Thoughts: The steps are bad

[slavic]

Just a quick thought here. I've played a few steps and of course I'm now locked in to playing a few more because all step money is locked to the steps until a 5th step is won. Here is the problem, Bad players can't win. They will not win often enough to keep them comming back.

Around the poker room we know that all the money eventually migrates to the largest games, but it's gradual and the long term losers do have wins. In this case a long term loser will go a very very very long time without a win.

[Recliner]

Lots of people love to play the lottery every week and they'll never win. The steps allow you to enter a $11 tournament with a $9000 pay off. Plus, unlike those big tournaments in these you have a change because you only compete against 19 others. (Five times in a row)

I know I'm going to try my first step tonight or tomorrow (So I can take all my money out for the bonus) even though I don't think I have a good shot at winning in step 4 or 5. I do think I can get through the first two steps without a problem, especially with flat payout structures and the freerolls to lower steps. I should hopefully have my $11 turn into lots of free practice at higher levels than my bank roll will allow for. Besides I might win $9000. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Theodore Donald Kiravatsos]

Could someone please be a dear and explain "The steps".

Thanks.

[ripped]

www.partypoker.com (http://www.partypoker.com) or doa search on 2+2?.. I am sure there are many posts about it.

[lorinda]

steps structure (http://partypoker.com/news/events/steps-challenge-04.html)

The theory behind it is good, but I think someone did a poor job of finding an optimal structure.

Lori

[vetman81]

As someone else had said already, I think the biggest thing is the experience I can get for $11 that I couldn't get otherwise (well I could but I would be throwing away a lot of money). Realistically, there isnt a very good chance that I will win any money, but for $11 I am willing to give it a shot.

[slavic]

Ok here is a little more information.

If you take all players starting from an $11 + 1 buy in propagating through to step 5 you need 4125 players or buyins. That is a total cash pool of $45,375 that ends in a tourney of $20,000. If we assume no loop back and non propagated cash actually went to a player the minimum rake is $13,775 or a little more than 30%. Obviously the loop back is used, and those funds will be raked again, in effect I bet actual rake may run as high as 40%.

So what should a pro do? He should enter at level 4 or 5 and use his normal win rate to take advantage of the weaker play before him. So what's the problem? Well we have set up a system that absolutely slaughters the new/recreational player by:

A - Creating a rake structure that is not beatable

B - Creating a field that is not beatable by them

From what I know of the balance required in keeping a gambling game going I just don't see how this is maintainable.

[slavic]

Nice power cat btw.

[vetman81]

I thought you might like that /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MrX]

okay the rake structure is horrible

I thought that math looked a little off..but

for every step 1 with 20, 11+1 entries, they collect 20 inrake at Step 1 and then another 20 in rake from that same entry dollar pool from the 4 "freerolls" generated for the 50=5 Step 2 entry.

and then this continues on up the ladder..yes this is a horrid structure for the player, unless you are buying in at levels 4 or 5.

I hope these do not cause the drying up of some of my favorite "watering holes"

MrX

[slavic]

The most obvious effect that it should have on tourney play is poaching players from the 10, 20, and 30 SNG's. These players are already playing for the big hit and suddenly they see a new big hit in their price range. Yes they are the lottery player.

[MrDannimal]

I keep thinking that a solution to this is to have some of the steps 3-4 SNGs be "No direct buyin allowed".

Obviously, not all of them (though as a low limit SNG player, I wouldn't object. The high-limit sharks still have their $200s to plaY). Maybe 10%.

The idea being that it either makes the players with the skill to eat up the little guy start at level 2 and spend time getting to the easy cash, or it gives the low-limit guy the "chance" that is implied in the promotion.

I know the players up top who are currently loving this deal would object, hence my suggestion to only bar buyin for some % of the SNGs.

The other option is to reduce the rake taken at each step. There's no need to take the normal 10% (or so) because the prize pool at each step gets raked again. That doesn't really address the small player who has no chance to actually win cash, though.

