How much does the increased rake at party effect us?

[Elken]

The cap at the 6-max tables seem to be 3$ now instead of 2$ (If 6 players are seated) as it used to be. This is something new isn't it? Anybody knows how much this means in BB/100?

[jason_t]

More details please. Is that at all limits? Etc.

[Alobar]

yeah no kidding....wtf? Has everyone decided to raise the rake now?

[kidcolin]

At least I get a raise in my rakeback job

[spamuell]

It certainly seems to be at 10/20. [censored], this is bad.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
At least I get a raise in my rakeback job

[/ QUOTE ]

you do realize that, that raise actually costs you money

so while yes, your affiliate will be sending you a fatter check at the end of the month, you will still make less for the month than you would have before


and not to pick on you, but I think this is a big reason why poker sites can get away with [censored] like this. People have an effed up view of how things work.

[sublime]

i dont understand how they think this is good for long term business. time to flood them with emails?

[spamuell]

It's at 5/10 too, I think it's when the pot is above $70 but I'm not sure yet.

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont understand how they think this is good for long term business. time to flood them with emails?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, they'll probably get away with it. We're all really pissed off, but what are we going to do, stop playing at party?

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i dont understand how they think this is good for long term business. time to flood them with emails?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, they'll probably get away with it. We're all really pissed off, but what are we going to do, stop playing at party?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, there is nothign we can do. just seems like they need a slap in the head. then again, maybe they know more about the future of this industry than we do. we assume they are morons, but a company that large has to have some intelligent people making some input.

[Drontier]

Please everyone lets flood them with emails

[Lost Wages]

Link. (http://www.partypoker.com/games/rake.html)

[ QUOTE ]
We have made some modifications in the rake structure of 6 handed tables, No Limit Tables and Pot Limit Tables. These changes have been done to bring the rake structure in line with the rake structure of other online poker sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
All 6 Max Tables will have the same rake structure as the regular tables

[/ QUOTE ]

Lost Wages

[partygirluk]

I keep a massive party 5/10 mined database (pm me if you wanna buy). It evinces a .13BB/100 increase in rake due to the changes.

[spamuell]

I started a thread in Internet Gambling about it so we can have a proper discussion without clogging up this forum, although I don't know if it's clogging up given that it affects practically everyone.

[Shillx]

Greedy [censored] bastards. I feel bad for you guys as this will take an easy .7 BB/100 or so off of the bottom line at 5/10. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Brad

[B Dids]

[ QUOTE ]
I started a thread in Internet Gambling about it so we can have a discussion with the idiots and trolls that make that forum almost unreadable

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd much rather discuss it here.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I started a thread in Internet Gambling about it so we can have a discussion with the idiots and trolls that make that forum almost unreadable

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd much rather discuss it here.

[/ QUOTE ]

the dids has spoken

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
Link. (http://www.partypoker.com/games/rake.html)

[ QUOTE ]
We have made some modifications in the rake structure of 6 handed tables, No Limit Tables and Pot Limit Tables. These changes have been done to bring the rake structure in line with the rake structure of other online poker sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
All 6 Max Tables will have the same rake structure as the regular tables

[/ QUOTE ]

Lost Wages

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF, is there some secret illuminati for online poker where they all decide to go against the proven workings of economics and [censored] everyone over all at the same time?

or are they just that stupid?

"oooo, site Y just upped their rake big time, we dont want to fall behind, all the players might flock to that site, we better hurry and up ours too!!!"

[B Dids]

I have!

I don't see this being something we can change. It sucks, but in no universe does a change is rake make Party a worse place to play that other sites. It's a captive market, and a vocal minority isn't going to change that.

The obvious solution is that we all need to get like .15BB/100 better.

[spamuell]

Good point. Still, I'll leave the thread there, some useful information might be revealed.

[kidcolin]

yes.. it was a joke. A bad, bad joke.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
It's at 5/10 too, I think it's when the pot is above $70 but I'm not sure yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

3/6 also. This is terrible.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
yes.. it was a joke. A bad, bad joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry, my sarcasm indicator must just be busted.

But lots of people actually think that way, which is why I thought you were serious.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
I have!

I don't see this being something we can change. It sucks, but in no universe does a change is rake make Party a worse place to play that other sites. It's a captive market, and a vocal minority isn't going to change that.

The obvious solution is that we all need to get like .15BB/100 better.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont get as worked up over the short term losses, moreso the fact that the fish are now losing money at a more rapid pace.

[Mr. Graff]

[ QUOTE ]
WTF, is there some secret illuminati for online poker where they all decide to go against the proven workings of economics and [censored] everyone over all at the same time?

or are they just that stupid?

"oooo, site Y just upped their rake big time, we dont want to fall behind, all the players might flock to that site, we better hurry and up ours too!!!"

[/ QUOTE ]
They are not stupid, they are brilliant. They rely on the majority of their users being stupid. And they are right.

Of course they have no problem being unethical about it and not inform their customers that the price of the service has just increased.

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
I keep a massive party 5/10 mined database (pm me if you wanna buy). It evinces a .13BB/100 increase in rake due to the changes.

[/ QUOTE ]

.13BB/100 is .09BB/100 after rakeback. Really not much at all if you're right.

[obsidian]

Are we sure it was $2 before? I am pretty sure the break off point is 5 people.

[joop]

Would anyone be able to tell me how many BB/100 this will take off a 3/6 player?

[sammy_g]

It will be more at 10/20 since more pots will reach $70.

[B Dids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have!

I don't see this being something we can change. It sucks, but in no universe does a change is rake make Party a worse place to play that other sites. It's a captive market, and a vocal minority isn't going to change that.

The obvious solution is that we all need to get like .15BB/100 better.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont get as worked up over the short term losses, moreso the fact that the fish are now losing money at a more rapid pace.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is that other things that were supposed to make the fish lose money faster (more 30/60 tables, tables higher than 30/60) don't seem to have hurt the fish population. I feel like the fish may be plentiful enough where the fact that they lose money faster won't have a meaningful effect on anybody's earn (beyond the effect of the rake increase itself) (and I'm basically guessing here).

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
It will be more at 10/20 since more pots will reach $70.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah way more. And, I was wrong, it's $60 where they take the third dollar and at $50 they take $2.50 now.

[Wynton]

And how does the rake now compare to stars? Anyone know offhand?

