How are the Steps a rake trap?

[AA suited]

You pay the rake once, then go up and down the steps as you win/lose?

you only pay 1 rake out of your pocket.

so how is it a rake trap?

[zambonidrivr]

agreed. enough said.

[The Student]

Yeah, I've been wondering about this too. when you win a buy-in to the next step or a buy-in to repeat the same step that you just played, don't you get the full buy-in (for example, the $50 + the $5 rake)? Or am I wrong, and you only get the $50 and have to pay for the rake out of pocket?

Because if you win the full buy-in including the rake, then I am lost as to why everyone is saying the steps are a rake trap. I understand that the possibility of $11/$22 STTer like me winning my way up to and then cashing in the higher steps level 5 is very low, but I don't understand how it's a rake trap.

ts-

[XChamp]

Figure how many times the average player has to buy into a step 1 to make it to a step 5. Calculate how much rake they generate as a result. Now compare it to how much rake they generate by buying in directly to the last step.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
You pay the rake once, then go up and down the steps as you win/lose?

you only pay 1 rake out of your pocket.

so how is it a rake trap?

[/ QUOTE ]

By that logic I've only ever paid $1 in rake, since I put in $25 "out of pocket" way back when, played a $5+1 and won it, and I've just been moving up and down ever since.

eastbay

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I've been wondering about this too. when you win a buy-in to the next step or a buy-in to repeat the same step that you just played, don't you get the full buy-in (for example, the $50 + the $5 rake)? Or am I wrong, and you only get the $50 and have to pay for the rake out of pocket?

Because if you win the full buy-in including the rake, then I am lost as to why everyone is saying the steps are a rake trap. I understand that the possibility of $11/$22 STTer like me winning my way up to and then cashing in the higher steps level 5 is very low, but I don't understand how it's a rake trap.

ts-

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this "out of pocket" thing you guys are talking about. It's all your money. There's no "pocket" vs. "non-pocket" money.

Would you play SnGs on a site that only let you cash out the winnings from a highest buy-in game? Imagine if Party suddenly said "only the winnings from a $215 may be cashed out." Would you think that was a raw deal? That's the steps in a nutshell.

If you're a $215 player, you might like this deal. Your money is always liquid, and furthermore, the lower limit people who want to cash out are forced to play in your games, bringing young fresh blood into the games.

If you are a lower limit player, this sucks for you. Beyond someone telling you what you can or can't do with money that you've earned, you're forced to play higher than you belong to try to get at your earnings, thereby giving some of them away in the process.

eastbay

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are a lower limit player, this sucks for you. Beyond someone telling you what you can or can't do with money that you've earned, you're forced to play higher than you belong to try to get at your earnings, thereby giving some of them away in the process.

eastbay


[/ QUOTE ]

In all due respect, that makes this a shark trap, not a rake trap.

Scuba

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are a lower limit player, this sucks for you. Beyond someone telling you what you can or can't do with money that you've earned, you're forced to play higher than you belong to try to get at your earnings, thereby giving some of them away in the process.

eastbay


[/ QUOTE ]

In all due respect, that makes this a shark trap, not a rake trap.

Scuba

[/ QUOTE ]

It's both.

To the extent that I have to play more games to try to get my money out than I wanted to, it's a rake trap.

And you can't deny the absurdity of the "I only pay one fee out of pocket" confusion being displayed here.

eastbay

[gumpzilla]

I think what gets people confused is that the rake doesn't come from them directly after their initial entry, but rears its head in the form of a prize pool that is substantially smaller than it should be given more normally sized rake if you have lots of people qualifying from the lower steps. I think people don't realize that they're losing money to the rake in this way because they now need a much better ITM to make up for the ROI deflation.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
In all due respect, that makes this a shark trap, not a rake trap.

Scuba


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It's both.

To the extent that I have to play more games to try to get my money out than I wanted to, it's a rake trap.

And you can't deny the absurdity of the "I only pay one fee out of pocket" confusion being displayed here.

eastbay


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't deny the absurdity point.

What's interesting about STEPs is that, logically, it is likely attractive to the 'tweener.' The 'tweener' being someone who wants to play higher levels with a lower risk of ruin. Furthermore, the payout structure favors this player as the payout is far more than just the top 3 finishers. Whether that payout is cash or rerolls.