[dogmeat]

I read the posts here, and then deposited a couple hundred into Party to try the Steps. It sounded good.....

I entered an $11 first step and made the top four. But you really are in a position where you have to make the top four or five twice, because there are two tables.......

Then in the second round I made the top four, and the same with the third round. By now I feel like I have made the money in six single-table sit and goes and I've got nothing to show for it........

So, the fourth round is very tough, but I somehow manage a finish that gets me to the fifth step, and then...

Whoopie, I come in sixth again, and cash ZERO after two days of play. This is not a good system for my time.

Would it not be better for players to enter a $10 single-table sit-n-go and then just join the next highest buy-n sit-n-go they can with their winnings and pocket whatever is left? I guess without the $9k chance, that does not sound too good, but I'd rather play a 200 player MTT with a small buy-in and be done in 3-4 hours. Just my own feelings.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[BradleyT]

The $11 buy-in is geared towards people that want to "take a chance" to win big. It's set up in a way that makes it sound like you have to beat a lot less people than you would in a MTT and the payout is really high.

People will think - as long as I can win first one time in 900 then I'm making my money back...surely I could enter 800(rake)+ times and win just once...

[adanthar]

Timewise, this structure does suck. EV wise, you have a huge advantage over the field early and (because of the sat structure nullifying aggressiveness in 3 and 4) at least break even with the field late. As I posted in the SNG forum, I don't think a good, winning low to midstakes player will pay more than $250 per Step 5 long term if he starts at 1 every time.

Step 5, of course, will have a truckload of variance and you will be -EV in it, but you're paying under 1/4 of the regular entry fee (albeit the time spent must be factored in) and almost have to make money playing it long term.

This, of course, assumes you're a winning 20+2/50+5 SNG player that can crush Steps 1 and 2 and has a prayer with the right cards in Step 5. For the regular 10+1 Party fish it's hopeless.

[adanthar]

Hah. I just spent 20 minutes working the math out trying to disprove your post, but you're absolutely right. That rake is surprisingly terrible and certainly means the game is unsustainable long term with a static player pool. Good thing it's not static, I guess.

On the other hand, the rake is still beatable even at the Step 1 level. All you have to do is get to Step 5 for less than $1,065 + your time expense, and that's certainly doable and then some. It's just that you have to be *good*...

[slavic]

That rake is surprisingly terrible and certainly means the game is unsustainable long term with a static player pool. Good thing it's not static, I guess.

No No No. You are thinking of this in the wrong form. First the sustainablility of a game is very important to those who have a +EV playing in the game. Game preservation so that you can continue to make money is important. So you are not only concerned about yourself but also about the players around you.

In this case the fish are being charged too much to play, and they have little chance to win. This means they do not recieve the positive reinforcement to continue playing. Now if you estimate the cost of new player aquisition at $200 (a figure that is a little light) the question becomes is it feasable to continue to purchase new customes and feed them into this blender of a tournament structure. Is it also worth the loss of your current low limit tourney players? I would suggest no in both cases, it is much cheaper to maintain a current customer than to find another, and new customers are to precious to toss away.

I do understand Party's motivation, they are taking S&G players that they would have to share with the other 5 IGM sites and funnelling them into their own tourney structure. This is much the same as the jackpot games, but unlike the jackpot games this has a bigger potential to hurt Party's buisness.

[Rudbaeck]

Not only is it bad because the fish never win, it's also bad because the rake has been taken to a new and astronomical level.

Who actually wants to play in a $1000+500 tourney?

[M.B.E.]

The mini-super-satellite structure is a collusion magnet.

[Richter]

some math on the step rake structure.
summary: bad investment.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/walterzuey/
scroll to: Wednesday, December 8th, 2004

[adanthar]

I'm replying to myself one more time to try to figure this out.

Logically, that rake calculation is obviously correct. Yet, there are definitely people that are buying into Step 2's and making a big profit (PurpleLungs comes to mind; I've seen her at Steps 2, 3 and 4 and she's #1 on the leaderboard this week so clearly she's playing a lot of them.)

