On Occupy PokerStars and Other Protests

Have been somewhat intrigued by all the hubbub surrounding PokerStars’ change to a weighted-contributed model of attributing rake instituted on January 1. The ones griping about the change have made the most noise, it seems. Meanwhile, those with less of an issue with it have been relatively less conspicuous, though perhaps more persuasive.

I’m one of those recreational players who despite playing a lot of online poker never really got heavily into taking advantage of things like rakeback or other promotions sites offer to reward high frequency players. While PokerStars didn’t offer rakeback, anyway, its “VIP Stellar Rewards” program was a way for even small-timers like me to earn a few bonuses along the way. So I became somewhat familiar with it until last April when I had to leave the site with the rest of the Americans.

I played a lot more on PokerStars than Full Tilt Poker over the years, preferring the site for a variety of reasons. So I ultimately earned a lot more extras on Stars than I did on Tilt, including numerous cash bonuses. I think the only extra I ever got from FTP was to purchase an international power converter with my FTP points once. Meanwhile, I never did figure out FTP’s “Black Card” program or “Iron Man” program or any of the rest.

All of which is to say, I’d never really given a ton of thought to how rake was attributed on the various sites. I knew that my Frequent Player Points (FPPs) on Stars were awarded based on how much rake was taken from pots, but it really wasn’t until last year -- after closing my account on Stars -- that I became aware of different ways to attribute rake and thus award FPPs or the equivalent.

Since I write some for Betfair Poker, I’ve gotten to know a little bit about its poker site (even though I cannot play on it) which joined the Ongame network back in 2010. There they have something called “Ongame Essence” which is some sort of algorithm that factors playing style and amounts won or lost when calculating the attribution of rake.

“Essence” is an appropriately mysterious-sounding name for it, I think, because it is hard for players to know how many points they are earning as they play. If I understand it correctly, the model boils down to keeping the less profitable players in the game, essentially (pun intended).

I’ve read forum threads where some have objected to the fairness of giving losing players extra benefits to retain them this way. I’ve also seen the whole program characterized as “poker socialism.” But others have noted how they’ve found a lot of poor players populating the tables on Ongame sites, suggesting the model might well be indirectly benefiting good players, too.

In any case, learning about Ongame Essence made me more aware of different ways to attribute rake and award loyalty points. It’s an issue fairly unique to the online game, really, something that can be experimented with much more easily there than in live poker where comps are generally given for the amount of time one plays (e.g., $1 or $2 per hour) rather than how much rake has been taken at the games.

By changing to a weighted-contributed model of rake attribution, Stars moved away from the so-called “dealt method” which awarded every player at the table similarly regardless of their involvement in a hand. In other words, whereas before all players at a table would get credited with the same amount of VPPs for hands into which they were dealt, now only those players who actually put money into the pot -- and thus contribute to the rake taken out -- can earn any VPPs.

In other words, you can’t really earn a lot of VPPs (which get translated into FPPs according to your status on Stars, e.g., Bronze, Silver, Gold on up to SuperNova and SuperNova Elite) if you fold the majority of your hands. Thus does the change appear to some to resemble the Essence program insofar as it gives the looser players (who tend to be less skilled) more VPPs while the tighter players (who tend to be better) receive less.

There are other objections being raised, including the fact that the change will likely mean PokerStars will be awarding less FPPs overall due to the fact that fewer players will be able to achieve higher statuses (where they get more FPPs for VPPs). A common cry, then, is that the change hurts regulars/good players a lot, helps recreational/poor players a little, with the site pocketing the difference.

The complaints reached a kind of fever pitch on the forums last week, making it seem like Stars’ decision fell into the same category as the Netflix-Qwikster debacle from September, Bank of America’s new debit card fee in October, and Verizon’s attempt last week to add a fee when customers paid their bills online.

All three of those changes were swiftly reconsidered in response to customer backlash. Back in August, PartyPoker saw similar complaints arise when they changed their rake structure and also decided to go with a weighted-contributed model for rake attribution. Players protested by staging a mass “sit-out” on the site -- logging in, sitting at tables, then not playing -- and Party backed off the rake hike although did keep on with the weighted-contribution model.