I still am not committed to the concept that it is a raketrap. Unless the person getting involved with the STEPs has not fully grasped the expectations involved with being in the STEPs. That it is much more like an MTT with the ability to postpone playtime to your convenience.

Scuba

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
they now need a much better ITM to make up for the ROI deflation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this precisely what the STEPs provide?
Payouts/rerolls expand further than top 3.

My math shows that buying in directly at STEP 5 vs buying in at STEP 4, and improving provides the same "cost" when applying my current statistics at the $55s. If I apply my $33 statistics, they are cheaper.

To me, that just makes the STEPs a lottery ticket ~ a shark trap.

[Voltron87]

This is a common misconception. When you play the first 11/1 step, Party takes 1$ for itself and puts 11 into the prizepool. Say you win a seat to the 50+5. When you enter it, Party ticks off that five dollars and it is 5$ less they have to pay at the end. When people bounce around, party has to pay less and less.

[chaosuk]

You are right it is a shark trap and not a rake-trap. It could only be considered a rake trap in an absolute sense - i.e. you didn't want to play any more 1 tables: but to someone who regularly plays 1 table tournies the steps are no more of a rake trap than the normal STT's - as I hopefully illustrated in my post.

[gumpzilla]

The issue is this, roughly: if you start at level 1 and try to work your way up, it is somewhat improbable that you make it to level 5. When you make it to level 5, it is slightly more probable than a conventional SNG to cash, but the payout structure is even more thinned by this.

Let's look at a simplified version of the Steps, to make this argument a little more clearly. Say you're looking at a 3 step tournament, where at each level the winner earned a buy-in to the next level, and nobody else gets anything. Let's assume 10% rake on each step, and say the first game is $10+1, the second is $90+9 (you keep $1) third is $810+81 (you keep $9) Let's say the third pays out like a normal SNG. Let's further stipulate that you can't buy-in direct at any level but the lowest.

What's your equity in one of these, starting at level 1? You will make it to step 3 one time in 100, basically, and then let's assume a uniform finish distribution once we get there. Given the uniform finish distribution at the top, we expect to make $810. (We need to add .10 to our equity for the extra dollar we get, and .09 for the nine dollars we get. .19 cents, overall). So, what's our expected equity then? .01 * $810 = 8.10 + .19 = 8.31. (EDIT: You'll also notice that your equity is 10.00 - .1*9 - .01*81 = 8.31; that is, your equity is adjusted downward precisely by the amount of extra rake you need to pay.)

Notice that in a normal SNG, your expected equity given a uniform finish distribution is just the buy-in. But in this case, it is below the buyin. Now consider a case where the games are unraked past the initial stage: $10+1, $100+0, $1000+0. Now our final equity is .01*$1000 = $10.00. Just the buy-in, again. The extra rake you pay along the way hurts your equity, though it's not obvious.

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they now need a much better ITM to make up for the ROI deflation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this precisely what the STEPs provide?
Payouts/rerolls expand further than top 3.

My math shows that buying in directly at STEP 5 vs buying in at STEP 4, and improving provides the same "cost" when applying my current statistics at the $55s. If I apply my $33 statistics, they are cheaper.

To me, that just makes the STEPs a lottery ticket ~ a shark trap.

[/ QUOTE ]

My theory of wagers: there is a close correlation between the complexity of calculating the odds, and how much I'm getting screwed.

I understand 50+5. I don't understand steps. I don't play steps.

[Scuba Chuck]

Gump, you put a lot of time into that post.

I respectfully disagree with some of your assumptions. And as I have indicated earlier, I think the STEPs likely are an equal value as compared to just climbing the STT ladder. So, to a winning player, the STEPs are just another vehicle to reach the same objective. To a non-winning STT player, it's a way for their bankroll to last longer.

[gumpzilla]

I think the key difference is that in climbing the SNG ladder, you have the option at each point of getting out. The only real equity you have in the "simple Steps" that I outlined, as well as in the real thing, is getting all the way to the top to get money. When I'm playing multiple SNGs, I pay tons of rake, but lots of new equity comes into the system too, so it balances out.