I myself am 1 for 6 (Step 1 to Step 5). After doing the math I have no doubt that I can keep something like a 1 in 25 or better long term ratio. Other people I've talked to while playing have said stuff like 'oh, I've played 15 1's and have 2 Step 5's and a Step 4'. I believe them. But at the same time, this is a 50% rake that I can apparently beat sixfold. I'm not that good and neither is anyone else on the planet so something doesn't add up.

Is this because, for the vast majority of Step 1 and 2 players, EV is zero?

[M.B.E.]

It's wrong to think of the rake as 30%.

Suppose I play SNGs on Stars. I have only $109 in my account, and I buy into a $100+9 SNG. 9% rake, right? Lucky me, I finish in second place. Now there is $270 in my account. I use those funds to buy into a $200+15 SNG. So I've paid $24 in rake to get into this $200-level SNG. Since when does PokerStars charge 12% rake? Answer: it doesn't.

[slavic]

[ QUOTE ]
It's wrong to think of the rake as 30%.

Suppose I play SNGs on Stars. I have only $109 in my account, and I buy into a $100+9 SNG. 9% rake, right? Lucky me, I finish in second place. Now there is $270 in my account. I use those funds to buy into a $200+15 SNG. So I've paid $24 in rake to get into this $200-level SNG. Since when does PokerStars charge 12% rake? Answer: it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree, if each tourney could be treated as an individual event. The steps to don't allow this. The money is commited to play and can not be cashed in, so you have no other choice than to see it raked again. Thus a single 2 table step is not a tourney in itself because nobody is paid until they reach the end.

[Mike Haven]

Party says:

"Any free-roll tournament is held with the intention of providing the players with an option to play tournaments of high buy-in and prize pool with a minimum investment.

PartyPoker.com has more than 35000 players online and obviously not all players will be playing on this promotion, however a minimum estimate at the step 1 will require 1820 players. Please note that once a players is looped back the entry is free and though the player is individually not contributing there is nothing that he loses as well while using the buy-in.

Any estimate here would not be correct as no one is sure how many players will play at each level. A professional player will try to take advantage by playing the minimum buy-in tournament and go on winning till the end. The level of competition again cannot be judged because any player may decide to play at any level of the tournament. However it does seem to be a better option to win a prize pool by investing lesser amounts.

Please note that the system or the promotion in no way discriminates between a good player or a new player, every one have their choice to make.

Poker Customer Care."

[HUSKER'66]

Whoever came up the idea is a marketing genius.

They have hidden a rake whore wrapped in a lottery....good stuff.

There are tons of players that will not put much thought into it other than the chance at a big payday for their $11.

Brilliant really, once you think of it.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
It's wrong to think of the rake as 30%.

Suppose I play SNGs on Stars. I have only $109 in my account, and I buy into a $100+9 SNG. 9% rake, right? Lucky me, I finish in second place. Now there is $270 in my account. I use those funds to buy into a $200+15 SNG. So I've paid $24 in rake to get into this $200-level SNG. Since when does PokerStars charge 12% rake? Answer: it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a false analogy. Because you don't get the money at each step.

The ones who provide most of the overlay are fish buying in at step 1-2. Now do the math and see how much Party would take out if everyone just bought in at step 1.

Without the loopbacks they would rake the same pot 5 times, now they end up raking it like 7-8 times. It's pure genius on Party's part. It's like taking $24 out of a juicy pot at 3/6.

[slavic]

[ QUOTE ]
Whoever came up the idea is a marketing genius.

They have hidden a rake whore wrapped in a lottery....good stuff.

There are tons of players that will not put much thought into it other than the chance at a big payday for their $11.

Brilliant really, once you think of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree the concept is brilliant for generating rake, however when rake gets out of ballance normally the game dies.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree the concept is brilliant for generating rake, however when rake gets out of ballance normally the game dies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that party right now don't believe in the longevity of online games. Their current marketing strategy seems to be to make off with as much cash as possible before the US market is totally closed off. If it in the long run seems the market won't be killed they'll probably re-evaluate.