[B Dids]

About the same (http://www.pokerstars.com/rake.html)

[Wynton]

So the rake at stars had been higher than party, until now?

[Nigel]

They went and capped the number of 30/60's again last month. Granted 25 > 6, but they obviously must feel that the fish are losing it too fast.

As if the fish that bust at 30/60 won't go play 2/4 to build back up and feed their addiction.

[obsidian]

[ QUOTE ]
So the rake at stars had been higher than party, until now?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what I don't understand. The rake at party has always been $3 for 6-10 players I thought.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I keep a massive party 5/10 mined database (pm me if you wanna buy). It evinces a .13BB/100 increase in rake due to the changes.

[/ QUOTE ]

.13BB/100 is .09BB/100 after rakeback. Really not much at all if you're right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats several hundred dollars a month for a full time player. Thats a car payment.

[baronzeus]

Im willing to make that trade for all the fish . Without party I wouldnt have any money.

[yanicehand]

Rake is like another gambling tax and this is just inflation. Awful, of course, but that's what happens when a pokerroom has a near monopoly on idiots and mongoloids. I second the idea that the most disturbing effect of this is going to be fish breaking slightly sooner.

[tansoku]

[ QUOTE ]
we assume they are morons, but a company that large has to have some intelligent people making some input.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a seriously bad assumption to make.
Experience has taught me that both the Peter principle and the Dilbert principle apply, always, and everywhere.
Even if there were intelligent people providing input it would be dismissed and ignored by management.
If it looks like stupidity, it probably is...

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the rake at stars had been higher than party, until now?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what I don't understand. The rake at party has always been $3 for 6-10 players I thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it wasn't. It was capped at $2 in the 6-max games below 50/100 or whatever.

Even if you had 6 players.

At 5/10, the rake actually worked out to be cheaper on average at Party than at Stars because Stars occasionally reached $3. Now I expect they're about the same.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we assume they are morons, but a company that large has to have some intelligent people making some input.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a seriously bad assumption to make.
Experience has taught me that both the Peter principle and the Dilbert principle apply, always, and everywhere.
Even if there were intelligent people providing input it would be dismissed and ignored by management.
If it looks like stupidity, it probably is...

[/ QUOTE ]

its a bad assumption that there are smart people working for a large corporation? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
Im willing to make that trade for all the fish . Without party I wouldnt have any money.

[/ QUOTE ]

you arent making that trade. In this instance, you get nothing in return. You get less than you had before, and you get nothing back. And if anything you are even losing all those fish that you cherish as a .13BB/100 drop to a winrate from someone who already is a loser, is a pretty signifcant increase

This also kinda bothers me that people say this. Where exactly do you draw the line? If party upped the rake to $5 a pot would you still play there? $10? You keep letting them take little steps, and before you know it, you are paying that much, and then its to late to go back. Its like gas prices, how high will they get before people actually change thier driving habits.

[Shillx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I keep a massive party 5/10 mined database (pm me if you wanna buy). It evinces a .13BB/100 increase in rake due to the changes.

[/ QUOTE ]

.13BB/100 is .09BB/100 after rakeback. Really not much at all if you're right.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't seem to get it.

Let's say that you win 15 pots per 100 and 50% of those hands eclipse the $60 mark. You will be losing an extra $7.50 per 100 hands in rake @ 5/10. That is .75BB/100...far worse then the .13BB/100 that was projected.

The BBJ cost me about .3BB/100 playing 5/10 ring and I only won about 7% of the pots that I played. The jackpot drop was only 50 cents as well.

Brad

[baronzeus]

brad,

I was just using partygirlUK's numbers. Her database said that there would only be a .13BB/100 decrease in profits. Whether or not I "get it" is a different story.

I don't midn paying the extra rake because I don't have a choice. It's a benefit of being a site with millions of fish.

[Danenania]

That doesn't mean you shouldn't mind. It means you are forced to tolerate it.

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't mean you shouldn't mind. It means you are forced to tolerate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. I am kind of upset but I mean I can't do anything about it.

People who think party will change it back are deluded...this is a ton of money for them

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Im willing to make that trade for all the fish . Without party I wouldnt have any money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm bothered by your complacenece.

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im willing to make that trade for all the fish . Without party I wouldnt have any money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm bothered by your complacenece.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm bothered by your delusions.

[FrankTheTank]

so approx how much BB/100 will this take from a 10/20 player?

[Bellagibro]

I'm getting out of the 6max games and stiffing out the full ring games. F U once again Party. You dirty #%&#@

[Jake (The Snake)]

A couple questions:

1. It would be really helpful if somebody put some math up here showing the exact differences from now and before and show how we can expect our winrate to change at various limits. .13/100 and .75/100 is a big difference. Shillx's guess seems to be more reasonable to me. I can barely keep my eyes open otherwise I'd do it myself.

2. On that link Party has 4/8 listed as a limit. Am I missing something?

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
A couple questions:

1. It would be really helpful if somebody put some math up here showing the exact differences from now and before and show how we can expect our winrate to change. .13/100 and .75/100 is a big difference. Shillx's guess seems to be more reasonable to me. I can barely keep my eyes open otherwise I'd do it myself.

2. On that link Party has 4/8 listed as a limit. Am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the 4/8 is for 800NL or 1600NL. (though I'm just guessing)



As far as the other thing, I'd find out but I dont have big enough of a database, although I would like to know. If I feel like my winrate after rake can be better somewhere else I will stop playing party, since party obviously doesnt give a [censored] about 2+2ers.

[sxb]

0.3BB/100hands

[Jake (The Snake)]

another thing:

since the change applies only to tables with 6 players or more, would it make sense to just leave a short table whenever it fills up to 6 now? I mean if I can save almost 1bb/100 it would make sense right?

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
another thing:

since the change applies only to tables with 6 players or more, would it make sense to just leave a short table whenever it fills up to 6 now? I mean if I can save almost 1bb/100 it would make sense right?

[/ QUOTE ]

you have to calculate the BB/hour you lose by switching and balancing that against the increased BB/100.

this sucks [censored] balls.

[Entity]

From randomly taking 20,000 hands observed yesterday and almost the same amount (18k) today, it appears that the difference in rake adds up to .364BB/100. Ick.

