Call me a cynic, but there seems to be a worrying pattern in how “'To all those tweeting at me about the rake changes,’ tweeted Daniel Negreanu today, 'the issue has been addressed in the forum.’” poker rooms have been pushing through certain unpopular rake changes this year.
First, PokerStars announced broad changes to SNG structures to which most players reacted negatively. In response to player criticism, PokerStars apologized for “mistakes made” and rolled back certain changes, including those to blind structure and some reduction in rake hikes. However, other unpopular changes, including the removal of the $15+1 SNG, were maintained.
Then, PartyPoker announced changes to rake in cash games, switching to the weighted-contributed (WC) rake calculation model and significantly increasing the rake cap on NL and PLO games. Players protested, organizing a mass sit-out at the cash tables. PartyPoker conceded and scrapped the plan for rake cap increases, but still went ahead with the switch to WC.
And this week, PokerStars announced a shake-up of cash game rake structures and the VIP program. Along with the unpopular switch to WC rake attribution, the room also planned to make structural rake changes that also proved controversial. Players have largely responded negatively to the changes and, in response, PokerStars announced today that, “as a direct result of player input,” it was backing down on the rake changes. But the unpopular change to weighted-contributed still proceeds as planned.
Notice any similarities?
In negotiating, there’s a common tactic known as low-balling. An absurdly low offer is made to knock the aspirations of the customer or recipient; then a concession is made to appease critics and appear to be “meeting in the middle” and “listening” to the customer.
These recent rake changes – followed by partial concessions – may be honest reversals of policy and poker rooms should always be commended for listening to their players. Skeptics may be less forgiving and see a planned smokescreen to detract from the real issues whilst appearing to alleviate the concerns of the core player base.
The rejected rake changes were controversial and had vocal critics. It included increased rake caps at 4- and 5-handed tables and increases at fixed limit. However, it also included welcome reductions elsewhere, most notably at micro-stakes and full ring games. These plans have been scrapped. Left in its place is just the switch to weighted-contributed.
“To all those tweeting at me about the rake changes,” tweeted Daniel Negreanu today, “the issue has been addressed in the forum.”
But, of course, the primary issue has not been addressed.
A lot of virtual ink has already been spilled on weighted-contributed. For a high-level explanation of rake calculation methods, Who actually pays the rake? is a good place to start. PokerAddict’s recent Why Moving to Weighted Contributed Makes Poker Rooms More Money is an in-depth critique of the PokerStars change.
PokerStars can and will run their poker room how they choose. Historically it has offered the lowest rake in both cash games and tournaments in the industry, and has a VIP system that accommodates both the high-volume grinder and attracts recreational players. PokerStars should be extended the benefit of the doubt when it comes to rake changes, as their previous policies have been largely player-friendly and with a long-term eye on healthy player liquidity. Thanks to this keen foresight PokerStars dominates the online poker industry, representing 50% of all cash games played world-wide, and is highly regarded among poker professionals for their integrity.
If PokerStars feels that weighted-contributed is the best way to correctly reward recreational players in order to maintain healthy player pools, then it is a change they should implement. If PokerStars feels money that has been spent on attracting and rewarding grinders would be better spent on, say, product development, new upcoming promotions in 2012, or developing a stronger presence in emerging markets, it is a business decision they are entitled to make.
Ultimately, poker players will have to decide whether a reduction in their rewards is enough for them to switch to another poker room.
But what would benefit all parties is transparency, clarity, and decent prior notice. Major changes four days before they are rolling out, then backtracking on some due to a brief spate of player complaints posted on a poker forum, conflates the situation and confuses all players as to the real nature of the changes – even your own players like Negreanu.
Let’s call the spade a spade. If high volume players are going to take a hit, then this should be clear. If rewards will be reduced, explain why and sell us on future promotions and upcoming features. But confusing the issue with last minute announcements will just anger the player base, and knee-jerk reversals – in response to player criticism or otherwise – does not escape sharp poker professionals.