Raking the Jackpot drop, the steps etc. They want to take out $100 today rather than $200 over the next week to make a weak analogy.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a false analogy. Because you don't get the money at each step.

The ones who provide most of the overlay are fish buying in at step 1-2. Now do the math and see how much Party would take out if everyone just bought in at step 1.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, my analogy is accurate. I do recognize of course that most of the prizes in the Steps tourneys are not cash but rather entries to a tournament within the Steps series. This certainly affects the EV of anyone buying in at Levels 1-4, but not in the way that has been discussed in this thread.

You could imagine an alternative structure where players had the option of converting a Steps entry to the equivalent amount of cash. Would that decrease Party's profits? Yes, a little, because some people would cash out to Neteller or whatever rather than continuing to play the Steps. But other people would just use the money to play cash games or other tournaments on Party -- Party would still get the rake.

Some people might buy in to Level 4 and get "demoted" to Level 2 and not bother because a $50 tourney isn't worth their time. That's a huge advantage to Party but you shouldn't consider it as a percentage increase to the rake unless you are likely to be that player.

Or take the example of a ring game. The Bellagio 15/30 game rakes a maximum $4 a pot. On average, the rake in that game is about 2%. But suppose that one day you observed 10 people buy into that game for $500 each, and then four hours later you calculated that $500 in rake had been taken from that table, with none of the original players having left or rebought. Would you then go on 2+2 and post "Bellagio is raking 10% from its 15/30 game; how can anyone possibly beat it?"

My point is that Slavic's calculation arriving at a total rake of 30-40% on the Steps just cannot be meaningfully compared to a percentage rake on a regular SNG or MTT; for that reason the statement is misleading.

As I mentioned earlier, the real problem with Steps is that the structure of Steps 1-4 are collusion magnets.

[slavic]

[ QUOTE ]
Or take the example of a ring game. The Bellagio 15/30 game rakes a maximum $4 a pot. On average, the rake in that game is about 2%. But suppose that one day you observed 10 people buy into that game for $500 each, and then four hours later you calculated that $500 in rake had been taken from that table, with none of the original players having left or rebought. Would you then go on 2+2 and post "Bellagio is raking 10% from its 15/30 game; how can anyone possibly beat it?"


[/ QUOTE ]

This would not be the case at all. Every pot is raked individually in a ring game, and the juice is calculated on a pot by pot basis. At any time a player may cash out and leave.

To make your analogy work. All players would have to buy into the game at $500 (total $4500 in play), and then no player could add money or remove money until $1350 in rake has been generated. That should be 8 to 10 hours of play, and I can tell you that it would not be worth my time to play in such a structure because the game would not be worth playing at the end of the time period.

Why do I say this? Well in my typical 30/60 game there are normally 3 to 4 players that play in a winning fashion, 3 or so players who are moderate loosers and then a couple who are just pitifull. The bad players fund the game well and when they are done they are normally replaced by other somewhat bad players. In hte structure above those guys disapear after a few hours and now we start drawing on the mediocre, and as the night draws down it simply becomes appropriate for the rest of us at the table to divide up the remaining rake charge and move on.

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
No, my analogy is accurate. I do recognize of course that most of the prizes in the Steps tourneys are not cash but rather entries to a tournament within the Steps series. This certainly affects the EV of anyone buying in at Levels 1-4, but not in the way that has been discussed in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why a solid tournament player should directly enter into Step 5, eliminating Step 1-4 so that EV is not sacrificed.

[ QUOTE ]
Or take the example of a ring game. The Bellagio 15/30 game rakes a maximum $4 a pot. On average, the rake in that game is about 2%. But suppose that one day you observed 10 people buy into that game for $500 each, and then four hours later you calculated that $500 in rake had been taken from that table, with none of the original players having left or rebought. Would you then go on 2+2 and post "Bellagio is raking 10% from its 15/30 game; how can anyone possibly beat it?"


