The myth of PS rakeback

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]


This might be true for much or all of NL. I really don't know.

First, on SNG's you need to make it to SN to get a good RB benefit. If you are just silver or gold level then your RB on SNG's at Stars is going to be lousy.

For limit though I strongly disagree and also think it's incredibly obvious but evidently not many people seem to realize.

At 1/2 full-ring limit I estimate about 32-35% RB just for a gold-level player at Stars. I can show you the calcs I just did if you like but I've already shown how to do that and some people seem to have a problem with showing the truth behind the numbers.

This estimate is not including any freerolls or other stuff and is also counting FPP's at the lower rate of 1.5 cents.

At 2/4 limit full-ring I estimate around 21% RB as a gold.

At 3/6 limit full-ring I estimate around 23% RB as a gold.

Gold is super-duper easy by the way. It's just 4k VPP's a month. To make 1k VPP's a week one would need to play 4 or 5 hours of 4 or 5 tabling at some stakes.
Can you fit in a 4 or 5 hour shift just once in the week? Doesn't seem too high-volume to me.


IMO, it is not very hard to make it to platinum in a month.
It's only 10k VPP's.
This should be do-able for many multi-tablers at just 10 hours per week. That's not THAT high-volume is it?

Anyway, if you made platinum then your RB% would be even higher of course AND you would make it to Supernova by October at which point it would be higher still.

Yes. 10 hours a week would be an easy SN by October for some multi-tablers.

I think some people are really exaggerating the supposed difficulty of attaining platinum or SN.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]


some people have some real problems with FT's software.

FT froze on me all the time when I played there.
I would also get the famous yellow-screen of death, the sound would cut out, etc. Lots of problems.

I just don't have those disconnect, blank-screen or vanishing-sound problems at Stars.
I also find it much easier for multi-tabling but that's probably just a personal preference.

[Rek]

Ok guys – instead of arguing whether black is white or apples are oranges is it possible to agree on the following?

1. For many people (primarily high volume SN and SNE’s and those who cannot receive FTP rakeback) the VIP/FPP system on Stars is superior.

2. For the remaining people (who receive rakeback) FTP is financially superior.

3. For those who don’t play enough to even qualify for rakeback it doesn’t matter.

4. For a minority it is a bit of a grey area as to what is best.

5. RB or FPP’s is not the only consideration in deciding where to play.

What would be good is if someone could build a small model that you could enter the volumes and stakes that you play at and this could calculate, on a case by case basis, where best to play. Anyone skilled and bored enough to do this for the poker world?

I also hope for world peace and goodwill to all men.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
1. For many people (primarily high volume SN and SNE’s and those who cannot receive FTP rakeback) the VIP/FPP system on Stars is superior.

[/ QUOTE ]
Probably.

[quot]2. For the remaining people (who receive rakeback) FTP is financially superior.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not nessecarily. Some will be, some won't be.

[ QUOTE ]
3. For those who don’t play enough to even qualify for rakeback it doesn’t matter.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obtaining rakeback at FT is not a matter of volume.

[ QUOTE ]
4. For a minority it is a bit of a grey area as to what is best.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. I suspect that for almost all players who have access to rakeback and are playing decent volumes (like, 5 or 10 hours a week quoted by MB) it is a marginal decision either way.

If you're not makign those volumes, you're only talking $5 or $10 a week.

[ QUOTE ]
5. RB or FPP’s is not the only consideration in deciding where to play.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
I also hope for world peace and goodwill to all men.

[/ QUOTE ]
Me too.

[Bobo Fett]

Rek, you never replied to my earlier question. If you are in London, why are FT and Stars your only choices? SO many great bonus/rakeback schemes out there for those of us not in the US. Just curious.

[Rek]

[ QUOTE ]
3. For those who don’t play enough to even qualify for rakeback it doesn’t matter.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obtaining rakeback at FT is not a matter of volume.

There is a minimum to qualify (not sure exact amount - something like you might have to have a minimum $5
in rakeback. Small players but there are lots of them

[ QUOTE ]
4. For a minority it is a bit of a grey area as to what is best.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. I suspect that for almost all players who have access to rakeback and are playing decent volumes (like, 5 or 10 hours a week quoted by MB) it is a marginal decision either way.

Does not a marginal decision mean it is a grey area then?

[Rek]

[ QUOTE ]
Rek, you never replied to my earlier question. If you are in London, why are FT and Stars your only choices? SO many great bonus/rakeback schemes out there for those of us not in the US. Just curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not, I place more importance on quality of service and software regardless of what you might interpret from some of my posts.

I have played many sites (William Hill was one of my favorites) but have found FTP & Stars far far superior to the rest.

Choice of games and volumes of users are unrivaled. I did hope that WPEX was going to take off with their "no rake" structure and supported them for a while but it was a losing battle unfortunately.

Long answer to a short question.

I love Stars but do get frustrated when legitimate questions are posed and are derided by the PokerStars Appreciation Society (and no MicroBob I am not including you). It seems if you have a beef about "a,b or c" on Stars then people post replies about how good "x,y and z" is.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a minimum to qualify (not sure exact amount - something like you might have to have a minimum $5
in rakeback. Small players but there are lots of them

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant that people who cannot access FTP rakeback (such as me, or Cry Me a River) are unable to do so regardless of the volume of our play.

Obviously a $5 minimum for rakeback is pretty insignificant.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4. For a minority it is a bit of a grey area as to what is best.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. I suspect that for almost all players who have access to rakeback and are playing decent volumes (like, 5 or 10 hours a week quoted by MB) it is a marginal decision either way.

Does not a marginal decision mean it is a grey area then?

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagreed with your assessment of "minority". Obviously, the person who plays one table for half an hour once a week is going to be better off on FTP (if they clear your $5 hurdle).

However, for the people who are reading this (and thus, probably quite interested in poker) they're going to be hitting the FPPs required for it to be marginal with 4/5 hours of play a week.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
I love Stars but do get frustrated when legitimate questions are posed and are derided by the PokerStars Appreciation Society (and no MicroBob I am not including you). It seems if you have a beef about "a,b or c" on Stars then people post replies about how good "x,y and z" is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Links would be fascinating here...


Are you genuinely surprised that in a free-flowing discussion, with no moderation, that the discussion will flow from one topic to another?

[Rek]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I love Stars but do get frustrated when legitimate questions are posed and are derided by the PokerStars Appreciation Society (and no MicroBob I am not including you). It seems if you have a beef about "a,b or c" on Stars then people post replies about how good "x,y and z" is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Links would be fascinating here...


Are you genuinely surprised that in a free-flowing discussion, with no moderation, that the discussion will flow from one topic to another?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not going looking for links but if you don't see almost every negative thread about PokerStars being highjacked by people saying "their software is far superior" and "try getting an answer as quickly from so and so site" then as I said earlier try taking off they rose tinted glasses.