Today's stats:

Hands - 20,050
Raked hands - 16,783 (83.7%)
Players - 5.62
Rake - 2.29/hand
Rake per Player per hand - .40747/hand
Rake per 100 - 40.74733
BB/100 in rake - 2.037BB

Yesterday:
Hands - 23,194
Raked hands - 19,397 (83.63%)
Players - 5.71
Rake - 1.91/hand
Rake per player per hand - .3345/hand
Rake per 100 - 33.45
BB/100 in rake: 1.6725

Difference: .364862

This is just from observation. There may be other confounding factors in the "study", but this should be pretty close to accurate. This amounts to a .35BB/100 loss for us 10/20 players before rakeback.

Rob

[Shillx]

Rob,

Are you playing 5/10 or 10/20? Also how much time do you spend at "full" tables?

Brad

Edit - Yeah sorry I see it is at 10/20. People at 5/10 should be very worried.... /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[partygirluk]

I got the figure of .13bb/100 by comparing the rake shown in the "summary" tab of pokertracker before and after the changes. Note this is the average for all 5/10 players, if you play tighter than average this figure would be slightly smaller.

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
Rob,

Are you playing 5/10 or 10/20? Also how much time do you spend at "full" tables?

Brad

Edit - Yeah sorry I see it is at 10/20. People at 5/10 should be very worried.... /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


pots hit 70 (or 60?) less often at 5/10 so i'd be surprised if it's much different

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
Rob,

Are you playing 5/10 or 10/20? Also how much time do you spend at "full" tables?

Brad

[/ QUOTE ]

I play 10/20, but this is from datamining 6-handed tables (hence the high averages). I usually play full tables as well, though I'm not adverse to shorter play if it comes to it. My average rake paid today over today was 2.31 with 5.26 average players, but I don't think my stats are going to be as accurate as overall datamined ones.

Rob

[Shillx]

It is only $60 for the rake jump though it will get hit less. I think that .6 BB/100 is reasonable.

[jason_t]

Would a carefully produced report showing how bad this effect is on the average winning player have any effect on Party?

[Jake (The Snake)]

I don't understand Shill... from the link it looks to me like all limits between 3/6 and 10/20 are raked exactly the same way.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand Shill... from the link it looks to me like all limits between 3/6 and 10/20 are raked exactly the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read it carefully. They explicitly state there was a change in the 6m tables.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
It is only $60 for the rake jump though it will get hit less.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plus the extra $.50 at $50 pots won't be that rare at 5/10.

This sucks. might be time to move back to full tables.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand Shill... from the link it looks to me like all limits between 3/6 and 10/20 are raked exactly the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read it carefully. They explicitly state there was a change in the 6m tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

when i finally meet you i am going to be disappointed you dont look like alizee.

[Jake (The Snake)]

Ok I'll admit I'm confused.

The change, from what I understand at the moment, is that 6m tables now get raked just like any other table. There is one chart now for the rake schedule, and that is all.

According to the chart, all tables regardless of type get raked exactly the same way between 3/6 and 10/20 with the exception of 2-3 handed games. So why would the rake/100 be higher at 3/6 than 10/20?

Edit: I think I figured it out... can anyone summarize what the rake system was before for the various limits?

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand Shill... from the link it looks to me like all limits between 3/6 and 10/20 are raked exactly the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read it carefully. They explicitly state there was a change in the 6m tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

when i finally meet you i am going to be disappointed you dont look like alizee.

[/ QUOTE ]

When are you moving out here?

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok I'll admit I'm confused.

The change, from what I understand at the moment, is that 6m tables now get raked just like any other table. There is one chart now for the rake schedule, and that is all.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rake used to be capped at $2 for 6m tables; now full 6m tables are raked more.

[ QUOTE ]
According to the chart, all tables regardless of type get raked exactly the same way between 3/6 and 10/20 with the exception of 2-3 handed games. So why would the rake/100 be higher at 3/6 than 10/20?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that it is. Intuitively there are two forces at conflict here. $1 is a larger fraction of a BB at 3/6 than at 10/20 but the pots at 3/6 reach $60 (where the rake is capped) less often than at 10/20.

[pfkaok]

Yeah, my mined hands shows $2.34 per hand today (about 10k hands), up from $1.92 from last months average.

Hard to say how accurate this small sample is, but $35 per 100 hands off the table is pretty huge. rakeback will help, but a .2-3BB/100 cut in WR is awful. downswings will last much longer and be much worse.

[Jake (The Snake)]

thanks

you're right, i was just confusing bb/100 with $/100

[ggbman]

Wow this is [censored] ridiculous. I don't even play the 6 max tables anymore, but i am incensed. They should be thinking about a long term way to make more people small losers or breakeven players so the fish pool won't be dry in the next decade. In all reality, there will almost always be people who will donate, but this will obviously have an adverse long term affect on the population of people who do.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that it is. Intuitively there are two forces at conflict here. $1 is a larger fraction of a BB at 3/6 than at 10/20 but the pots at 3/6 reach $60 (where the rake is capped) less often than at 10/20.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah, the increase in rake will probably be hurt worse by this at 10/20, but it will still hurt the smaller games some, and they already had high rake (BB-wise) to begin with.

[FrankTheTank]

does anyone know exactly how much bb/100 is taken by the rake at 10/20 with this .3bb/100 increase? and the pt bb/100 number doesn't already take this into account, correct?

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
does anyone know exactly how much bb/100 is taken by the rake at 10/20 with this .3bb/100 increase? and the pt bb/100 number doesn't already take this into account, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

.3BB/100 is the assumed loss to the player at 10/20, which is why it sucks so much.

PT already takes rake into account, as it just shows how much you win or lose in the session after the rake is taken out.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
does anyone know exactly how much bb/100 is taken by the rake at 10/20 with this .3bb/100 increase? and the pt bb/100 number doesn't already take this into account, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

PT calculates (net profit after rake * 100)/(number of hands played * size of big bet).

[clownshoes]

[ QUOTE ]
You're right. I am kind of upset but I mean I can't do anything about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Youre right, why should anyone care? We certainly have no chance at changing anything, so why waste our time trying? I sure wish party could make all my decisions for me.

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're right. I am kind of upset but I mean I can't do anything about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Youre right, why should anyone care? We certainly have no chance at changing anything, so why waste our time trying? I sure wish party could make all my decisions for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the point you are making, but I don't see what you are suggesting.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand Shill... from the link it looks to me like all limits between 3/6 and 10/20 are raked exactly the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read it carefully. They explicitly state there was a change in the 6m tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

when i finally meet you i am going to be disappointed you dont look like alizee.