Perhaps inspired by all of these other successful protests, there was an attempt by some regulars to stage their own “sit-out” on PokerStars on New Year’s Day. But the site quashed that quickly by clearing tables and locking the accounts of those trying to pull an “Occupy PokerStars.” Read more about that on PokerFuse.

“im guessing this sit out shizznit didnt go well?” asked one poster in the 2+2 thread devoted to the sit-out. “thats the general consensus,” was another’s response.

As I say, the cries of dissent have been loud, but some -- including Phil Galfond and a few other respected voices in the poker community -- are noting that the complaints aren’t necessarily warranted. Others -- including Kim of Infinite Edge -- have pointed out that Stars is in fact behind the curve a little when it comes to moving away from the dealt method of rake attribution, with only a few sites still operating that way. (Incidentally, Full Tilt had switched from the “dealt” method to the weighted-contributed model for rake attribution just prior to shutting down.)

If I were still playing on Stars, I probably would’ve have been affected a small amount by the change, likely earning FPPs at a slightly lower clip than before. But as I mentioned I doubt it would’ve mattered that much to me, given that I never put in enough volume for the loyalty bonuses to matter too greatly.

So I probably wouldn’t have been too bothered by it all were I still playing on the site. And while its hard to be certain from the rail like this, I’m less persuaded by the protestors than I am by those pointing out the change isn’t as worthy of criticism as some believe.

Thinking About the Rake

A couple of years ago I wrote a little two-part sequence of posts titled “Raise That Rake!” In those posts I talked about a situation with which I imagine most players are familiar.

Two players find themselves reaching the final round of betting with hands of identical value. They bet the maximum on the end and end up splitting a large pot. The “winner,” then, seems to be the house (or the site), since the rake gets increased thanks to the pot becoming bigger at the end.

In those posts, the first one described a Stud/8 hand in which by sixth street I had the low locked up and my opponent had an unbeatable high. Yet I continued to bet anyway, and afterwards my opponent objected to what he viewed as a futile bit of rake-raising. In the post, I defend my play.

The second post pursues the topic a little further, addressing that notion some players have that online sites are “rigged” to create these kinds of scenarios, thereby ensuring they claim more rake. I don’t buy that idea, although in the post I describe my very last session on UltimateBet (long, long ago) in which I found myself wonderin’ just a little.

I was reminded of this issue again this week, for a couple of reasons.

I continue to play small-stakes pot-limit Omaha (almost always on PokerStars). Like most recreational players, I don’t usually spend a lot of time worrying about the rake, although I am aware it significantly cuts into what I’m able to take away from the tables. And, of course, I don’t have any rakeback or anything at PokerStars. (Nor do I at Full Tilt Poker, unfortunately, the only other site on which I am playing these days.)

I noticed a thread on Two Plus Two this week in which an argument was raised that sites should consider lowering the rake in small-stakes PLO games. The original post began with the statement that “the rake in small stakes PLO (100PLO and lower) is so high it effectively turns the game into a black hole.” You can look at the thread if you want to see how the discussion went.

What is the rake in the PLO games I usually play at PokerStars? A look over at the rake page on the PS site shows that for the game I generally play -- with blinds of $0.10/$0.25 -- the rake is a penny for every 20 cents in the pot, up to a maximum of $2.00 taken out. The maximum drops to $1.00 when there are 3-5 players at the table, and $0.50 when just two.

In other words, 5% of just about every pot I win is going to the site. I do get a little back from bonuses and whatnot, but not nearly enough to cover that 5%. So obviously, I have to do better than break even to break even.

Whether or not the game is really a “black hole,” I’m not smart enough to say. I mentioned a few weeks ago I have been mired in a long stretch of “break-even poker,” and while I know the rake is helping keep me there, I’m not ready to concede that it is impossible to come out ahead at small-stakes PLO. (Perhaps a reader can enlighten me.)

Seeing that thread did get me thinking a little more specifically about the rake, though. Then came a hand the other day in which I was not involved that got me considering the rake once again and the scenario I had written about a couple of years ago -- that is, the one in which two players with identical hands create a large pot and by their betting necessarily increase the rake.

