PokerStars New VPP Method

[Poker Orifice]

Any of you folks see the new method on how VPP's will be calculated on PokerStars as of Jan.1/2012? I just opened up Stars (actually to check on how many VPP's I've earned in December for some promo thingy I'm wanting to qualify for before the end of the month).

The new system awards VPP's for how much you have donated into the pot whereas the old method, the total VPP's for the hand were evenly divided amongst the players sitting on the table, whether they donated any money into the pot or not (as long as they were dealt into the hand they received an equal share of the split VPP's).

The old system never made any sense to me & in my opinion it created alot of rakeback players who'd be playing 20+ tables & playing super tight (at least in the micro limits as this is all I can really comment on with any knowledge on PokerStars anyways). Seemed kinda ridiculous. When trying to obtain VPP's I too would open up a 12-16 tables & play super tight (boring) poker, racking up the pts. slowly but surely.

I personally really like the idea of the new system they will soon have in place. It only makes sense to me to be rewarding the players who are actually paying the rake in the hand that is being played.

[Poker Orifice]

Here's the printout describing the new system & comparing it to the old.
On January 1, 2012, we will be changing the way VIP Player Points (VPPs) are awarded at our ring game tables.
Historically, the VPPs earned in a ring game hand have been split equally between all players that were dealt into the hand. The new method will award VPPs proportionally based on each player's contribution to the pot.
The change is illustrated in the example below:

Five players participate in a hand of $1/$2 No Limit Hold'em.
Pre-flop:

• Player 1 raises to $6
• Player 2 folds
• Player 3 folds
• Players 4 (the $1 small blind) calls
• Players 5 (the $2 big blind) calls

Post-flop:

• Player 4 makes a bet of $9
• Player 5 moves all in for $21
• Player 1 folds
• Player 4 calls
• The remaining cards are dealt, and the $60 pot is awarded to Player 4

The pot is $60 in total. Players 4 & 5 contributed $27 each, and player 1 contributed $6. The total rake on this pot is $3, which is worth 16.5 VPPs.
Under the old method, all five players would receive an equal share of the points, i.e. 16.5 / 5 = 3.3 VPPs.
Under the new method, the VPPs will be awarded as follows:

• Player 1 contributed $6 (10% of the pot) and so receives 1.65 VPPs.
• Player 2 contributed $0 (0% of the pot) and so receives 0 VPPs.
• Player 3 contributed $0 (0% of the pot) and so receives 0 VPPs.
• Player 4 contributed $27 (45% of the pot) and so receives 7.43 VPPs.
• Player 5 contributed $27 (45% of the pot) and so receives 7.43 VPPs.

[Poker Orifice]

THought this thread would be good to have bumping that old 'PokerStars is fixed' one down from the top of the list.
... & in essence.. 'PokerStars has been fixed' (at least the VPP part of it )

[ennotserp]

Wondered how I got all those points - just goes to show that I don't pay attention to the nuances of sites, otherwise I would have gotten more - LOL.

[scrawnybob]

hi all

they have had a bit of a change of plan -

PokerStars will not make the cash game rake changes it proposed on Wednesday.

However the plan to change to the weighted contributed calculation for VIP points will go ahead on January 1 as planned.

personally I agree with PO on this ... the change to weighted contributed isn't really a revalation - alot of sites have been changing to it instead of dealt for their rakeback / VIP / Loyalty / valueback calculations

to be honest it seems like its actually a shame they caved into presure from the 2+2 mob / the rakeback grinders / higher stake players who already win

basically if I have understood it right the changes would have benefited the vast majority ie. low / micro stakes and average recreational players

it's a shame to be honest -

at the moment on the one hand Bodog / Bovada seem to be going wholesale in one OTT direction "over protecting" sportsbook players in the poker room (most likely for their own peace of mind) and other sites seem to pay too much attention to the vocal winning minority top 10% giving far too much money / rakeback to players higher up the chain who are already doing very nicely from the game without additional juice

but there we are

equally it could be argued that 2+2's suggested sitout proves pokerstars customers win out -
just maybe not to the benefit of the majority of customers

cheers SB

[nb1961]

When I read about the 2+2 protest I did think it was a bit short sighted. Keeping more money and incentive at the micro stakes area has to benefit all in the long run as the funds will work there way slowly up the food chain. Getting the average micro/recreational/sportsbook player to understand they are better off may have been a harder task. With the player pool declining since Black Friday you have to give PS credit for making a move in the right direction giving encouragement to recreational players. Shame it's not getting a chance.

[scrawnybob]

hi

yep exactly

you can shear a sheep repeatly

but you can only skin a cat once

I know alot of players think that poker sites make money hand over fist
(they dont - or at least not as much and as easily as players like to think)

but winning players / rakeback grinders need to realise that if they want a healthy environment for them to win from the game -

then maybe they shouldnt be the ones getting a % of the poker rooms rake (and its the poker rooms money and the pot winners money - NOT the tables players once its in the pot and the pot is raked)

**** see follow on post about pots, rake and actually who's it is and who's it isn't ****

I dont want to see winning players handicapped but equally its not a good investment of a poker rooms rake / profit to "re-invest" it into additional rewards for players that would stay regardless as they are more likely the winning players

I agree with some of the ideas of Bodog - although I think anonymous tables really isnt the way to go

players have a right to better themsleves to beat more players who are weak or dont make the effort to improve that is a fundamental of the skill side of the game ...

however

I still remain opposed to data mining 100,000 of hands you were never in and didnt play yet can gain advantage from - however I think players should be allowed to analyse their own play retrospectively and also retrospectively analyse the play of games they have actually played.

