That’s also a good adjustment, but a little bit early in the morning for my taste.
Notifications
Clear all
Then you can wait for a long time. That could take a half year or even longer for some members.
I have a somewhat weird question.
A few months ago I was playing 3$ stakes spins & was managing to get silver chests a decent amount of the time.
Now I play 15$, so my rake is bigger, yet I'm stuck getting only bronze chests.
I didn't pay attention until a few days ago, I was thinking those were gold chests or something.
So what is going on here? Do you guys need 4500 points to get a bronze chest too? And yea, there is basically no boost if you grind ♦. What a joke))
That’s weird for sure. Maybe you are playing less games than when you played the $3 games, but that’s the only explanation.
Wow, they basically admitted in a response that they do as they please.
Some f-in c*nts PS became
Not sure if im allowed to link it but this article explains it :
https://toppokervalue.com/poker-articles/latest-poker-news/pokerstars-stars-rewards
Originally posted by mjez1
Since they expires it is better to open them then let them expire
Nice info. Thanks!
I can live with these changes as long as they have the guts to tell it to my face how they work. But I just don't like getting generic answers. Just rip that band aid swift and merciless, don't you dare omitting the truth from me ♦.
It would be cool if they had this info on their site... Why try to hide it and not just give a straightforward answer if everyone playing before knows how things were.
Thanks again. Now I can pay my rake in peace ♦
Totte’s link has some serious misinformation. It says that avg rakeback would be around 20% or something. In reality it’s around 4-4,5% and this has been confirmed by many many players.
The types of chests you get depends on how many chests you have opened in the same day or previous days. And the points required is individual, based on how you play (how recreasional/losing you are).
Overall you get less than 5% back in the long run.
Originally posted by Kyyberi
Totte’s link has some serious misinformation. It says that avg rakeback would be around 20% or something. In reality it’s around 4-4,5% and this has been confirmed by many many players.
Not Sure If you read it all But there is a good section that shows that the avg rakeback is in fact around 5% for winning players 
I think the 20 % + is for loosing players and that Also depends on How much you rake.
I doubt it should make a difference if you are loosing or a winning player how much % rake back you get.
You might be right. I don't remember reading that the formula used would take into account how good or bad player you are. But what it should take into account is how often you deposit. I have understood that pokerstars rewards frequent depositors more. And why would a winning player constantly deposit more?
That could be an explanation, but a winning player could keep his bankroll most of the time on a wallet like Skrill and deposit a decent amount of the time for deposit bonusses for example.
There is no misinformation in the article - it clearly states that winning players receive 5-9% rakeback (depending on which chests they're opening; Silver and above is 5%, which is inline with what the top grinders are seeing). All of the data used to make the calculations was confirmed with PokerStars before publishing (source: I wrote it). Keep in mind that it's all weighted averages, so there will be some high level grinders earning 4%, and others earning 6%. In the long run though, it'll work out to 5.2% for Silver & Platinum, and 4.8% for Gold.
Like most rewards programs, volume of play is a factor, but unlike most rewards programs, it's not the most significant factor. The most significant factor is whether you're a consistent winner or consistent loser. And since they don't want to call players "losers", they use the term "net depositor" (and "net withdrawer" for winners). I can't tell you exactly how they calculate this, but in theory it's:
Lifetime Withdrawals - Lifetime Deposits (and then divided by rake to determine ROI)
However, the key part of those terms is "net". So you can deposit as often as you'd like, but if you deposit $500 and withdraw $1,000, then you're a "net withdrawer", regardless of whether you deposit the $500 all at once or as 10 different $50 deposits. I don't know if the "net depositor" calculation uses lifetime numbers, or it's per annum, or a rolling fixed period. I'd guess it's lifetime (since that's the only way to ensure the calculation can't be manipulated).
They also refer to your "player profile", which is basically just your win-rate, i.e. (withdrawals - deposits)/rake. Your overall win-rate will determine the cost of chests as well as the boosts you earn. There are a bunch of different combinations, which is why the article only presents the average (i.e. for break-even players), and the two extremes. I get the impression that most players are either around the break-even amounts for rakeback, or the worst-case (i.e. almost any positive ROI player gets the shaft).
You could try to manipulate the system by creating an account, and continually depositing, and never making a withdrawal until you eventually withdraw everything. Theoretically, this would work, but it's also possible that they just straight up use win-rate to determine your player profile and just use the terms "net withdrawer" and "net depositor" just because it sounds nice than "winners" and "losers".
The new Stars Rewards program seems to have a few pretty clear objectives:
1) stop rewarding winning players (they're already playing because they're winning, so giving them anything extra is unnecessary)
2) reward the biggest contributors to the poker economy (the "net depositors")
3) make the rewards more like gambling (again, appealing to the long-term losing players)
The biggest thing they've failed to consider is that winning players tend to pay attention to rewards value, whereas losing players tend to be clueless. And even if they were aware of how good this promotion is for them, 65% rakeback for a Platinum chest is a pittance compared to the amount of money you'd need to dump at the tables to earn this reward.
I hope that clarifies things a little. Best of luck at the tables no matter where you play!
Hi -- sorry I missed this post, and the opportunity to welcome you to PokerStrategy.com
Thanks for posting this -- it makes a fair bit of sense, and more-or-less matches my experience.
All the best,
VS
Originally posted by VorpalF2F
I played a loooonnnng session today, and earned 7 chests -- so four red, and the next 3 blue.
Half an hour from the deadline to get the fourth blue chest, I still needed 300 points or so, and I didn't want to move up in stakes just to get a pretty chest.Then I thought -- I have 18 chests waiting to open, and each one has some points in it along with the Starscoin.
Sooo...
I started opening them, and still had two left to open when I got my last blue chest.So I'll do that from now on -- there is really nothing in them I need anyway, but every so often, getting the boost might be useful.
Just a thought,