Which of my assumptions do you disagree with? It's important to note that I'm just talking about how the theoretically average player who can't beat the rake does. This doesn't say that it's impossible to make a profit, just that it's much harder than in a less aggressively raked game.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the key difference is that in climbing the SNG ladder, you have the option at each point of getting out.

[/ QUOTE ]

100%. And it ends here.

Phil VS said it best in the "Make your own STEP." thread.

[ QUOTE ]
The party steps force you to stay the course.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Party STEPs, or the "make your own STEPs" thread both lead to the same outcome. Shark trap.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
You are right it is a shark trap and not a rake-trap. It could only be considered a rake trap in an absolute sense - i.e. you didn't want to play any more 1 tables

[/ QUOTE ]

That's precisely how it is a rake trap. The Party folks said (amongst other things) "We don't like cashouts. How can we prevent them." The answer is the steps.

eastbay

[Voltron87]

My first reaction to the steps would be that they are a good deal for slightly underrolled players who can crush the early levels, and still hang with the 5ers. My instinct tells me if you are good enough you can get good overlay playing starting from the very lowest level. This is assuming you are familiar with the tough game which is played at the highest level. Not necessarily that you can beat it but that you are close to it. The overlay takes care of the rest. I have no idea how to actually test this but who knows. It all depends on a lot of different things. Just my gut: if you are good enough at the bottom it can make up for the rake and strength of the 5er players, making it possibly a good choice for players without a huge roll.

[Scuba Chuck]

Voltron, you essentially just described what I wrote in another post about a "tweener." I agree.

[Apathy]

I haven't read all the responses yet but the bottom line is that the steps are a raketrap unless you can beat every level for a profit, including beating the rake, bottom line.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read all the responses yet but the bottom line is that the steps are a raketrap unless you can beat every level for a profit, including beating the rake, bottom line.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's hillarious. The same is true for a $10+1 player!

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read all the responses yet but the bottom line is that the steps are a raketrap unless you can beat every level for a profit, including beating the rake, bottom line.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's hillarious. The same is true for a $10+1 player!

[/ QUOTE ]

what? maybe you don't understand what I mean ... a 10 buck player can profit there if the can beat that game without having to beat the 200s+, but a step player can not.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
what? maybe you don't understand what I mean ... a 10 buck player can profit there if the can beat that game without having to beat the 200s+, but a step player can not.


[/ QUOTE ]

All games, any game, is only profitable to those who can beat the money game.

Read my posts in this thread. My point is that the STEPs are a shark trap, not a raketrap.

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]

All games, any game, is only profitable to those who can beat the money game.

[/ QUOTE ]

???

[Scuba Chuck]

reread my post, I edited.

[ZeeJustin]

The concept of winning your entry fee back kind of makes things a raketrap. If only 1 or 2 places get their fee back, I guess it's not that big of a deal, but imagine a $9+1 step 1 where 1st-9th gets a $10 step 1 entry, and 10th gets nothing. This game would be less than possible to beat.

[Scuba Chuck]

See this explanation as well. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2331466&page=4&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&vc=1)

I'm heading to bed. No reason to continue this argument anyway. If we disagree, we disagree. I'm tired trying to prove my point.

FWIW, I think that its very easy to think that the STEPs are a raketrap. In fact, I thought that at first. Once I began to study it more, I now find it the same thing as the "create your own step." The difference being is that you can cash out at any time. The only things the STEPs do is force you to stay the course.

[Scuba Chuck]

Zee, we don't hear from you often enough in this forum anymore. It's been very fun for me to follow your poker career from the sidelines these last few months. I appreciate you keeping us up to date on what's happening, and your in game perspectives.

There's been about 6 threads in the last 48 huors on this topic. Of them all, I think this one has been decent at hashing out the dilemma.

IMHO STEPs = Shark trap. Which is fine by me.

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
See this explanation as well. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2331466&page=4&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&vc=1)

I'm heading to bed. No reason to continue this argument anyway. If we disagree, we disagree. I'm tired trying to prove my point.

