Happy with the change... Oddly, I only recently realised it didnt work like this in the first place! Points should defo be awarded on contribution to the pot imo.. then again I'm a spew bucket, not a nit!! xx Posted by TRIP5
Not having weighted contribution as a form of rakeback method is slightly archaic imo. About time that this change has been suggested and hopefully it will go ahead.
It has been a huge frustration that the nittier players have basically been getting the looser players rakeback bonuses for years now. However way you look at it, that is exactly what has been happening.
I actually thought you had to be in the hand from the flop to get rake but it's not like that - shame because it is unfair that rake is equal for all players that get dealt hole cards and some may even not contribute to pot and still get rake back WHAT!
they had a good dicussion about this on the 2+2 pokercast recently.
one of the big sites felt that the NL games were getting very stale as they're mainly populated by rakeback grinders who play a very low variance style.
the hope was that weighted contribution would liven up & improve the games.
seems fair to me that those who play more hands get more C4P,
I think, on balance, it would be fairer. But even better for us 4NL grinders would be to reduce the 500 point threshold to say, 300 points. This I feel would be a good incentive to those of us that play at micro-stakes.
As a multi tabling nit I say deffo keep it as it is :-). The more aggro players get benefits on the league tables and more chips in the TSP play-offs. Something that may could be considered (I think Scotty touched on this in a different thread) is a slightly inproved rakeback % for the players that started the table. There are too many people sitting on the waiting list and not starting new tables.
At first it seems a fairer method of rakeback.However, everyone is worse off. The reason for this is that the players that get allocated the most rake are the recreational 1 tabling types. However, these players don’t get any rakeback payments as they don’t play enough. The tight regs get a lot less rakeback as they are tight.
The loose regs will get a bit less, although play a lot of pots they mainly take them down pre and therefore no rake is paid. The biggest losers will be the 100nl types who don’t have a knowledge of table selection who open 8 random tables with the aim of breaking even and getting a decent rakeback payment at the end of the month. These players will either stop playing or turn into bumhunters. The bumhunters will table select even more carefully.
The site will be worse off as although they will be paying less rakeback every month they will be killing off some of their most profitable clients. The small edge, 8 tabling, tight, break even, rakeback hunting regs.
From a personal point of view its nice having a low variance method of rakeback as its nice to know that every month I will get a decent payment approx the same each month. The only benefit I can see of the new method is that the tables will lose a few nits and the reg/rec ratio will be better.
Thanks for taking time to write your thoughts, we appreciate it.
We don’t want to take sides on this as we genuinely have an open view and really do want to hear both sides of the debate, which is why we started the thread. However, just one thing...
...when you say "they will be paying less rakeback every month".
Just to be clear, if (and is an 'if') we did the alternative system, our intention would not be to reduce how much cash for points we pay out, just share it out differently.
At first it seems a fairer method of rakeback. However, everyone is worse off. The reason for this is that the players that get allocated the most rake are the recreational 1 tabling types. However, these players don’t get any rakeback payments as they don’t play enough. The tight regs get a lot less rakeback as they are tight. The loose regs will get a bit less, although play a lot of pots they mainly take them down pre and therefore no rake is paid. The biggest losers will be the 100nl types who don’t have a knowledge of table selection who open 8 random tables with the aim of breaking even and getting a decent rakeback payment at the end of the month. These players will either stop playing or turn into bumhunters. The bumhunters will table select even more carefully. The site will be worse off as although they will be paying less rakeback every month they will be killing off some of their most profitable clients. The small edge, 8 tabling, tight, break even, rakeback hunting regs. From a personal point of view its nice having a low variance method of rakeback as its nice to know that every month I will get a decent payment approx the same each month. The only benefit I can see of the new method is that the tables will lose a few nits and the reg/rec ratio will be better. Posted by ajs4385
"Selfishness" is commonly denoted by concern with oneself or concern with one's own interests, especially to the exclusion of others.
At first it seems a fairer method of rakeback. However, everyone is worse off.
AKA
some people want this but I definitely don't because i'm a nit (and i'm selfish).
The reason for this is that the players that get allocated the most rake are the recreational 1 tabling types. However, these players don’t get any rakeback payments as they don’t play enough.
AKA
I want the rakeback not some fish because i'm a nit moron and I want free money.
These players will either stop playing or turn into bumhunters.
AKA
turn into ME.
The bumhunters will table select even more carefully.
AKA
I will play even less.
The site will be worse off as although they will be paying less rakeback every month they will be killing off some of their most profitable clients.
AKA
If I say the site will be worse off maybe they'll listen to me and my selfish needs will be met.