[/ QUOTE ]

When are you moving out here?

[/ QUOTE ]

january at latest.

i may also be closer to LA than originally thought. the commerce 40/80 is calling my name /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand Shill... from the link it looks to me like all limits between 3/6 and 10/20 are raked exactly the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read it carefully. They explicitly state there was a change in the 6m tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

when i finally meet you i am going to be disappointed you dont look like alizee.

[/ QUOTE ]

When are you moving out here?

[/ QUOTE ]

january at latest.

i may also be closer to LA than originally thought. the commerce 40/80 is calling my name /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice. We'll have a big welcoming party.

Where are you thinking now?

Long time lurker, first time caller.

It seems like the only solution is for all 2ers to use their worthless non-rakeback original Party accounts to sit out on 4 tables at once while multi-tabling on Empire and Euro as normal. If everyone did it I'm sure we could turn Party into 5-max. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[mannika]

[ QUOTE ]
rakeback will help, but a .2-3BB/100 cut in WR is awful. downswings will last much longer and be much worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't pay rake when you don't win hands!

But seriously, I don't think this will have a huge impact on losing streaks. Losing streaks are caused primarily by variance, not by winrate. Taking 0.3bb/100 off your winrate, while causing losing streaks to last longer (slightly), does not amplify variance (it actually decreases variance slightly) or do anything else to make losing streaks last significantly longer, or be any harsher.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
Long time lurker, first time caller.

It seems like the only solution is for all 2ers to use their worthless non-rakeback original Party accounts to sit out on 4 tables at once while multi-tabling on Empire and Euro as normal. If everyone did it I'm sure we could turn Party into 5-max. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

wow dude that actually might work

[billyjex]

i feel like jumping off a cliff.

well not really but this sucks.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
But seriously, I don't think this will have a huge impact on losing streaks. Losing streaks are caused primarily by variance, not by winrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah variance will be the same, but losing streaks are very dependant on your win rate.

.3 might not have a HUGE effect on a really good players downswings, but on a lot of players it will have a noticable effect. If you're crushing the game for 3 BB/100, then the bad runs at 2.7BB/100 won't be much different, but if you're only a 1- 1.5 BB/100 player, then that extra .3 BB/100 payed to rake will be felt in longer downstreaks, and breakeven streaks. also, once the longer term effects kick in, like the losing players losing even faster, and going broke quicker, then win rates for even the best players will drop.

of course this won't be a drastic thing that hits right away, but over the next several months, a lot of the better players' profits will be going to Party and not to us.

[Buck_65]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like the only solution is for all 2ers to use their worthless non-rakeback original Party accounts to sit out on 4 tables at once while multi-tabling on Empire and Euro as normal. If everyone did it I'm sure we could turn Party into 5-max. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting

[witeknite]

There are two almost insurmountable problems with this. First, if the table is full, you get picked up after I think 28 hands. Two, you would need a buddy system since you can't sit at the same table if two accounts have signed in from the same computer.

WiteKnite

[Rubeskies]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't pay rake when you don't win hands!


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is incorrect.

My understanding is that party calculates the number of hands played divided by the average number of the players at your tables so that everybody pays roughly the same amount of rake per hands played. (I may have some of that equation wrong but the point remains the same.)

[Shoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't pay rake when you don't win hands!


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is incorrect.

My understanding is that party calculates the number of hands played divided by the average number of the players at your tables so that everybody pays roughly the same amount of rake per hands played. (I may have some of that equation wrong but the point remains the same.)

[/ QUOTE ]

No that's correct. However, hands you don't win still count towards your MGR.

[___1___]

[ QUOTE ]
a .2-3BB/100 cut in WR is awful

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me make sure I'm getting this right...

So for someone playing 40k hands (at 10/20) a month and a WR of 2bb/100, they are looking at their bottom line being cut by about ~$2000+ a month!?!?!

Is this right?

___1___

[kidcolin]

yup.

[witeknite]

I did the painstaking job of counting how much the extra rake would have cost me in 46k hands at 3/6 6-max. This is taking into account the pots where there were less than 6 at the table. The final count is 0.14BB/100. Not as bad as initially feared, but it still blows.

WiteKnite

[ArturiusX]

I'm shocked that you guys couldn't see this coming.

Hopefully all the extra cash will be spent on marketing for more fish, and maybe the tables will get juicer. I only hope /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

its a bad assumption that there are smart people working for a large corporation?

[/ QUOTE ]


mostly correct.
it's a better assumption that IF there are smart people working for a large corporation that they are likely not in positions of power.

[witeknite]

I attempted to extrapolate what the difference would be if I won the same number of pots, of the same number of BB's playing 5/10 and 10/20 as I did 3/6. I'm sure a whole bunch of noise was introduced in doing this (ratio between 6man games and <6man games, differences in how the levels play etc.). The outcome was not pretty. 5/10 should a loss of .38BB/100 and 10/20 should a loss of .33BB/100. I'm not sure if I want to move up anymore.

WitEKnite

[witeknite]

And certainly not listened to. Ignorance and arrogance by the powers that be is a dangerous combo.

WiteKnite

[witeknite]

The stars rake is actually better for the lower limits. They don't take another $0.50 at $50 and the pot has to hit $70 for that last dollar. After looking at PT, that does make a difference.

WiteKnite

[bobbyi]

This really pisses me off because I don't even like playing six-handed. It's just too many people at the table. I much perfer 5-max, but play at Party because the advantages of the site outwheigh the 6 vs. 5 issue for me. But it's still really obnoxious that not only do I risk having my shorthanded tables become not-really-shorthanded as more people sit down, but I pay more rake for the priviledge. I could leave whenever the game gets to 6, but it sucks to be constantly swapping tables. Ugh.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

i dont understand how they think this is good for long term business.

[/ QUOTE ]


they're just trying to make more money.
pretty predictable really.

Some of the midwest riverboat casinos in Indiana and Illinois charge a $6 max-rake...yet the players keep on playing.

Supply and demand.
The demand will be virtually the same on Party with the rake-increase.


I'm one that likes playing 3-5 handed anyway but I'm sure it will effect my bottom-line pretty significantly still since I'm not willing to table-hop ALL the time to avoid 6-handed tables.

