ipoker now officially off limits for winning players

The Snapper

Got this email today:eek:

Dear Brendan,

If you are not already aware iPoker will be implementing a new policy in the New Year which will categorise players depending upon certain criteria. The new policy will also impose penalties upon card rooms that in essence, have a high proportion of winning players in relation to losing players.

Regrettably therefore, we are being forced to restrict a number of accounts in order to comply with the new policy and to avoid penalisation by iPoker and it grieves me to inform you that we have no option for the time being other than to restrict the cash game stakes at which you can play.

We sincerely regret having to take this action and hope that the policy will change in the future so that you may once again enjoy playing cash games. In the meantime, please accept our apologies for any inconvenience that this action will cause but know that you can still play in our tournaments and on any other of our suite of products.

Yours sincerely,

cokedrinker

What skin is this?

BigCityBanker

where did you get that email from? I was in Tel Aviv all week tweaking and reforming this new policy in conjunction with iPoker and other licencees.

if that alone is the content of the email then it is highly misleading and even more funnily though it seems that the card room have deliberately misrepresented or else totally misuderstood the outcome of the discussion - I guess it can only be from one of two rooms though.

Goodluck2me

BigCityBanker wrote: »

It wasnt us...

.

Grafter

VC?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28/internet-poker/ipoker-penalizing-winning-cash-game-players-661606/

BigCityBanker

good lol at the propaganda from VC. Obviously trying to maintain good will before their move to Entraction.

Tight Ted

No it's not. Ipoker illegal rakeback deals are now offlimit to winning players is what you're trying to say

And it's about time too, these crazy deals are absolutely killing the site.

Treehouse72

BigCityBanker wrote: »

where did you get that email from? I was in Tel Aviv all week tweaking and reforming this new policy in conjunction with iPoker and other licencees.

if that alone is the content of the email then it is highly misleading and even more funnily though it seems that the card room have deliberately misrepresented or else totally misuderstood the outcome of the discussion - I guess it can only be from one of two rooms though.

Hi BCB - could you give us a quick summary of the headlines we need to know?

Also, do you anticipate that any of the larger iP sites are potentially at risk of limiting winning players? Let's say, WH, Titan, Noble, PP, BetFred, BlueSquare etc. (I ask because I took the decision this year to only keep my roll on these kinds of big sites so I don't need to worry about a MicroGaming style fiasco happening....if I find out these big sites are at risk of falling foul of the new rules it would seriously bum me out).

Could you also confirm that iP is moving to contributed rake? I suspect that rumour is true.

Thanks BCB.

BigCityBanker

Treehouse72 wrote: »

Hi BCB - could you give us a quick summary of the headlines we need to know?

Also, do you anticipate that any of the larger iP sites are potentially at risk of limiting winning players? Let's say, WH, Titan, Noble, PP, BetFred, BlueSquare etc. (I ask because I took the decision this year to only keep my roll on these kinds of big sites so I don't need to worry about a MicroGaming style fiasco happening....if I find out these big sites are at risk of falling foul of the new rules it would seriously bum me out).

Could you also confirm that iP is moving to contributed rake? I suspect that rumour is true.

Thanks BCB.

move to contributed rake is at 7am on Jan 2nd. Hopefully this is a prelude to fully contributed rake imo. This will just about halve (if not more in some instances) the income from RB for the RB whoores.

The situation with VC is well known and publicised, imo at least 2 other reasonably sized skins are at risk of imposing similar sanctions - tbh I dont want to out them as them imposing sanctions on their own players does not equal a players funds being at risk. Also - I think they are due a chance to right their wrongs. There may be a handful of smaller skins who fall foul but tbh they are of no significant size and anyone in their right mind wouldnt be playing there anyway.

you (or any player) doesnt really need to know the details of the new policy - it is designed to hit the offending skins hard and force them into correction or off the network. The policy is based on the rationale that each skin should be a mini me of the network as a whole i.e. the same approximate mix of winning/losing players etc. Take the network average, add in a buffer (a decent one at that) and if a skin falls outside of this range they then pay a penalty as in a nutshell their deviation is proof that their player acquisition policy is inorganic and parasitic i.e. they acquire on the basis of rakeback and in contravention of the rule of the network.