From a personal point of view its nice having a low variance method of rakeback as its nice to know that every month I will get a decent payment approx the same each month.
AKA
I like free money don't stop my free money train.
The only benefit I can see of the new method is that the tables will lose a few nits and the reg/rec ratio will be better.
AKA
the only benefit is for other people so obviously i'm against it.
This is quite obviously a better system of contribution it's just a matter of whether it ever gets implemented. This is hardly a new discussion or topic for improvement.
This is quite obviously a better system of contribution it's just a matter of whether it ever gets implemented. This is hardly a new discussion or topic for improvement. Posted by beaneh
this. far better for the site as a whole and the sooner it gets implemented the better.
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points : " Selfishness" is commonly denoted by concern with oneself or concern with one's own interests, especially to the exclusion of others. At first it seems a fairer method of rakeback. However, everyone is worse off. AKA some people want this but I definitely don't because i'm a nit (and i'm selfish). The reason for this is that the players that get allocated the most rake are the recreational 1 tabling types. However, these players don’t get any rakeback payments as they don’t play enough. AKA I want the rakeback not some fish because i'm a nit moron and I want free money. These players will either stop playing or turn into bumhunters. AKA turn into ME. The bumhunters will table select even more carefully. AKA I will play even less. The site will be worse off as although they will be paying less rakeback every month they will be killing off some of their most profitable clients. AKA If I say the site will be worse off maybe they'll listen to me and my selfish needs will be met. From a personal point of view its nice having a low variance method of rakeback as its nice to know that every month I will get a decent payment approx the same each month. AKA I like free money don't stop my free money train. The only benefit I can see of the new method is that the tables will lose a few nits and the reg/rec ratio will be better. AKA the only benefit is for other people so obviously i'm against it. AKA this all means MORE FREE MONEY FOR NIT BUMHUNTERS I R SELFISH. Posted by beaneh
Beaneh I dont know what your problem is, Must make yourslef feel good trying to put me down hiding behind your computer.
I never even said if I was against it or not. I am not sure which I would prefer. My biggest point is that more rake is credited to recreational players than any of the regs thats all. But may make fewer but better tables.
well ajs you do say 'everyone is worse off' which pretty much means that you are against it no?
if the same number of C4P are paid out but its redistributed to take into account rake generate then i dont think anyone can say it is a bad thing from an unbiased POV.
from a biased POV i probably play close to twice as much per C4P than some regs (on the same 3+ month priority scheme) so obv this change would be great for me
Comments
unfair ATM
Will it be "X points" for "£X ammount paid in rake" So it wont make any differance what stakes your playing?
I think the amount of rake you pay should be in direct proportion to the amount of C4p bonus you get
Got to be the only fair way of doing this imo
The loose regs will get a bit less, although play a lot of pots they mainly take them down pre and therefore no rake is paid. The biggest losers will be the 100nl types who don’t have a knowledge of table selection who open 8 random tables with the aim of breaking even and getting a decent rakeback payment at the end of the month. These players will either stop playing or turn into bumhunters. The bumhunters will table select even more carefully.
The site will be worse off as although they will be paying less rakeback every month they will be killing off some of their most profitable clients. The small edge, 8 tabling, tight, break even, rakeback hunting regs.
From a personal point of view its nice having a low variance method of rakeback as its nice to know that every month I will get a decent payment approx the same each month. The only benefit I can see of the new method is that the tables will lose a few nits and the reg/rec ratio will be better.
Hi ajs
Thanks for taking time to write your thoughts, we appreciate it.
We don’t want to take sides on this as we genuinely have an open view and really do want to hear both sides of the debate, which is why we started the thread. However, just one thing...
...when you say "they will be paying less rakeback every month".
Just to be clear, if (and is an 'if') we did the alternative system, our intention would not be to reduce how much cash for points we pay out, just share it out differently.
Thanks again.
Sky Poker
If I say the site will be worse off maybe they'll listen to me and my selfish needs will be met.
Beaneh I dont know what your problem is, Must make yourslef feel good trying to put me down hiding behind your computer.
I never even said if I was against it or not. I am not sure which I would prefer. My biggest point is that more rake is credited to recreational players than any of the regs thats all. But may make fewer but better tables.
Hi Guys - there are some really good opinions on here, we really want to keep the debate going but please let's keep it friendly.
Thanks
Sky Poker
if the same number of C4P are paid out but its redistributed to take into account rake generate then i dont think anyone can say it is a bad thing from an unbiased POV.
from a biased POV i probably play close to twice as much per C4P than some regs (on the same 3+ month priority scheme) so obv this change would be great for me