[Moozh]

So let me get this striaght. The change is an extra dollar out of every pot $60 or more. I play 3/6 for now so I wanted to get a feel for how much this change would have affected my month.

I took all my hands for August, sorted them in the Game tab of Pokertracker by net and then counted the number of hands that that had pots $60 and over. I ended up with near 300 out of 22,800 hands, which translates to a .22bb/100 loss for 3/6. Not as bad as the higher two limits, but still very significant.

Edit: I didn't check to see how many of those hands were 5-handed or less.

[witeknite]

You have to check for that. It was a pain in the ass counting, but for my 3/6 hands it was (for the big pots) about 77% for 6-man hands.

WiteKnite

[MicroBob]

(haven't played ring-games today so I don't know).


Didn't I read in this thread that they are also taking an extra $0.50 at $50.


Did you factor this in witeknite?
This too is quite significant I would think (especially at 3/6 and maybe at 5/10 where I suspect you can get more pots falling just short of the $60 mark)

[witeknite]

Yes I took this into acount. For my 3/6 play, it acounted for .03Bb/100.

WiteKnite

[7ontheline]

So purely based on rake, is it cheaper to play at Stars now? (Disregarding the quality of the players) And how much?

[MicroBob]

If you are talking in terms of total rake being paid then it would definitely be stars.

If the players are tighter and more passive at Stars then the average pot-size will be lower.
you will be making it past the $60 mark for the max-rake less often.

Of course, this is partly counter-balanced by the possibility of earning rake-back at Party.

[Moozh]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes I took this into acount. For my 3/6 play, it acounted for .03Bb/100.

WiteKnite

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds like the number I got when I counted the number of hands where I netted over 60. When I counted the hands where the pot was over 60, it was about 8 times as much.

[witeknite]

You have to go off of pot size. If 4 people contribute 15 each, then you net 45. If 2 people contribute 30 each, you net 30. That .03BB/100 is only on the pots I won that were between $50 and $60.

WiteKnite

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Supply and demand.
The demand will be virtually the same on Party with the rake-increase.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could they keep increasing the rake until only fish are left (except maybe at very high stakes) or do they need winning players like B&M does?

chez

[witeknite]

I did take an extended shot at 5/10 back in spring of about 18k hands. I don't know how good that data is since I played poorly, and ran terribly during that time. For those 5/10 hands I would have lost 0.28BB/100 to the increased rake. Not as bad as my exprapolation, but still worse than 3/6 in terms terms of dollars and BB/100. If my numbers are right, a 4 tabling 5/10 short players just took an $8/hour pay cut.

WiteKnite

[witeknite]

They don't need them as much, if at all, as a B&M does. When you only have a couple of tables at the lower-middle limitsand up, you need regulars to give the fish someone to play. Since PP has dozen of tables at every limit, this isn't as much of a concern. Remember, Party probably doesn't want winning players. They compete with Party on taking money out of circulation. They question is, do they need winners at all?

WiteKnite

[timprov]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, Party probably doesn't want winning players. They compete with Party on taking money out of circulation. They question is, do they need winners at all?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well of course they do. If nobody won, far fewer people would play.

[bottomset]

I think its gonna be play as much 4-5handed as possible, too bad the 3/6 tables tend to fill up and stay full.

5/10 gets hit the worst, then 10/20 then 3/6

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I think its gonna be play as much 4-5handed as possible, too bad the 3/6 tables tend to fill up and stay full.


[/ QUOTE ]

I asked on the internet forum, probably better here.

Will full 6-max tables be more or less profitable than ones with 4/5 players? (extra rake vs good players staying away)

chez

[witeknite]

You're right. Due to this black jack, roulette, slots, baccarat, pai-gow poker, keno, bingo, and state lotteries are all in trouble. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

In all seriousness, most fish convince themselves that they win, or are "about even". PP, and I'm sure the other sites too, are gambling that, as fast as the rake busts the fish, more will start playing. This of couse is flawed since there is no such thing as infinite growth. Ideally they'd bleed 5% or less. I think this is the optimal amount. Isn't the house advantage on most table games somewhere around there?

WiteKnite

WiteKnite

[witeknite]

More, but you will have no control over how long it stays short. Even if the sharks stay away and look for other short tables, any fish that wants to play will join all waiting lists and st down at your table if it pops up.

WiteKnite

[gila]

Ok, I may be totally wrong about some things here b/c, for one, I am blasted tired. BUT, anyway, with this change, wouldn't it be more benificial, if you have a rakeback deal, to now tighten up a little on the tables if there are six players playing?

Is is correct that party considers the rake one pays as an even split between the players dealt in the hand? If this is so, then, the looser players will be paying more rake now
for which the tight players will get a (small) portion if they have rakeback.

For example, the pot gets raked $2.00, then each person is considered as paying approx. 33 cents for which, if you have 25% rakeback your take would be a little over 8 cents. BUT now the pot gets raked $3.00, each person now is considered to be paying aprox. 50 cents, for which, at the 25% rakeback gives the rakebackie 12.5 cents. So, you, the tight player who threw out that hand, "made" and extra 4.5 cents per the rakeback deal and b/c of Party's idiotic greed.

I am sure I am missing some things. And I am not happy about the change. But, will this lessen the blow somewhat? Is playing even tighter a viable strategy to diminish the impact of the rake hike on the bottom line? And will this, contrastingly, doublely escalate the hit the fish take causing them to go broke THAT much faster, i.e, because they are playing loose and "contributing" that mush more to the rake? Am I totally off?

[timprov]

[ QUOTE ]
You're right. Due to this black jack, roulette, slots, baccarat, pai-gow poker, keno, bingo, and state lotteries are all in trouble. /images/graemlins/cool.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Most players in most of those games don't play enough to get to the long run. In some of the more successful ones, such as state lotteries, it's impossible to get to the long run. In practical terms plenty of people do win at those games, even if they're deficient in Sklansky Bucks.

In comparison it's pretty easy to get to the long run in poker.

It's not so much that the fish themselves need to be winning, as that they need to know somebody is winning in order to delude themselves that they might.