RunningMan1981

Treehouse72 wrote: »

Could you also confirm that iP is moving to contributed rake? I suspect that rumour is true.

Hi, what does the above mean ?

Treehouse72

Thanks for that BCB. The policy is broadly in line with what I thought and the "mini-me" element you mentioned makes a lot of sense.

Could I ask, on the contributed rake, what's your definition of a "rb whore"? I am very worried I might fall into that category!! I play a standard TAG 21/19 game or whatever - do you really think my hit will be as much as 50%? I could swallow 25%, but more than that and it's touch and go whether my winrate is good enough to stick with it. Getting better isn't an option because I fundamentally suck and iP is rigged against me.

Tx!

RunningMan1981

I am saying this right? On poker tracker 3 it gives two collumns for rake. One is total rake paid and the other is monthly gross rake. Does it mean that your bonus will be calculated on the "total rake paid" collumn rather than the "monthly gross rake collumn? If it is, I am on a winner....

mdwexford

Thinly veiled brag OP, wp.

Mullicker

As a 21/19 you won't be hit that much at all, you'll only notice it if you are table selecting and sitting with players a lot looser than you. The ones it will hurt a lot is players <15 vpip, it will suit me being the terrible LAGtard that i am, often playing 28/24. No difference to hu players.

RunningMan1981

Guys i need some help with these terms tag/lag 21/19 etc. Can someone explain?

Mullicker

Vpip/Pfr are %'s.

Vpip = Voluntry put money in pot, or the % of hands a player plays.
Pfr = Preflop raise %, % of hands a player raises pre.

TAG = Tight aggressive
LAG = Loose aggressive

Typical TAG will be 19/17 to 23/21
Typical LAG will be 23/21+

Nits will be 17/15-

Fish will be 70/10 or any other crazy vpip and pfr.

These are very rough e.g.'s for a 6 handed game.

fatguy

So, contributed rake is rake you've paid out of pots you won, as opposed to rake paid from hands you were involved in?

CHD

iPoker must die

Mullicker

Contributed rakeback is a common method used by poker sites to determine how much rake each individual player pays to that site every month. It’s important for you to know which method poker sites use because it determines how much rakeback you receive each month.

The contributed rakeback method is considered the most accurate because it takes into account how much money each player contributes to each pot. Another popular method, the dealt rakeback method , simply gives equal credit to every player who is dealt cards. The difference is that in the contributed method, the players who contribute the most to each pot are credited for having paid the most rake.

For example, let’s say three players are involved in a pot together. Player A bets $5 on the flop but he quickly folds when players B and C get involved in a raising war. In the end, each player contributes the following amounts to the pot:

Player A: $5

Player B: $65

Player C: $65

Total Rake: $3

Under the contributed method, players B and C would be credited for having paid the majority of the rake taken out of that pot. Player A would get a little credit but he didn’t contribute much to the pot. Under the dealt rakeback method, the three players would have been given equal credit for paying the rake.

Robbed from a rakeback site.

Tight Ted

BigCityBanker wrote: »

good lol at the propaganda from VC. Obviously trying to maintain good will before their move to Entraction.

Is this sarcasm? I highly doubt VC will be moving to Entraction.

BigCityBanker

Treehouse72 wrote: »

Could I ask, on the contributed rake, what's your definition of a "rb whore"?

10 tabling, full ring, who plays something like 6/1 or similar

any 'normal' 6 max player shouldnt see a whole load of change.

fatguy wrote: »

So, contributed rake is rake you've paid out of pots you won, as opposed to rake paid from hands you were involved in?

current situation - 6 player dealt in, folded to button who raises 3xBB, SB reraises, BB rerasies, button folds and the SB and BB get 100bb stacks all in and the rake hits the cap of say $3. Each of the 6 players has 50c in rake attributed to them

Jan 2nd situation = contributed rake - same situation as above Button, SB and BB have $1 of rake attributed to them

future sometime maybe = fully contributed rake - same situation as above, SB has 3/203 * $3 rake attributed to him and SB and BB both have 100/203 * $3 rake attributed to them.