I'll post somemore in this thread as I have an interesting link for a post by bill rini, while I dont agree with all of it I do with most (see following post)

anyway the way this has run with 2+2 members kicking up makes it clear the savvy grinding minority are selfish without realising that they need to be less greedy IF they want to have a sustainable earner and keep the fish in the game

sure most players have absolutely no idea how they get the VIP points etc or the most efficient way to try and earn them

but if everyone went about nitty grinding 12 tables to profit on RB for effectively struggling to play break even poker ... then our hobby / living would be in trouble

I can understand that its easy to get up in arms if it looks like they were getting greedy and not putting anything back - but clearly the original proposal was going to "cost" more for pokerstars to give more to the lower tiers and a bit less to the higher tiers ...

your right NB really shortsighted on those players behalf

cheers SB

[scrawnybob]

hi

ok given that the development of rakeback (and now valueback, VIP etc etc) the line of who's money is who's and when it is no longer the original players money has become increasingly blurred

rakeback affiliate seeking to scalp other affiliates and also skins on networks seeking to scalp other skins on the same network conviently blurr the line creating what is in my opinion a feeling of false entitlement to money by players who play poker ...

just calling it "rake - back" creates a false entitlement that suits some affiliates to imply they are player advocates when in fact its more about market share and gaining players / profit from others in the business

to explain this first off we need to get back to the real mechanics of a hand of poker ...

1. some players contribute to building the pot by betting
(some fold, some fold having contributed something to the pot)

2. then there is a showdown or everyone folds apart from the winner of the pot - and the winner of the pot is established

3. then (and only then) is the pot raked for a % or fixed max amount by the poker room

thus the poker room has taken its fee for providing the game etc ...
the rake is simply the profit for the poker room

4. The winning player is then awarded the winning pot minus % rake

end of story NO discussion ... this is the FACTS of how a hand works.

OK so that is how a hand actually works ...

NOBODY actually pays ANY rake apart from the winning player who gets the pot minus the poker room's % rake deducted from his winning pot

It's actually far easier to understand and see this playing live poker, because all the players chips are mixed into the pot, the poker room has no interesting who chips are who's it just takes the stiplated rake from the pot before awarding it to the winning player.

the crucial point is

a) once you put you money into a pot ... it is no longer yours, it ceases to be yours and you no longer have any claimer over it until you win the hand (or lose)

b) only the winner of the pot is actually paying the rake / deduction from the poker room ... NOT the other players who were in the hand and contributed to the pot

(only exception is if live poker room charges seating fees and not rake)

its really important to understand the difference between contributing to the pot (what active players do) and contributing to the rake (only what the winner who wins the pot does)

basically using any method of awarding ownership / entitlement of some of the rake is flawed and causes confusion where players think (very strongly) they have a right to or an entitlement to some of the pot back (even if as in most cases they lost)

So IF rakeback / valueback etc etc was awarded "fairly" then the only player getting rakeback or valueback or VIP points for paying rake ... would be only the specific winner of each hand

while that might seem fair - that really isnt a great idea ... the poker room would be giving a % of it's own profits to winning players (at least on a hand by hand basis) and ultimately that is going to be awarding winning players more (already profiting - rightly from their skill and play)

OK so having established that the idea of players in a hand having an "entitlement" to rake is flawed and that awarding rake to the one that paid it is flawed ...

really this means the poker room is entitled to spend IT's money (the rake) any way it chooses ... including if its shot sighted on things outside of the business - like speedboats, fast cars and mansions

however most poker rooms reinvest massively in the business / marketing / rewards which is how they built the business up from the beginning

basically my point is

once you realise players actually at a table are NOT contributing to the rake they are contributing to a pot (they hope to win) then the winner pays rake

the poker room is FREE to spend its rake / profit how it sees fit - whatever way is best for the room as a whole and their business as a whole

maybe its no player loyalty rewards at all (though I doubt it) and spending it all on much easier to clear deposit bonuses ?

I would love to see a move away from referring to "rake paid" by players and a move towards rewarding players at different levels in different ways for their play and playing time ...

yes that is still going to mean the poker room is calculating arbitary amounts of "rake" that individual players sort of contribute ... but it would reduce incorrectly calling it rakeback etc as if there is any ACTUAL real entitlement to what is in effect an imagined or virtually calculated for illustration purposes only rake that players feel they pay % hand by hand but dont.

Players need to understand they are NOT ENTITLED to a proportion of "their" rake - back

Clearly it makes very little sense in rewarding winning players more than they win on their own - but calling it and calculating it crudely via rakeback is an equally bad option

as is clearly illustrated when a small vocal minority of pokerstars players get up in arms about getting less of "their" rake back

when pokerstars proposed reapportioning of their pokerstars rewards budget (from their rake) would have actually benefited far more players

(who it could be argued while not playing on the 2/4 tables those players that were playing 2/4 were doing it with their profits from micro stakes looses) ... see how silly it could get if post bet / pot entitlement was to be logically followed

cheers SB

[JoeShowdown]

I remember when Fulltilt switched to this method and all the pokerstar buttlickers hated it and bragged about being supernova-bound. I should have listened to them and played all my time on stars, but instead I devoted countless hours and revolved my schedule around fulltilt's happyhours and earned the hendonmob rakeback and blackcard status. What a fool I was now that I haven't seen any of that money because I didn't regularly withdraw letting my ftp balance soar into the 5 figures thinking why withdraw it and put in the bank as the interest each month would be a quarter. At least I'd have the principal right now and the few bucks of interest on top.

Rakeback grinding 20 plus tablers can still play the same way, but the contributed method rewards looser players. Or solely play mtts and sngs where you can nit it up and blind out lol.

[Akorps]

Thanks for the info!