You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Goodbye rakeback. Good or bad?

Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 172,584
edited March 2016 in Poker Chat

The 2nd largest Online Poker site in the world (888) is abandoning its traditional rakeback system.

Disgruntled PokerStars players switching to 888Poker are in a state of shock after the second largest online poker room followed the largest online poker room after deciding to overhaul their rewards program to the detriment of the heavy volume grinders.

“The main objective of the new plan is to reallocate the loyalty budget from the heavy grinders to the masses. We want to reward players for other activities, including long term loyalty to 888poker, rather than only for grinding"




It's reasoning (good or bad) is the rising awareness that Online Poker sites have been getting it wrong, & looking after the wrong people. That's the view, & that's why every poker site is now trying to look after the recreational players these days.
 
Thoughts, is this good, bad, or neither one nor the other?
«13

Comments

  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 172,584
    edited March 2016


    Quick PS - there is no hidden agendas with this thread, Sky Poker have no plans that I am aware of to change their current system which was introduced June 1st 2015, as it's working as intended, but I hope they continue to tweak & refine it, & change if necessary. Discussion of that would be a completely different topic.  
  • Darkangel7Darkangel7 Member Posts: 2,585
    edited March 2016
    How many heavy grinders are there on a site compared to the rec players?

    How many rec players who are totally new or have little knowledge of the rake back system and how it works?

    Do you look after your heavy grinders or look after the smaller rec players (who might not bring in as much money to the site but will keep on coming back). It's such a fine line to balance and please everyone.
  • CHILLIECHILLIE Member Posts: 432
    edited March 2016
    I believe as everything in life once one does most companies follow suit,dont believe its a bad thing what 888 have done.Looking after the rec players is a must but at the same time u gotta look after your reg players as well,its a case of getting the balance right which I like to think sky have got right.
  • shakinacesshakinaces Member Posts: 1,590
    edited March 2016
    Don't play 888 anymore, heard part of the change is essentially trying to increase cross-sell across casino / sports, so you have to punt a certain amount alongside your poker in order to hit the bigger rewards moving forward?

    Not sure there is much win there for poker-only players of any level if so, although on the face of it seems a potentially clever business idea to get gamblers to put more of their multi-product punting through a single site...

    Is that, plus things like Stars bringing in casino games, a more worrying sign that poker as a standalone isn't sufficiently profitable to work anymore?  
  • radiofed28radiofed28 Member Posts: 78
    edited March 2016
    "We'd like to assure you that despite these major changes, 888poker will fully honor its cash-back commitment to all players, including its VIPs, who are currently entitled to yearly cash back in the existing rewards plan"

    At least they didn't copy stars in every respect, then.

    As for the changes, well, I don't really understand it. I mean, I've read everyone's response to Stars, and I too would have thought that incentivising high amounts of rake using rakeback was worth doing. But obviously companies know a lot more about the financials of their business than we do, and it must be that the value of deposits is really much higher than many grinders realise.

    The last 10 years or so have really been a unique learning experience I suppose, with the first time rise of the online poker pro. Obviously sites weren't going to get it right first time, so maybe this will be the future of online poker?
  • jordz16jordz16 Member Posts: 2,253
    edited March 2016
    I think as long as the recs are looked after well and there is a constant source of new recs being attracted to the site then that should keep the pros/grinders happy in the long run.
  • BigHawk89BigHawk89 Member Posts: 627
    edited March 2016
    Wouldn't bother me at all if sky cut their rakeback system as long as they reduced rake significantly!! 
  • DonttelmumDonttelmum Member Posts: 1,921
    edited March 2016
    In Response to Re: Goodbye rakeback. Good or bad?:
    Wouldn't bother me at all if sky cut their rakeback system as long as they reduced rake significantly!! 
    Posted by BigHawk89
    +1
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 172,584
    edited March 2016
    In Response to Re: Goodbye rakeback. Good or bad?:
    Don't play 888 anymore, heard part of the change is essentially trying to increase cross-sell across casino / sports, so you have to punt a certain amount alongside your poker in order to hit the bigger rewards moving forward? Not sure there is much win there for poker-only players of any level if so, although on the face of it seems a potentially clever business idea to get gamblers to put more of their multi-product punting through a single site... Is that, plus things like Stars bringing in casino games, a more worrying sign that poker as a standalone isn't sufficiently profitable to work anymore?  
    Posted by shakinaces
    Not sure it's "worrying", people will always play poker, but the dynamics are bound to change. Cross sell, let's not forget, works both ways. If the Slots, Bingo & Betting boys want to come join us at the poker tables, I'm all in favour of that. ;)  
  • MattBatesMattBates Member Posts: 4,118
    edited March 2016
    In Response to Re: Goodbye rakeback. Good or bad?:
    I think as long as the recs are looked after well and there is a constant source of new recs being attracted to the site then that should keep the pros/grinders happy in the long run.
    Posted by jordz16
    This nails it for me!