BigCityBanker

Tight Ted wrote: »

Is this sarcasm? I highly doubt VC will be moving to Entraction.

why not? they already have a skin on entraction for the israeli market so its the logical step that they move their iPoker business their also, Boss will be gone within 2 years, you think they will go to cake or something?

RunningMan1981

BigCityBanker wrote: »

why not? they already have a skin on entraction for the israeli market so its the logical step that they move their iPoker business their also, Boss will be gone within 2 years, you think they will go to cake or something?

I wonder will all the skins who offer rake back deals eventually move to entraction, then entraction network will grow bigger than Ipoker in time..

colquhom

i presume that since VC is an international bookmaker that although they may be kicked off i assume my funds are safe there ye? should i be worried?

RunningMan1981

colquhom wrote: »

i presume that since VC is an international bookmaker that although they may be kicked off i assume my funds are safe there ye? should i be worried?

Im sure they are safe, more safe than noiq imo and there was no problem with their funds etc. when they were kicked out

RunningMan1981

I'm not being funny/sarcastic here but why doesn't the likes of ppp move to entraction or such like? I mean, then they could offer better deals like other skins, gain more players etc., instead of being so restricted by Ipoker? Maybe I am naive, but it doesn't make much business sense to me.

The Snapper

BigCityBanker wrote: »

move to contributed rake is at 7am on Jan 2nd. Hopefully this is a prelude to fully contributed rake imo. This will just about halve (if not more in some instances) the income from RB for the RB whoores.

The situation with VC is well known and publicised, imo at least 2 other reasonably sized skins are at risk of imposing similar sanctions - tbh I dont want to out them as them imposing sanctions on their own players does not equal a players funds being at risk. Also - I think they are due a chance to right their wrongs. There may be a handful of smaller skins who fall foul but tbh they are of no significant size and anyone in their right mind wouldnt be playing there anyway.

you (or any player) doesnt really need to know the details of the new policy - it is designed to hit the offending skins hard and force them into correction or off the network. The policy is based on the rationale that each skin should be a mini me of the network as a whole i.e. the same approximate mix of winning/losing players etc. Take the network average, add in a buffer (a decent one at that) and if a skin falls outside of this range they then pay a penalty as in a nutshell their deviation is proof that their player acquisition policy is inorganic and parasitic i.e. they acquire on the basis of rakeback and in contravention of the rule of the network.

Thanks for your informed input Noel, I fully understand the rationale at play with the various recent ipoker "developements". As I have stated on here consistently, while also hypocritically availing of the offending deals I must admit, the business model as had evolved, of spiraling RB offers from competing skins was headed for, and very close to implosion. As each skin successfully lured in clients from each other and obviously from other networks, the carrot, highest % RB, was attractive to, mostly regular and most likely winning players hence the recent "ipoker is tough to win on" tag. Allowed to continue ipoker's sea's would have been fished dry so obviously something had to be done, otherwise CHD may have had his wish granted:).

So a basic summary of where we're at, various ipoker skins are or have been openly flouting network rules by offering excessive deals on rakeback. Solution! ban winning players. Could it really be that difficult to gather the necessary information to prove what skins are at this and sanction them! the transgressors rather than throwing out the baby with the bath water, which imho is what the current proposed solution does, a fish quota system of sorts.

mdwexford wrote: »

Thinly veiled brag OP, wp.

I must admit I did take a small amount of pleasure from the email:p but, it does concern me somewhat and it makes sense to tease out the possible implications into the future.

RunningMan1981 wrote: »

I wonder will all the skins who offer rake back deals eventually move to entraction, then entraction network will grow bigger than Ipoker in time..

That would just be franchising the "FUBAR" ipoker skins business model and would most likely achieve identical results ( see above )

RunningMan1981

error

RunningMan1981

The Snapper wrote: »

That would just be franchising the "FUBAR" ipoker skins business model and would most likely achieve identical results ( see above )

I was thinking that the "results" would be that certain skin's profit margins would be reduced but not detrimental. I mean more players, winning or otherwise means more rake surely?
Or is it that simply more winning players mean they suck all the money(withdraw) out of the network till its dry?

I'm just wondering is all about greed/profit margins for skins or does it really endanger the network(rakeback deals and winning players)?