In this hand I had folded from UTG, and it folded to the button who raised pot to $0.85. Only the big blind called. The flop came . The BB checked, the button bet $1.25, and the BB called. The turn was the , and this time both players checked.

The river was the . The big blind checked, and the button bet $2.50. The BB called, turning over for a Broadway straight. As it turned out, the button had bluffed on the end, holding but , and the BB won the entire pot. That’s when the BB made a weird, if familiar, comment in the chat box.

“rake!!!!!” typed the player, adding “why bet when the board is nuts?”

A lot that is strange here. For one, I don’t think the BB even noticed his opponent’s hand, or even the fact that they didn’t split the pot. I could be wrong, but I don’t really see how the BB can complain about the button’s river bet after winning the entire pot like that. That was a gift, man!

Secondly, I began to wonder if the BB even knew how to play PLO -- that is, did the BB realize one cannot “play the board”? Seemed possible he did not.

I hadn’t really paid close attention to the hand as it played out, to be honest, but I found myself looking back and also wondering why the BB didn’t bet the turn. He had the nuts, plus a redraw to not one but two different flushes!

I sort of understood why the BB hadn’t bet or check-raised the river, as it seemed obvious that neither would be called by an inferior hand, and so this actually seemed like a legitimate spot to avoid inflating the pot and thus raising the rake.

I ended up cautiously playing a few hands versus the BB, winning a couple of medium-sized pots but wondering all along how well my opponent understood the rules of the game he was playing. The fact is, one does sometimes encounter players in these low-stakes PLO games who aren’t sure about the “must play two cards from one’s hand” rule, never mind pot odds or any other more involved strategy.

Ironically, one could argue that it is the presence of players like this that make it reasonable to raise even when it appears you and your opponent must have hands of identical value and thus are destined to split the pot. Because there’s a chance your opponent doesn’t have what seems an obvious holding, the explanation being he or she doesn’t know the rules of the game!

Kentucky Seeks Biggest Rake Back Deal Ever from Full Tilt Poker

Just yesterday I was drinking a soft drink, a bottle of Mello Yello wrapped in an “old-school”-ish label that looked a little like what was used when the drink was first introduced back in the late 70s. At one point I idly looked down at the “nutrition” information (those are scare quotes there) and noticed the disclaimer in bold letters above -- “CONTAINS NO JUICE.”

Being a poker player, these words had a pleasant ring to them. No one likes the “juice” -- i.e., the money taken out of buy-ins or the “rake” dragged by the house to run their games.

A little later in the day I started to hear a few rumblings about a lawsuit that had been filed by the Commonwealth of Kentucky against Full Tilt Poker a couple of weeks ago. That’s in addition to the rumblings of borborygmi in my stomach, of course.

(Took over four years to use that word in a post. Drawing from an experience working in a pediatric gastroenterologist’s office there. Maybe one day I’ll be able to use “hepatosplenomegaly.”)

Sounded like in this lawsuit the focus here was in fact on the “juice” or “rake” taken by Full Tilt from the games. I continued to listen.

This wasn’t the ongoing seizure-domain case that the Kentucky Supreme Court recently overturned (again) “due to the incapacity of domain names to contest their own seizure.” In that one, one of the defendants, a representative of True Poker (truepoker.com), has filed an affidavit saying that an employee of the company that owned the site (Yatahay Limited) is a member of the Interactive Media and Entertainment Gaming Association (iMEGA) and thus iMEGA does in fact technically have standing there to represent the defendants. The Kentucky Supreme Court is still brooding over that one.

Nor was this the story from just a couple of days ago about a federal grand jury in Manhattan investigating Full Tilt Poker and perhaps preparing to bring indictments against its owners over some sort of money-laundering violations. A lot that is being unsaid in that story thus far, although both Howard Lederer and Chris “Jesus” Ferguson were named as potential targets in the report.

No, this was something new. Another, novel legal tactic designed to bring down online poker in the U.S., it seemed. Shortly after those initial rumblings, the story broke in earnest -- I first saw it over on Poker News Daily. Indeed, in a complaint filed on March 25, 2010, Kentucky sued Full Tilt Poker for allowing its residents to play on the site.

And indeed, it’s about the rake. Kentucky wants its rake back. And then some.