[/ QUOTE ]

Rake in a live game is pot related, not buy-in related. With a tournament I know that I have a fixed buy-in with a fixed rake that dynamically cannot change. With a live game, I have a bankroll with a rake that will dynamically change with respect to the pot sizes. So if I have a $10 k bankroll and the rake for a $15/$30 game is $4 max (which mos of the time it will be given the size of $15/$30 pots) then the percentage for rake will be far less than 10%. Otherwise, how does a player stand to beat these games? /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Lawrence

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
Which is why a solid tournament player should directly enter into Step 5, eliminating Step 1-4 so that EV is not sacrificed.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not true at all. It is entirely conceivable that a solid player has slightly positive EV at Step 5 but greater EV at Steps 3 and 4 (because the fields are easier). In that case the player would have higher EV buying into Step 3 than buying into Step 5. (Even assuming a very large bankroll so risk of ruin is not an issue.)

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
To make your analogy work. All players would have to buy into the game at $500 (total $4500 in play), and then no player could add money or remove money until $1350 in rake has been generated. That should be 8 to 10 hours of play, and I can tell you that it would not be worth my time to play in such a structure because the game would not be worth playing at the end of the time period.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you're getting at the real reason why the Steps structure is a poor value for most people buying in at the lower steps: they're just not good enough to beat the higher steps. So a solid low-limit player buying into a Step 2 might ordinarily have say a 25% ROI at that level. However, if that player gets up to Step 5, because the calibre of opponents there is higher the player could easily have negative EV, perhaps -15% ROI on Step 5. So the player's positive EV from the lower steps is outweighed by the negative EV at the top level. And there is no option to cash out before then. All this has nothing to do with the rake: it is still plain wrong to refer to the rake in the Steps tournament as 30%, just as it was plain wrong in my example to refer to the rake at the Bellagio 15/30 as 10%.

[M.B.E.]

Here are other threads about the Step tourneys:

Value of PartyPoker new STEPS tournament (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1347299&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

PP Step tournie (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1348757&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Party Poker's STEPs -- inneresting (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1349580&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Strategy Adjustment in new STEP tourneys (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1351298&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

One possible nice thing about these STEP tourneys (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1351845&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

STEP tourney challenge (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1351861&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Guess $1K is enough to get the nerves jangled (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1351947&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Fish's Step Challenge (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1352756&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

STEPs question, any thoughts (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1353231&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Feelings on STEP tournys (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1353365&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Funny Hand from a Party STEPS tournament (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1356300&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Party STEPS $1000 tournament (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1358717&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Party Step 3, tough bubble decision (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1359643&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Any Steps success stories? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1359778&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Poll on the Party STEPS tournies (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1360434&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Step 3 Hand (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1361306&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Gigabet (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1362171&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

You Won't believe what happened at STEP 5 final table (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1362213&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Collusion in a 4th STEP? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1362446&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Laying Down KK early in Step 5 tournament (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1362792&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Steps bubble question (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1362815&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

PP 5-step tourneys (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1364673&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Step 5 Hand versus GIGABET (MTT forum) (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1366229&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&fpart=all&vc=1)

Step 5 hand versus GIGABET (1TT forum) (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1366299&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

What makes Gigabet so good? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1366717&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

PP Steps tourney question (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1367199&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Step 4 Satellite hand (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1367667&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Step 4 Satellite Hand #2 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1367695&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Railbirds (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1368180&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Party Step Tourney Help (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1370050&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

5th Step mistake (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1372945&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Step Tourneys on Party (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1373463&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Well, *I'm* Psyched (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1379107&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

will the STEPS field improve a lot? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1381668&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

PP 5 Steps - What do you think? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1382369&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

ROIs on the Step 5s? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1383342&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

data mining and STEPS (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1386531&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Damn Party step tourneys (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1390484&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

Tempers Fray in Step 5 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1390983&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

STEPS (step 5 in particular) (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1394697&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

The EV of STEPS 1-2 and 3-4 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1395178&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

So far, Who is doing the best in the 5 step tourneys? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1395190&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)