Rakeback for break-even players

[pyroponic]

There a recent post about players that don't take money off the tables is closer to the "optimal" player in Party's mind. Well i'm assuming that many of the people multi-tabling with rakeback are marginally winning or break-even players themselves? From my experience, it's not exactly easy to start from the micro-limits and eventually clean up the middle-limit games (i.e. $10/20 - $30/60). So i'm guessing Party is probably making a lot of money off these in between players?

[Dazarath]

If we assume that the distribution of players' BB/100 is a normal distribution centered around -0.8 or -0.9 BB/100, then yes, the number of players between 0-1 BB/100 should be larger than the number with 1+ BB/100. I obviously have no evidence to support this and it was kind of a pointless statement.

One thing though, is that it's difficult to quantify what a player is "worth" to Party in terms of some currency unit. From previous posts, it's obvious that high-volume players over-estimate their value to Party. The thing is, winning players are the ones taking it out of the total pool, where it is out of reach from Party's grasp. Fish on the other hand, just pass around money, and Party slowly gets it through the rake. I don't think it's correct to say, "Oh, I generate 50k MGR/year by Party's calculation, therefore I'm worth 50x what a 1k MGR fish is worth."

Another comment I'd like to make is, I saw someone saying that if the top players left, then the next best group of players would take the fishes' money. I think that's true to some extent. In a true zero-sum game, it's true that if some people are losing, then others are winning. But poker has a rake deducted from the pot. If the best players' edges over the worse players isn't great enough, only Party wins in the long run.

Here's a sort of crappy example that sort of illustrates my point:
Players X and Y are in a hand that will end up with a total pot of $100. If X's edge over Y's is 60%, then he's earning $10 on average per hand. If it's 51%, then he's earning $1 on average per hand. Add in a $3 rake and now in the second situation, both are losing.

Of course, it's difficult to determine how great the edge of the "2nd" best group of players is over the rest of the pool, if the top players were removed. I just think that as you go down levels of play, the edge over the rake is less and less, even if the better players were removed. I have no proof, it's just a guess.

[ QUOTE ]
Well i'm assuming that many of the people multi-tabling with rakeback are marginally winning or break-even players themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

What led you to believe this rather than believe that many of us are 2BB/100 winners that like to have added rakeback?

Outside of that, I'm not sure what your question is? But theoreticall yes, if you get 25% rakeback and earn exactly 0 from regular play, then party is making 75% of your rake and you get to keep 25%.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
So i'm guessing Party is probably making a lot of money off these in between players?

[/ QUOTE ]

Party makes its money off ALL players!

Whether you think tight players win more pots and thus give up more of the pot to the house as rake...Or you think Loose players give more action and contribute more to the pots that get raked... Or high volume players pay more rake by virtue of playing more... doesn't really matter.

Because, ALL players pay the rake!

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
If we assume that the distribution of players' BB/100 is a normal distribution centered around -0.8 or -0.9 BB/100, then yes, the number of players between 0-1 BB/100 should be larger than the number with 1+ BB/100. I obviously have no evidence to support this and it was kind of a pointless statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try normal distribution around -2 to -2.5BB/100.

[ QUOTE ]
One thing though, is that it's difficult to quantify what a player is "worth" to Party in terms of some currency unit.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its not.. try reading their financials...
Party yield per active player day is roughly $17.
Empire yoeld per active player day is roughly $24.

[ QUOTE ]
From previous posts, it's obvious that high-volume players over-estimate their value to Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

High volume players overestimate their value only because there aren't enough of them. Smart high volume players recognize the benefits they are receiving relative to the general poker population.

[pshabi]

He said "many" which is not all. I think it's a pretty safe comment.

But everyone likes mooney, so everyone who's got half a brain gets it back.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well i'm assuming that many of the people multi-tabling with rakeback are marginally winning or break-even players themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

What led you to believe this rather than believe that many of us are 2BB/100 winners that like to have added rakeback?

Outside of that, I'm not sure what your question is? But theoreticall yes, if you get 25% rakeback and earn exactly 0 from regular play, then party is making 75% of your rake and you get to keep 25%.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
But everyone likes mooney, so everyone who's got half a brain gets it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect... the percentage of all players receiving rakeback is very small.

[pyroponic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well i'm assuming that many of the people multi-tabling with rakeback are marginally winning or break-even players themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

What led you to believe this rather than believe that many of us are 2BB/100 winners that like to have added rakeback?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you expect me to believe the majority of 2+2er's are have a winrate of 2 BB/100 or more? I have reason to believe that these type of players are few and far between. I believe there are more people winning at a rate of 0-1.5 BB/100. Why? Anyone beating a smaller level for 2 BB/100 would be able to move up from say $1/2 to $10/20 or higher in a relative short amount of time, which I don't see a lot of people doing.

[wackjob]

I am glad to be a 2+BB/100 winner, but I really count on RB to help with the mad variance of multi tabling 6-max. The only reason I ever played on Party/affiliates was for the rake + nice fishing spots. W/O RB I doubt I would ever play Party again.

[pyroponic]

[ QUOTE ]
I am glad to be a 2+BB/100 winner, but I really count on RB to help with the mad variance of multi tabling 6-max. The only reason I ever played on Party/affiliates was for the rake + nice fishing spots. W/O RB I doubt I would ever play Party again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definately...so without rakeback what/where you play? $20/40 to $30/60 full on Party or some other site? (I'm assuming you are a $10/20 player).