The 14-page complaint begins with a characterization of “The Full Tilt Defendants” and what the Commonwealth believes they have done to deserve this legal action. Reference is made to an entity called “Pocket Kings Ltd” in Dublin, Ireland, which is said to have operated with “certain other unknown entities” to have “acted in concert in a joint venture to facilitate, host, operate, and profit from... Full Tilt Poker.” The arrangement is characterized as “a series of shell companies” that has been constructed “to conceal [the defendants’] identities and avoid their legal responsibilities.”

Then comes a long list of actions the Full Tilt Defendants “purposefully and knowingly” have done, mostly concerning hosting online poker games available to Kentucky residents -- 13,000 of them, as recently noted by iMEGA in the Kentucky Court of Appeals. And, importantly, having “take[n] a percentage of the amount bet, won or lost as the ‘rake,’ ‘take out’ or commission for hosting the poker games” for their own pecuniary gain.

Along the way, the actions of the Full Tilt Defendants are characterized as “tortuous.” That would mean purposefully circuitous, not causing torture or suffering (in other words, what Kentucky is trying to do to online poker players.)

Also, there is a sort of funny, comprehensive reference to the Kentucky players as “losers.” No, that’s not a comment on their poker skills, but a technical reference to KRS 372.020, that part of the state’s civil law that says if in a gambling wager “a person loses to another at one (1) time, or within twenty-four (24) hours, five dollars ($5) or more, or anything of that value” that person is entitled to recovering twice its value plus court costs and attorney’s fees. Accordingly, the Full Tilt Defendants are described as “winners” here.

But wait. KRS 372.040 adds that if “the loser” doesn’t sue “the winner” within six months “and prosecute the suit to recovery with due diligence, any other person may sue the winner and recover treble the value of the money or thing lost” plus court costs and attorney’s fees, if that suit is brought within five years of the wager/payment having occurred.

And that’s what is happening here. Since no one else has sued Full Tilt to get their rake back, Kentucky is doing it. They are suing to get that rake back for the period covering March 25, 2005 through March 25, 2009.

And yes, they want treble. And that means trouble.

Not just for Full Tilt, actually. The remainder of the complaint lists all of the other sites Kentucky intends to go after as well -- the “Other Unknown Defendants” who operate those other sites hosted by the contested domains in that other suit. “As the name and place of residence of the Unknown Defendants are discovered,” so goes the threat, “this Complaint with be amended accordingly.”

Wild stuff. No idea whether or not this suit has something going for it or if it “contains no juice” (so to speak). Not really sure how it is that Kentucky can sue to recover what Kentuckians lost to the rake. (Nor how they expect to go about computing that amount.) In any event, I can’t help but think that whatever happens with regard to the suit, it cannot possibly be good either for Full Tilt Poker or for online poker, generally speaking.

Put that with the impending June 1 deadline for banks to begin complying with the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, and I’m starting to hear a different sort of rumble -- that of U.S. players seriously contemplating removing their funds from their online poker accounts.

Such is online poker for Americans. Never mellow.

“Raise That Rake!” (2 of 2)

Last week I wrote about a wild Razz hand in which the final pot had ballooned to 43 big bets. I told how three of the players involved had been dealt essentially the same cards in the same sequence. There was a fourth player who rode the hand to the end who shouldn’t have been there, but among the three real contenders, all of us were dealt pretty much the same hand from beginning to end:

we all started out with three babies

we all received needed low cards on fourth street
(giving us 4-3-2-A, 5-4-3-A, and 6-3-2-A)

we all received high cards on fifth

we all received a 9 on sixth

we all received a 7 on seventh

I concluded by suggesting the hand demonstrated “a general truism of all forms of poker that whenever players get dealt hands of equal value, action tends to increase.” There are other, more specific ways action increases, of course, but generically speaking if multiple players are dealt similar hands, it seems to me that usually ensures bigger pots.

You’ve been there, I’m sure. Spots where you and your opponent are in fact tied but neither knows it. You raise and reraise one another, creating a monstrous pot, and then discover in the end yr betting the same hands & chopping it. And then you discover yr both down a smidge thanks to that rake.