DrJFF

CHD usually says this seems he hasn't yet i will do it for him

Ipoker must die!

Treehouse72

BigCityBanker wrote: »

10 tabling, full ring, who plays something like 6/1 or similar

any 'normal' 6 max player shouldnt see a whole load of change.

Oh man, that's cool. I'd forgotten about all those FR nits. If this hurts the shortstacks, rewards the splashy recreational players and doesn't hurt me, I'm happy!

A couple of comments about the rake change and the winner/loser thing:

1. I presume skins will be adjusting their points systems to accomodate the rake change? This will be important because it would be good for the games if loose recreational players get a bankroll boost through their standard iPoints deal with, say, Titan or PP.

2. How will the skins manage their winner/loser mix to sustain an acceptable ratio? Do they restrict a handful of big winners in the higher stakes games? Or, do they restrict a bunch of the smaller stakes grinders who are destroying the fish pool down there? If they need to fix a ratio problem in a hurry, it would be the former surely. Or, I wonder if they'll do it by shaving off the top winners at each stake to remove the problem of the winners moving up? Dunno, a slight worry.

3. I think the possibility of existing deals being revoked is extremely high. Sadly, I am anticipating an email along these lines from my (reputable) skin any day now. Cutting existing deals is the same as improving your winner/loser ratio.

4. Tell us about the promised Winter software update! We need some software update porn! Titillate me.

mdwexford

Hmm hadnt thought about that, will this mean the end of the iPoker short stackers??

If so its fcukin party time.

Grafter

Treehouse72 wrote: »

:

1. I presume skins will be adjusting their points systems to accomodate the rake change?

Paddy Power already changed theirs at the start of this month.

The Snapper

RunningMan1981 wrote: »

I was thinking that the "results" would be that certain skin's profit margins would be reduced but not detrimental. I mean more players, winning or otherwise means more rake surely?
Or is it that simply more winning players mean they suck all the money(withdraw) out of the network till its dry?

I'm just wondering is all about greed/profit margins for skins or does it really endanger the network(rakeback deals and winning players)?

If a site becomes over populated with good winning players it becomes less lucrative for the winning players and more punitive for the fish and ultimately both types will leave for the many greener pastures on offer.

ianmc38

BigCityBanker wrote: »

where did you get that email from? I was in Tel Aviv all week tweaking and reforming this new policy in conjunction with iPoker and other licencees.

if that alone is the content of the email then it is highly misleading and even more funnily though it seems that the card room have deliberately misrepresented or else totally misuderstood the outcome of the discussion - I guess it can only be from one of two rooms though.

Out of interest what part of the email is misleading? I had my account shut this morning too. There was a bit more on the email about how I could play small stakes and MTTs.

Also, regarding Entraction can you go into more detail? It's a pretty strong rumor to start spreading especially given the fact that your privy to certain information being so closely involved with an Ipoker skin.

I understand the new network policy without knowing the exact ratios that are in use this time. I have the old pdf from Playtech regarding ratios. Will be interesting to see how they integrate this new winning:losing player formula into the algorithm.

ianmc38

colquhom wrote: »

i presume that since VC is an international bookmaker that although they may be kicked off i assume my funds are safe there ye? should i be worried?

Any funds would be completely safe. They're about as safe as funds get anywhere in online poker.

ianmc38

BigCityBanker wrote: »

10 tabling, full ring, who plays something like 6/1 or similar

any 'normal' 6 max player shouldnt see a whole load of change.

Normal 6 max players will see an extremely significant cut in the amount they rake. I'm pretty sure there isn't one winning 6max or 9max player who would make more from contributed.

This can only be a good thing as it's sure to get rid of a lot of shortstackers and rb nits

Grafter

ianmc38 wrote: »

Also, regarding Entraction can you go into more detail?

If BCB's doing a well, I'd also be curious about

Boss will be gone within 2 years

suilen

colquhom wrote: »

i presume that since VC is an international bookmaker that although they may be kicked off i assume my funds are safe there ye? should i be worried?

I was kicked off over a month ago, my funds were transfered out fine, without any problems.