[jba]

there are ~70 5/10 tables running right now. if five people were sitting out on two tables a piece right now, there would currently be ten 5max tables.

am I crazy or is this actually a viable idea.

perhaps it's time to start educating the fish

isn't it true that if you are 50% more likely to be playing at a five handed table tomorrow than you were today, the effect of this recent change would be reduced by 50%. this assumes a the same bb/hr at 5 vs 6 I guess

of course they will be wondering WTF is going on as it would probably look very wacky on their stats

[Bellagibro]

Party gets the middle finger big time for this.

[MikeNaked]

I'm getting all Chuck D with it and sitting out on two tables...

[MicroBob]

Yes - I think this is generally correct.

Can WiteKnite do some even goofier calculations here?!?!


Basically...the amount that YOU pay in rake on the pots that YOU won is NOT the same as the amount of rake-back you receive (if you have 30% or something).

Your opponents are generating the rake-back for you.

For an extreme example: I could play 0% of my hands...meaning that I would not be losing ANYTHING on the increased rake at all since I'm never playing...but obviously my rake-back is now increased just from the play of all the other players at the table.

for a slightly more practical example: lets say you are just a super weak-tight 6-max player in the 19/14 range (maybe one can win 1BB/100 playing like this...not sure).
You don't win many pots...but you aren't putting a lot of money trying to win those pots either.
But you are DEFINITELY making more rake-back just sitting back and watching your two 50/20 opponents go at it hand after hand.



The obvious counter-argument to the joking comments of "Well...at least I get more rake-back" would be "You doofus...you're the one paying that rake in the first place."

But the truth of it is...it is NOT direct.
you are not the one paying that rake in the first place.



So...compare these 3 players (all receiving 30% rake-back):
Player A - 2BB/100, 28/23
Player B - 2BB/100, 22/17
Player C - 1BB/100, 19/13


The increased rake probably hurts player A the most.
Player B is making less...but probably not quite as affected as Player A.
Player C might almost actually BENEFIT from the rake-increase incredibly enough (although not positive about this). But he still isn't as profitable as the first two players of course (meaning that whatever benefit he gets isn't going to be enough to make up for the crappy win-rate he gets from such weak-tight play)


I'm just using the general pre-flop numbers for ease of use here.
It might be more relevant for post-flop laggishness (the laggier you are...the more you are paying in rake....the less laggy you are, the more you are letting the others pay the rake FOR YOU so that you are getting a decent chunk back in rake-back).

[Drontier]

We gotta all choose a day together as a community and not play. I'm sure the 2+2 community represents a good portion of players on party.

[Danenania]

[ QUOTE ]
We gotta all choose a day together as a community and not play. I'm sure the 2+2 community represents a good portion of players on party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. Nice try buddy.

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
We gotta all choose a day together as a community and not play. I'm sure the 2+2 community represents a good portion of players on party.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahhahahahahah

< 1%

[Drontier]

maybe only a few % but multiply that by 6 tables each and thats a good portion.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

We gotta all choose a day together as a community and not play.

[/ QUOTE ]


Why?

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We gotta all choose a day together as a community and not play. I'm sure the 2+2 community represents a good portion of players on party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. Nice try buddy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps as a percentage of the player base the 2+2 community is small, but in terms of sheer volume of hands played I'm sure we comprise a large percentage.

[dark_horse]

before i realized that there had been a rake increase today (well, yesterday), i noticed that there were a lot more 3/6 full tables than there normally were last month because of the influx of all the new 3/6 6max players.

also, very very dumb question - why am i reading in this thread that people are thinking about going back to playing full tables? is it because the pots generally get bigger so the increase in rake doesn't matter as much?

[Michael Davis]

As a 5-10 8-tabler, this change is drastic and devastating. I don't really fault Party much for it, however, and I think they're just trying to make as much as they can.

For all the talk about long term health of the games, I think that has more to do with continued publicity and excitement, and not how fast the fish are going broke. I don't think the pond dries up much sooner because Party adds the rake.

That being said, it angers me quite a bit, but only from the standpoint of a frustrated customer who is now going to be taxed more heavily. This change is going to cost me thousands of dollars a month, and from anger I almost feel like trying to boycott Party for a few days, to show them how much they would lose by not having the business of high volume 2p2ers. Even though this could help them in the long run, they are clearly concerned mostly with the shortterm, and believe me, losing all their high volume players would make a big difference in daily earn. Alas, I think it's hopeless to get any sort of organized boycott going.

-Michael

[w_alloy]

[ QUOTE ]
We gotta all choose a day together as a community and not play. I'm sure the 2+2 community represents a good portion of players on party.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a great idea. I would make a lot of money that day. Not that I dont respect the ideology and effort...

[Michael Davis]

"This is a great idea. I would make a lot of money that day. Not that I dont respect the ideology and effort..."

You should work for Party. You have the shortterm thinking down.

-Michael

[Transference]

*** You are boycotting this user ***

[Danenania]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We gotta all choose a day together as a community and not play. I'm sure the 2+2 community represents a good portion of players on party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. Nice try buddy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps as a percentage of the player base the 2+2 community is small, but in terms of sheer volume of hands played I'm sure we comprise a large percentage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand. I just think the idea is kind of silly. A.) Most people would lie and play anyway (in looser games). B.) I'd just be losing another thousand in EV on top of the extra rake hit. If it had any real chance of working it might be worth it, but Party doesn't seem to be too concerned with my financial state /images/graemlins/mad.gif.

[partygirluk]

My .13bb/100 figure was sadly way off.

[stigmata]

Am i correct in saying that this will mean that the 30/20 guys will have to tighten up?

At least one good thing could come from this! You guys really make my life difficult - It will be much easier for me if you have to tighen up some /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
We gotta all choose a day together as a community and not play. I'm sure the 2+2 community represents a good portion of players on party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whilst this will have little/no effect, we have enough users to mass spam the 6 max tables with details of how bad the changes are, telling them to boycott party for another site, email support. We can do this spamming whilst sitting out at a table - which will further decrease party's revenue. Bear in mind that most of us have numerous aliases on the party skins too. IMO if we all act on this, it stands a very good chance of making a difference. It won't take long either, just find a few tables to sit down at, then copy and paste.

[Guy McSucker]

Rob,

Your pre-increase numbers don't look like the ones I was expecting. Can you do something for me? In PokerTracker's Summary tab, look up the average win rate of all players in these two batches of hands. (It's at the bottom of the big list of all players). Average win rate = rake. I think this will give us a better picture of what's going on.