FWIW, I think that its very easy to think that the STEPs are a raketrap. In fact, I thought that at first. Once I began to study it more, I now find it the same thing as the "create your own step." The difference being is that you can cash out at any time. The only things the STEPs do is force you to stay the course.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the STEPS offered a 50/30/20 payout structure you would of course be right, but we both know that the structure is not anything close to that, it is much much flatter with many places paying out various freerolls and rerolls, that is the difference.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
If the STEPS offered a 50/30/20 payout structure you would of course be right, but we both know that the structure is not anything close to that, it is much much flatter with many places paying out various freerolls and rerolls, that is the difference.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, you are stuck. Open your mind a little. I thought that way at first. I'm not trying to impress upon you that you should consider the STEPs. I think they are likely less profitable for someone like you and maybe even me.

That being said, we will have to agree to disagree tonight.

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL, you are stuck. Open your mind a little. I thought that way at first. I'm not trying to impress upon you that you should consider the STEPs. I think they are likely less profitable for someone like you and maybe even me.

That being said, we will have to agree to disagree tonight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scuba man, I'm not sure what you are implying here but I am well aware how profitable the STEPs are for ME. I can buy in direct and beat the STEP 5s for a profit (regular and minis). My argument has nothing to do with how profitable they are for me, that much is clear, what we are discussing (I thought) was how much worse they are for people who can beat low stakes SNGs but cannot beat high stakes SNGs, causing a rake trap for their constant bouncing around in the mid-levels.

[xPuns1her]

It just is

[chaosuk]

That's a bit mischevious EastBoy' you're not easily budged!. Of course you are right, but you are thinking at a higher level to our debate. I mean well, their loyalty points are a rake trap right? The reload bonus is too? Improvements on software. Anything designed to increase your committment could be regarded as a 'rake trap' since that is what the site is interested in.

The key point tough is that these don't have to conflict with value. We both know that when folk cried 'foul' or 'rake trap' when looking at the part steps they weren't thinking 'beware steps increase your committment to party' they were thinking 'it's a rake trap, they'll rake you to death, there's no value at the low levels'. It was a value issue, and thats pretty much what all we poker players are concerned with and why people objected. Hopefully, that has been disproved (the rake doesn;'t impact on value any more than it normally does) threat to value , but the real issue is how beatable the game is, like any other.

Another angle on your cashout argument could see cashout's be more likely: skimming a little from many and depositing alot to a few could increase the likelihood or make the cash less liquid than if everyone stuck to their own levels. Though it is probably a good thing for them in other ways, after all, bigger players end up playing at smaller levels because of the tokens they get, which party prefer.

Imo it is a shark trap, the issues effecting bad players moving up, would have an impact whether there was rake or not at the higher limits - rake makes it tougher, but it always will. Remember Party don't want mismatches, they want all games to be equally skilled.

There are lots of issues to be considered when engaging these steps. The rake is the 'same trap' in the steps as it is at an equivalent step-level STT: that's the message. Clearly though, low-limit player harbouring ambitions of playing a high-limit STT (or going up through the steps) is better off chasing the steps than playing the STTs, because there alot of other players of the same standard doing the same thing.

regards

chaos

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a bit mischevious EastBoy' you're not easily budged!. Of course you are right, but you are thinking at a higher level to our debate. I mean well, their loyalty points are a rake trap right? The reload bonus is too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep (don't see what's 'mischevious' about it though).

Agree with most of your other thoughts as well.

eastbay

[gumpzilla]

I'm puzzled, Scuba, at why you keep talking about this "shark trap" business. Are you suggesting that the equity for a theoretical average player starting at Step 1 in the Party structure isn't substantially less than $11? As far as I can tell, that piece of information is fact. Or are you just saying that sufficiently skilled players can still profit?

[chaosuk]

Eastbay,
I felt it was a little mischevious because you were changing the sense of what the discussion meant by 'rake trap'. It is certainly a matter of perspective and, for sure, it's all about rake for Party. Anyway, hopefully, the threads have served to alter some views on the steps. I'm a little surprised that there isn't more enthusiasm generated towards the Prima structure. But as we know, rake isn't the only driver.

regards

chaos

ps I've stuck a question on your forum re HU EV.