RunningMan1981

mdwexford wrote: »

Hmm hadnt thought about that, will this mean the end of the iPoker short stackers??

If so its fcukin party time.

Absolutely.

RunningMan1981

Well I wasn't kicked off so I must be the perfect Ipoker player . Anyhow it's my bonus deal that keeps me playing poker for the month lol. My poker strategy is to receive bonus day 1, then play consevative poker and build mini roll for 3 weeks, blow it all in 2 day marathon splurge, then have few days break, reload with some of my own cash, blow that too and then wait for bonus, get bonus, repeat cycle...

(My 100k, 2010 profit plan is out the window now, don't want to be kicked off the skin !)

BigCityBanker

Treehouse72 wrote: »

1. I presume skins will be adjusting their points systems to accomodate the rake change? This will be important because it would be good for the games if loose recreational players get a bankroll boost through their standard iPoints deal with, say, Titan or PP.

2. How will the skins manage their winner/loser mix to sustain an acceptable ratio? Do they restrict a handful of big winners in the higher stakes games? Or, do they restrict a bunch of the smaller stakes grinders who are destroying the fish pool down there? If they need to fix a ratio problem in a hurry, it would be the former surely. Or, I wonder if they'll do it by shaving off the top winners at each stake to remove the problem of the winners moving up? Dunno, a slight worry.

3. I think the possibility of existing deals being revoked is extremely high. Sadly, I am anticipating an email along these lines from my (reputable) skin any day now. Cutting existing deals is the same as improving your winner/loser ratio.

4. Tell us about the promised Winter software update! We need some software update porn! Titillate me.

1. Yes
2. they acquire organicly
3. no idea
4. Its not far away, the PPP skin is currently in production and I have been playing on rezizeable tables in test mode for a couple of weeks now.

Grafter wrote: »

Paddy Power already changed theirs at the start of this month.

we will be changing it again on Jan 2nd.

ianmc38 wrote: »

Out of interest what part of the email is misleading? I had my account shut this morning too. There was a bit more on the email about how I could play small stakes and MTTs.

Also, regarding Entraction can you go into more detail? It's a pretty strong rumor to start spreading especially given the fact that your privy to certain information being so closely involved with an Ipoker skin.

I understand the new network policy without knowing the exact ratios that are in use this time. I have the old pdf from Playtech regarding ratios. Will be interesting to see how they integrate this new winning:losing player formula into the algorithm.

1. They are basically taking a little from section A, a little from section B and mixing them up to make C as it suits their MO. There are 2 aspects of this new policy which exist independently and the mail in the OP has wrongfully put them together.

2. I am not really starting a rumor. All I am privy to is an intimite understanding of both the new Network Policy and VC's business model and I know that they dont mix. It is public knowledge (on 2+2 at least) that VC's relationship with iPoker is tenuous at best. I know that given VC's current business model that they can not continue to exist in the iPoker network as the penalties enforced upon them will basically reduce their bottom line to 0 or negative. Ergo they have 2 routes open to them 1. correct their current business model or 2. move house - given that they already have a skin on entraction I think (im guessing) that this is their most likely destination.

Grafter wrote: »

If BCB's doing a well, I'd also be curious about

betclick have just acquired Everest, that means almost certainly that 2 large skins of boss are making their way to Everest pretty shortly - the loss of this liquidity coupled with the fact that Boss are not an attractive B2B proposition leads me to believe that it wont be long before they follow the Crypto model i.e. close.. This also means that Everest are set to become a pretty big independent power. They will be the next Stars/Full Tilt albeit a European version.

ianmc38 wrote:

Normal 6 max players will see an extremely significant cut in the amount they rake. I'm pretty sure there isn't one winning 6max or 9max player who would make more from contributed.

not really - they will be getting a bigger slice of rake more often than the nitRBwhoore - I expect that the 'normal' 6 max player will see no negative effect they should be close to neutral in this change. The 60/40 guys will clean up

fatguy

betclick have just acquired Everest, that means almost certainly that 2 large skins of boss are making their way to Everest pretty shortly - the loss of this liquidity coupled with the fact that Boss are not an attractive B2B proposition leads me to believe that it wont be long before they follow the Crypto model i.e. close.. This also means that Everest are set to become a pretty big independent power. They will be the next Stars/Full Tilt albeit a European version.