    I think the problem is RB systems have encouraged the RB grinder who breakeven at their games but generate a lot of their income from RB through putting in the hours on the tables. A system change effects these players greatly. As with a lot of things poker related the key is to adapt your game. 
  • BustertownBustertown Member Posts: 71
    edited March 2016
    I cannot comment on the principles of other sites but I think anything that rewards recreational players more has to be good. IMO Skypoker did this prior to the change last year; for me personally, I don't think that is the case now. For the little time I spend playing at low stakes, I have no chance to hit the weekly 50 point target. When it was a 100 point monthly, I might have managed something like 83 with 4 or 5 days left, so I would play some more just to reach the threshold. I would then continue, because each point over 100 paid out.

    Of course, sometimes I would often lose more money in the extra hands played than the extra reward, which makes me a bit of a mug. Putting on a business hat though, you want customers to "fall" for psychological rewards without realising that it costs them more in the long-term.
  • wynne1938wynne1938 Member Posts: 20,568
    edited March 2016
    Poker sites are like the Banks.
    They are only interested in the big businesses and not the small fry!
  • Phantom66Phantom66 Member Posts: 5,542
    edited March 2016
    In terms of rake contribution to a site then I suspect there is a pareto ratio wherby the top x% of players contibute y% of the rake. Whether thats 20/80 or 5/95 I have no idea. But its easy to see why the top few will get looked after by a site. However the best sites will also look after the majority of players who contribute less in rake but also deposit and most importantly by weight of numbers keep the site going and feed the overall poker economy.

    Personally I would prefer lower rake especially on micro stakes and expect less in rake back. More promotions that reward loyalty or regular play. I actually think the current sky rewards system works pretty well for low stakes players.

  • yuranASSetyuranASSet Member Posts: 485
    edited March 2016
    Winning players win and keep the money. Thus diluting the economy. The economy needs to grow to attract the recs. The recs generally lose their money. So it would be unethical for the winning player to think that the recs shouldn't enjoy a better experience before doing so. The players that should be worried are the break even grinders.

    However, it would also be unethical if they gave the recs more money and introduced more spin up tables for them to play at. Then the only winner is the site itself with the rec money going back in rake so the cycle can start again. It's robbing Peter, to pay Paul so Paul can pay you back. 

    If that was to be the case, then the online game of poker will have finally lost all of it's meritocracy. It's a hard one to call and the break even grinders will be hurt by this. But Like Matt said, poker has no solid form and we the player must adapt.


  • gerardirlgerardirl Member Posts: 1,299
    edited March 2016
    Yes I think this is a cross sell, more money made from casino and betting than poker, so I suspect its good news if you use all avenues, but bad news if you just play poker.

    Ger
  • craigcu12craigcu12 Member Posts: 3,962
    edited March 2016
    In Response to Re: Goodbye rakeback. Good or bad?:
    Wouldn't bother me at all if sky cut their rakeback system as long as they reduced rake significantly!! 
    Posted by BigHawk89
    +1
  • raggy94raggy94 Member Posts: 166
    edited March 2016
    Replacing the 'Jump Start' points bonus with the equivalent rake reduction when shorthanded, especially for hilo  (and maybe spin up) would be a good change imo, can't be a good thing when rake is something that is at the forefront of peoples minds when trying to start a table. With these two formats (hilo cash in particular) it's almost like you can literally see the money leaving the table every hand when playing heads up. It's actually a really fun game to play deepstacked, seems a shame to have a lobby for it which no one ever really uses.
  • MrWh1teMrWh1te Member Posts: 963
    edited March 2016
    I have followed the debate online and I think it is a good thing.

    To sum up from across several forums (and hugely generalised I know):

    Real winning players = In favour, the more recs the better.
    Breakeven grinders = Against, it hits the profit they make and turns them into losing players.
    Recs = In favour, the promos benefit them a lot.
  • NChanningNChanning Member Posts: 869
    edited March 2016

     I think I'm with you Mr Wh1te. Obviously all sites want to reward the recs the most and certainly brands with multiple products want to encourage cross-sell. Essentially the people who purely exist because of the rewards offer little value to the recs, the pro-players or the site and so making a change that penalises them while hurting nobody else must be good.

     That assumes that the change does in fact encourage recs to play, that the extra money they now have will mean they play more poker. If they are strictly limited by time and play 1 hour a day, a week or a month because that is all the time they can spare for their hobby then they just get a price reduction but they don't play more.

     Interesting topic.
  • CraigSG1CraigSG1 Member Posts: 1,832
    edited March 2016
    In Response to Re: Goodbye rakeback. Good or bad?:
     I think I'm with you Mr Wh1te. Obviously all sites want to reward the recs the most and certainly brands with multiple products want to encourage cross-sell. Essentially the people who purely exist because of the rewards offer little value to the recs, the pro-players or the site and so making a change that penalises them while hurting nobody else must be good.  That assumes that the change does in fact encourage recs to play, that the extra money they now have will mean they play more poker. If they are strictly limited by time and play 1 hour a day, a week or a month because that is all the time they can spare for their hobby then they just get a price reduction but they don't play more.  Interesting topic.
    Posted by NChanning
    Very interesting topic. But I'm more blown away by how small your post was. I was expecting a monologue that lasted at least two pages. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.