One particularly frequent rallying cry of the “online-poker-is-rigged” camp is to suggest poker sites artificially raise the rake by dealing cards in sequences destined to encourage action. I’ve never been one to indulge in such delusions, but since we were on the subject of “raising that rake,” I thought I’d share one instance when I did catch myself wondering something along those lines.

I was playing what would turn out to be my very last session on Ultimate Bet. Back in November 2007, I told you the twisted tale of my arduous efforts to withdraw funds from the site. There I explained that following the Absolute Poker “super-user” scandal I decided I no longer wanted to play either on AP or UB, since the company that owned AP had bought out the company that owned UB in the fall of ’06. What I didn’t spell out at the time was the fact that it was this particular session –- my last on UB –- that in fact helped push me to make the decision.

I was at a LHE table ($1.00/$2.00). As I remember, there were at least two or three very erratic players at the table, including a fellow to my right who’d end up dumping nearly a hundy within just a few dozen hands. As a result, I ended up doing a lot of folding as I waited for premium hands.

Finally picked up big slick and found myself heads-up against another player. The flop came ace high and we ended up capping it. Can’t remember the turn, but a king came on the river and we capped it again. Yes, my opponent had AK as well. Nothing too remarkable there. That’ll happen now and then.

Then, about two or three hands later, I picked up JJ and ended up creating another big pot against a single opponent. What did he have? Jacks as well. How about that . . . ?

Then, on the very next hand I get pocket rockets and raise it up. Guy to my left calls the two bets, then the player to his left three-bets it. Comes back around to me and I cap it. Guy to my left snap-calls, as does the third player.

Flop comes Q-7-3. I’m acting first and so bet out. First guy calls, second raises, and I three-bet. Again my buddy on my left calls the three bets lickety-split. Other player caps it. The turn brings a J. This time I bet and the guy to my left raises. Now I’m caught in the whipsaw, wondering about a set, but I was too stubborn to let it go. I can’t remember the river, but it turned out to have been a blank, and we did the same dance one more time. The final pot is enormous, something like $80-$90. What did we have?

Guy to my left had J-7 for two pair. Offsuit, no less.

Other dude had the other two aces.

I played a few more hands, then sat out to brood a bit about my misfortune. Then I thought about how friggin’ unlikely it was to be dealt the same hand like that three times in such quick succession.

What are the chances of an opponent being dealt exactly the same pocket pair as you in Hold ’em? According to the Wizard of Odds, at a ten-handed table the chances are 0.0001662 or a little worse than 1 in 6,000. The odds of it happening two hands in a row? Like 1 in 36 million or something . . . ?

Now I’ll admit I had already developed a sincere prejudice against Ultimate Bet before that session took place, and was just about ready to pull my funds anyway. I realized, though, that for a brief moment I’d felt genuinely paranoid about the site’s integrity.

My first thoughts actually concerned Mr. Jack-Seven happily calling all of those bets to get to his two pair. Was he a “super-user”? Could he see he was up against two players with aces? (The most likely explanation, of course, was he was a yahoo.)

Those thoughts quickly gave way to the slightly less-crazy seeming idea that the site was purposely dealing those “action hands.” What easier way to induce action than to give players identical starting hands and let ’em go to war?

I know what yr thinking. “Where’s your tin foil fedora, Shamus?” Don’t worry. I am reasonably certain that even a screwed-up site like UB wouldn’t bother with such shenanigans. Not really . . . .

But I also knew I wasn’t going to keep playing there. Lots of other places to play that haven’t been involved with “super-user” scandals -- where the more sane among us never have to wonder about the site artificially trying to “raise that rake!”

“Raise That Rake!” (1 of 2)

Have been playing more and more Stud/8 lately. Did a quick check of my April stats over the weekend and saw that almost 30% of my hands this month have been at the Stud/8 tables. Was sitting at one a couple of days ago ($0.50/$1.00) and had an issue arise that I know all players (of all games) have probably at least considered before, if not openly debated.

(DISCLAIMER: Usually when I present hands here I alter nothing other than player names; i.e., the action is always exactly as it occurred. In this case I have changed a few of the particulars since they would’ve complicated the question unnecessarily.)