I'd be very grateful and I think the forum would too.

Cheers,

Guy.

[MrBig30]

Are you sure? If it is just a simple average it might be way off. For example if a few players log 40K hands a month with 2.5+BB/100 and many many players do 1K hands and lose 5BB/100 the average is going to be close to -5BB/100.

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you sure? If it is just a simple average it might be way off. For example if a few players log 40K hands a month with 2.5+BB/100 and many many players do 1K hands and lose 5BB/100 the average is going to be close to -5BB/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I am sure.

Think about what happens if you look at a sample of one hand. Some players lose some money, one guy wins some money, and if you add up the amounts lost by the losers and subtract the amount won by the winner, you end up with the rake that was taken in that pot.

So for each individual hand, the average win at the table is the rake taken.

For a sample of 20,000 hands, the same applies, 20,000 times over.

Guy.

[partygirluk]

It is a weighted average.

[MrBig30]

I see. Not just a simple average of every players winrate. Got it.

[EvanJC]

there is no effective difference between not minding something and being forced to tolerate something. just save yourself some stress and forget about this. nobody is really surprised, are they?

[fyodor]

afffect/effect (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/affect.html)

[witeknite]

I hate those words. They are agents of Satan.

WiteKnite

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
there is no effective difference between not minding something and being forced to tolerate something.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're not serious are you?

[Bellagibro]

Party is telling us 6max players to bend over and to like it.

[witeknite]

That's what really gets me in all this. At 6-max, you are paying a larger amount of rake than at a full table. With pots usually 2 or 3 way, you are contributing 1/2 or 1/3 of the rake in that hand. At full ring, you are more likely to see 3 and 4 way pots. Party is saying that they do not want all players to contribute the same amount of rack. They want all tables to pay the same amount of rake. If you are at a table with less people, you are screwed.

WiteKnite

[marand]

[ QUOTE ]
That's what really gets me in all this. At 6-max, you are paying a larger amount of rake than at a full table. With pots usually 2 or 3 way, you are contributing 1/2 or 1/3 of the rake in that hand. At full ring, you are more likely to see 3 and 4 way pots. Party is saying that they do not want all players to contribute the same amount of rack. They want all tables to pay the same amount of rake. If you are at a table with less people, you are screwed.

WiteKnite

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually they want to earn more from the 6-max tables obviously. 10-handed game has about 60 hands/hr while a 6-handed game has about 90 hands/hour. So now they make far more from 6-handed games than from full games. (Yes, the average pot is slightly larger at full ring game, but the difference is not big enough to compensate for the 50% more hands per hour)

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
Am i correct in saying that this will mean that the 30/20 guys will have to tighten up?

At least one good thing could come from this! You guys really make my life difficult - It will be much easier for me if you have to tighen up some /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to let a stupid little thing like a bump in rake tighten me up /images/graemlins/smile.gif. So, I'll make 3.5BB/100 instead of 3.8BB/100. I'll survive. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Does this impact the 20/40 games at all?

[Bellagibro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am i correct in saying that this will mean that the 30/20 guys will have to tighten up?

At least one good thing could come from this! You guys really make my life difficult - It will be much easier for me if you have to tighen up some /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to let a stupid little thing like a bump in rake tighten me up /images/graemlins/smile.gif. So, I'll make 3.5BB/100 instead of 3.8BB/100. I'll survive. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Does this impact the 20/40 games at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the 20/40 fish had to start somewhere so they might have been able to beat the 5-10 and climb up. A higher rake is bad for all of us.

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
Well the 20/40 fish had to start somewhere so they might have been able to beat the 5-10 and climb up. A higher rake is bad for all of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just kidding -- the increased rake sucks, no two ways about it. But I'm NOT going to stop playing 30/20, dammit . . .

[Bellagibro]

Well I'm going to start 8 tabling full games instead of 4-6max games. We'll see how the win rate is compared to short as I do love to play short. F U Party.

[stigmata]

Are you seriously doing 3.8bb/100? My god...... That's just unreal - i think party should impliment a "special" rake just for fuckers like you!

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you seriously doing 3.8bb/100? My god...... That's just unreal - i think party should impliment a "special" rake just for fuckers like you!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall the exact #s but at 10/20 I'm over 3BB/100 over the last 30k hands or so. Don't [censored] with my blinds, bitch.

[Surfbullet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you seriously doing 3.8bb/100? My god...... That's just unreal - i think party should impliment a "special" rake just for fuckers like you!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall the exact #s but at 10/20 I'm over 3BB/100 over the last 30k hands or so. Don't [censored] with my blinds, bitch.

[/ QUOTE ]

*cough* Sample Size *cough*

Surf

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you seriously doing 3.8bb/100? My god...... That's just unreal - i think party should impliment a "special" rake just for fuckers like you!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall the exact #s but at 10/20 I'm over 3BB/100 over the last 30k hands or so. Don't [censored] with my blinds, bitch.

[/ QUOTE ]

*cough* Sample Size *cough*

Surf

[/ QUOTE ]

Ayup. <font color="white"> stinky two tablers... blechhh </font>

Krishan

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't recall the exact #s but at 10/20 I'm over 3BB/100 over the last 30k hands or so. Don't [censored] with my blinds, bitch.

[/ QUOTE ]

*cough* Sample Size *cough*

Surf

[/ QUOTE ]

Ayup. <font color="red"> stinky two tablers... blechhh </font>

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, I saw that! Jerkwad.

Yeah, could be a sample size glitch, absolutely. Especially given that my SD is so high (like, 20).

Even so, at a win rate of 3.5BB/100 we're talking, purely statistically, of a 95% chance my win rate is over 1.5BB/100, and an 80% chance my win rate is over 2.5BB/100. Admittedly, relative to the experience of others this seems like a high win rate, but I have other, non-statistical reasons for thinking that my win rate should be higher at 10/20 than it was previously (~2BB/100) given some big changes I made to my game.

In other words, you may immediately commence sucking it.

[stigmata]

[ QUOTE ]
given some big changes I made to my game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to eloborate?

[EvanJC]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

there is no effective difference between not minding something and being forced to tolerate something.


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



you're not serious are you?


[/ QUOTE ]

in this case, quite. you can't change this, and it really is no surprise at all. smile and deal with it - it will improve your sanity. sorry about the word mixup, i'm not that bright.