Iiiiinteresting.

TommyGunne

Ugh. This all looks horrible for entraction. Sigh. Cue the influx of shorties and regs from VC and other sites like we saw with the moving of NOIQ. I'd be pretty happy if they just left iPoker as the reg/nit/shortie fest that it is now.

MegaSin

As a player playing the micro stakes with MMT's and the .2/.4 lv cash games any idea how this will effect me. I thought the only way to get the rakeback on PPP was the points they give you.

Ps new to online poker:o

ianmc38

Cheers Noel. FWIW I'd be shocked if they decided to leave the network for Entraction.

RunningMan1981

TommyGunne wrote: »

Ugh. This all looks horrible for entraction. Sigh. Cue the influx of shorties and regs from VC and other sites like we saw with the moving of NOIQ. I'd be pretty happy if they just left iPoker as the reg/nit/shortie fest that it is now.

Hi Tommy, I take it that you maybe play on entraction/noiq, correct me if wrong . Can you give me your thoughts on entraction comparing it to ipoker etc. I used to play on Noiq (for the rake back deal was great at the time), but I found entraction a bit limited for game selection etc.. Has it changed much/improved ? I would seriously consider staying with VC if they had to change to entraction ( and maybe turn my game around into a winnning player )

ianmc38

FWIW I spoke with the poker manager at VC and he said they have absolutely no intention of moving to Entraction nor are they in any danger of being booted off the network. The only thing they need to do is cut down on their shark:fish ratio to be in line with network regulations.

Blip

DrJFF wrote: »

CHD usually says this seems he hasn't yet i will do it for him

Ipoker must die!

Trap #18, same page

TommyGunne

RunningMan1981 wrote: »

Hi Tommy, I take it that you maybe play on entraction/noiq, correct me if wrong . Can you give me your thoughts on entraction comparing it to ipoker etc. I used to play on Noiq (for the rake back deal was great at the time), but I found entraction a bit limited for game selection etc.. Has it changed much/improved ? I would seriously consider staying with VC if they had to change to entraction ( and maybe turn my game around into a winnning player )

Pros
Regs aren't as good
Still can get OK RB
Not as many shorties
Tourney's very soft

Cons
Software isn't as good
Bigger ratio of regs to fish
Limited number of games running at 2/4 and above, and if you play at awkward times even 1/2 can sometimes have a shortage of games
Tourneys don't get big fields

I'm sure there are more, but those are just the ones off the top of my head.

The Snapper

BigCityBanker wrote: »

where did you get that email from? I was in Tel Aviv all week tweaking and reforming this new policy in conjunction with iPoker and other licencees.

if that alone is the content of the email then it is highly misleading and even more funnily though it seems that the card room have deliberately misrepresented or else totally misuderstood the outcome of the discussion - I guess it can only be from one of two rooms though.

Does this accurately represent the ipoker policy?>

Hi All,

For what it is worth to you I have been following this thread and asked a poker manager from Victor Chandler exactly what the situation was with the account restrictions. Below is their response. Hope it helps to shed some light.

The truth of the matter is that we have restricted the cash game stakes at which a number of players can play and which effectively means we will lose these players. The reason why we have done this is because iPoker will be implementing a new policy in the New Year which will class every player on a monthly basis as a fish or a shark and which will penalise card rooms that have too many sharks in relation to fish. As it stands, we are top heavy with sharks and, despite the fact that our win/loss ratio is fine, we stand to be fined heavily by iPoker under this new scoring system and so we have had to reduce the number of sharks that we have in order to comply and avoid penalisation . It really galls us to have to do this not only because of the negative feedback and the inconvenience to the players but because the fish to shark scoring system is a farce in as much as even losing players can be classed as a sharks. Ridiculous isn’t it – when did you ever hear of a losing player being called a shark? What’s more, if the categorisation of the players was such that only winning players were classed as sharks we wouldn’t have had to make these account restrictions in the first place and so this whole topic has been created by the absurd scoring system about to be introduced by iPoker.

I'm sure there are a lot of discussion points in there for you. Carry on...

Source> 2+2