In this particular hand I was dealt with the eight showing. Among the other players only one other upcard was a low card, and it was also an eight. I limped in, then, after a couple of folds, a player to my left -- SideshowBob -- with the showing competed to fifty cents. Two others called, as did I. Going to fourth street the pot was $2.55. On fourth I received the , giving me a so-so low draw. SideshowBob picked up an ace and so acted first with a bet. I called. The other two players also called. Pot $4.55.

Fifth street was good to me. I picked up the , giving me a 8-6-4-3-A low. SideshowBob got what appeared to be an unwanted nine. And the other two were dealt brick-looking cards. This time SideshowBob checked. With the only completed low at the table, I bet the dollar. The others folded and Bob called. We’re now heads-up. Pot is $6.55.

Sixth street is where that issue I mentioned at the beginning begins to arise. I get a jack, and SideshowBob gets another ace. Here’s the scene:

*** 6th STREET ***
Dealt to Short-Stacked Shamus [] []
Dealt to SideshowBob [] []

Bob checks. Dunno what he has underneath, but it doesn’t matter, really. I have the low locked up, he has the high locked up, and if we both remain to the end we’re destined to be splitting this pot. The question is, should I bet?

As you think about that, I’ll tell you I did bet, and he just called. Now the pot is $8.55. Seventh street brings me another jack and SideshowBob checks again. I bet again, Bob called again, and we split a $10.05 pot (with fifty cents going to the rake).

While the cards are being dealt for the next hand, SideshowBob decides to object to my having bet the latter two streets: “you cant beat the hi & youre betting why?” I chime back quickly with a “why not?” His response: “raise that rake!”

Now when I bet sixth and seventh, I know there is little chance Bob is going to fold. The cards I have showing -- -- suggest I could have a flush (or maybe on seventh having completed a very unlikely straight). But I know it is very, very unlikely he’s actually going to fold here. Should I be bothered about raising the rake, though?

Well, let’s look at the rake structure in this particular game. We were on PokerStars, where a nickel is taken for every dollar in the pot, and the site stops taking anything after the rake reaches $0.50. My bets on sixth and seventh meant the final pot ended up over $10, so Stars took the full fifty cents. Had we checked it down on those last two streets, the final pot would have been $6.55, meaning the rake would have been $0.30. Indeed, I did “raise that rake” a full twenty cents, meaning the two of us each lost an extra $0.10 because of our bets. (Or because of my bets, SideshowBob would likely clarify.)

Set aside the fact that nickels and dimes mean more or less to us depending on the stakes we play and think of this question in relative terms. Is Bob right? Should I refrain from pumping up the pot like this in a situation where I know my opponent and I each have half the pot locked up, and I also know the chances are slim my opponent will fold?

Here’s another way to look at the question: How often does my opponent need to fold to make betting the latter streets the right play? What am I risking here? Ten cents. With every dollar I stick into that pot, I’m probably going to lose a nickel. Definitely not smart, if I know that’s how it is going to go down every single time. However, if he does happen to fold on sixth street, I win a $6.25 pot (after the rake). And if he folds on seventh street, I win a $8.15 pot (after the rake). If I’m not mistaken (and hey, I could be, so lemme know), that means . . .

If he folds at least 1 in 62 times on sixth street, I profit.

If he folds at least 1 in 81 times on seventh street, I profit.

Why do I say that? Well, let’s say we played out this same scenario 62 times and I decide to go ahead and risk losing five cents every time with my sixth street bet. If SideshowBob does call me all 62 times, I’m going to lose $6.20 overall. Not good.

But if he folds just once, I win a $6.25 pot for my efforts and come out $0.05 ahead. And if he folds twice, I win two such pots and come out $6.30 ahead. Takes me an extra dime to get to seventh, so that means he’s got to fold once in 81 hands for me to realize that nickel profit. Again, though, if he folds twice I’m gonna be $8.20 ahead overall.

All of which seems to mean that if I think it is possible SideshowBob could fold this hand, say, once every 30 or 40 times we play it, I have to keep betting. Am I right? (You tell me.)

Curious, really, how often people make that “raise that rake!” complaint in the chat box. (Especially in the low limits where I hang out.) Am gonna return tomorrow with one more post concerning this issue of online sites and the rake -- in particular that idea that the so-called “rigged” site pumps up the rake with action-inducing deals.