tilt has produce for everyone, and Stars has something they like to call produce but it isn't".

[KSOT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but if you play low volume, low stake ring games, and you are in no way every going to get to be a supernova, and you have full tilt rakeback , its not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a huge part of the equation that those castigating Stars here assume to simply be true in order to windmill slam the debate in their minds.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it isn't. Full Tilt is not the only other site!

BTW, I saw a few people here post about Stars' superior software. Are you guys on crack or what? Full Tilt's software is lightyears ahead of Stars.