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
given some big changes I made to my game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to eloborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually . . . no /images/graemlins/laugh.gif. Well, I'll give you the more minor change -- I try to go to showdown less. I was actually a little above 40% for awhile.

[Surfbullet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't recall the exact #s but at 10/20 I'm over 3BB/100 over the last 30k hands or so. Don't [censored] with my blinds, bitch.

[/ QUOTE ]

*cough* Sample Size *cough*

Surf

[/ QUOTE ]

Ayup. <font color="red"> stinky two tablers... blechhh </font>

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, I saw that! Jerkwad.

Yeah, could be a sample size glitch, absolutely. Especially given that my SD is so high (like, 20).

Even so, at a win rate of 3.5BB/100 we're talking, purely statistically, of a 95% chance my win rate is over 1.5BB/100, and an 80% chance my win rate is over 2.5BB/100. Admittedly, relative to the experience of others this seems like a high win rate, but I have other, non-statistical reasons for thinking that my win rate should be higher at 10/20 than it was previously (~2BB/100) given some big changes I made to my game.

In other words, you may immediately commence sucking it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just wanted to note that running well tends to make one feel like a brilliant player. Having ran well for about a week and a half, and now running terrible for 2 days, it's amazing how now I feel outclassed while previously I felt like I was playing with my opponent's cards face up.

Surf

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
running well tends to make one feel like a brilliant player.

[/ QUOTE ]


You think??
I've gone from being the most amazing player on the planet to the most clueless and stupid Laggy fish and back and forth over and over again and again so many times it's not even funny.


no matter how many times I tell myself "Well..I'm not THAT freaking good...I'm not going to run at 6BB/100 forever" I can't seem to completely convince myself.

same goes for how many times I say "Well..I know I don't suck THAT bad. I'm not going to run at -3BB/100 and have my AA get clobbered by 92o forever" where I am not ever able to fuly convince myself.


In general...I know that I am a reasonably competent, albeit laggish, winning player.
But the highs and the lows ALWAYS leave that little thought somewhere in the back of my head that my ability IS related to my recent short-term results.

[Bellagibro]

Ok enough already. We will accept your $3 rake Party, then your $4 rake increase, and so on...

[Surfbullet]

yup. I completely left out my point - which is that if I were to run good for 30k hands i'd feel like I was mega-awesome too. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Surf

[Surfbullet]

Update:

Party raises the rake. I immediately go on a 150BB downswing over ~1000 hands.

Coincidence?

I think so.

Surf

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
yup. I completely left out my point - which is that if I were to run good for 30k hands i'd feel like I was mega-awesome too. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Surf

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Don't spoil my buzz, man. You're absolutely right, when I run good I feel like a genius, when I run bad I feel like a LAGgy idiot. And this run, while it's had some skips in it (including one day where I lost twice as much as I ever had previously), has been pretty free of 50BB+ slides. So I feel like a genius. At the moment . . .

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[ QUOTE ]
brad,

I was just using partygirlUK's numbers. Her database said that

[/ QUOTE ]

PartygirlUK is a dude.

[bds]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
given some big changes I made to my game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to eloborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually . . . no /images/graemlins/laugh.gif. Well, I'll give you the more minor change -- I try to go to showdown less. I was actually a little above 40% for awhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to post your stats for this group of hands so the rest of us seeking to emulate your results can try to discern what changes might help us to do so?

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Long time lurker, first time caller.

It seems like the only solution is for all 2ers to use their worthless non-rakeback original Party accounts to sit out on 4 tables at once while multi-tabling on Empire and Euro as normal. If everyone did it I'm sure we could turn Party into 5-max. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

wow dude that actually might work

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd help out with this and I don't even play 6-max.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
There are two almost insurmountable problems with this. First, if the table is full, you get picked up after I think 28 hands. Two, you would need a buddy system since you can't sit at the same table if two accounts have signed in from the same computer.

WiteKnite

[/ QUOTE ]

Now worries... we pick a day and a time, and then everyone just finds a table with no one sitting out, and sits on it, until they're kicked off: repeat.

Obviously, don't boycott a table that you're playing.

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
brad,

I was just using partygirlUK's numbers. Her database said that

[/ QUOTE ]

PartygirlUK is a dude.

[/ QUOTE ]


I found out when he told me /images/graemlins/wink.gif. WEIRD! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[imported_azalin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are two almost insurmountable problems with this. First, if the table is full, you get picked up after I think 28 hands. Two, you would need a buddy system since you can't sit at the same table if two accounts have signed in from the same computer.


WiteKnite

[/ QUOTE ]

Now worries... we pick a day and a time, and then everyone just finds a table with no one sitting out, and sits on it, until they're kicked off: repeat.

Obviously, don't boycott a table that you're playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am in :P Anyone else?

[Poker Cat]

[ QUOTE ]
.13BB/100 is .09BB/100 after rakeback. Really not much at all if you're right.

[/ QUOTE ]

4-tabling, my rake has increased from $76/hr to $95, 25%. That's around $5/hr more in rakeback, but a net loss of $11/hr.

That's $22,000 a year difference.
About what a lifeguard makes.

[cartman]

Hi PokerCat,

Do you know what this translates to in BB/100? In other words, how many hands do you play per hour?

Thanks,
Cartman

[Poker Cat]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are at a table with less people, you are screwed.

WiteKnite

[/ QUOTE ]

&lt;a href="http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/amount.html"
target="_blank"&gt;less/fewer&lt;/a&gt;

Somebody help me with damn html &lt;arrrrrf%$^&amp;#%L:&gt;

[Poker Cat]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know what this translates to in BB/100? In other words, how many hands do you play per hour?

[/ QUOTE ]

I avg 3.65 tables, 350 hph.

The last 42,000 hands I've won 2.83 BB/100.
Now that I think about it, the figure I stated came from the PP rakeback formula, not actual rake. So the change to my rakeback is correctly stated at around $5/hr, but not sure what my actual rake change is. My VPIP is 30.5, slightly below average I'll guess, so it's probably not worse than my $11/hr estimate.

I played some 10/20 6max since 9/1, and to my surprise, the rakeback is only a few $1 higher. This leads my to believe that the _effective_ rake is now only slightly higher for 10/20 than 5/10. Looking at the player stats (several tables with 2 or more 60+), I think maybe it's time to move up.