Isn\'t Party rake still better than UB? N/M
 

Yes, look here... Re: Isn\'t Party rake still better than UB? N/M
 

Yes. I took 10,000 "9.5-handed" (average number of players there at 6-10 full tables) histories for $2-4 and same number for $3-6. I did recalculation of all rake taken to learn how new Party scale will affect the numbers. It was also very easy to apply UB's rake scale there. (Note that this assume as if all that hands were played not at Party but at UB with my presense and game selection which is not ideal but usable):
Limit Party-old Party-new UB
2-4 $9,790 $10,784 $13,954
3-6 $13,390 $14,623 $17,168

This is full rake paid by all players combined.

Re: Yes, look here... Re: Isn\'t Party rake still better than UB? N/M
 

Interesting... so Party according to your calculations on average increased rake by 10.15% for $2-4 and 9.20% for $3-6.
...not sure how you applied the new rake schedule too past hh's to accurately get at those numbers.

I think the breakpoints are really important on the new schedule not just total rake numbers.Like for $3-6 that game may have overall been hurt less than $2-4 but it seems to me the 2 new breaks at $30 and $50 hurt $3-6 more than $2-4...your numbers say different.Breakpoints around median true pot sizes(not Party pot averages that include uncalled river/turn bets.. but PokerTracker pot averages)really are going to hit your earn.

What were your average pot sizes?Does PokerTracker allow us to recalculate rake schedule on past hand histories samples..if they do than voila..you are daman..and figured out a great and accurate way for us to assess this new rake policy! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Yes, look here... Re: Isn\'t Party rake still better than UB? N/M
 

Pots and rake values, and other game details were extracted from hand transcripts by small program I wrote. I don't mind to send you spreadsheet I created with all that pots and rakes to review. Send me PM with your e-mail address. (I can't post file here by myself, seems I am not granted to).

Re: Yes, look here... Re: Isn\'t Party rake still better than UB? N/M
 

Up to minute numbers are (I found mistake in my previous calculation)

Limit EmParty "Old" "New" UB/Crypto
$2-4 $9,790 $10,943 $13,327
$3-6 $13,385 $14,417 $16,133

Re: Yes, look here... Re: Isn\'t Party rake still better than UB? N/M
 

rakes up 11.77% in 2-4 LHE 7.70% for 3-6 LHE.

do you play NLHE/PL per chance..run those too if you can please!!!

Re: Isn\'t Party rake still better than UB? N/M
 

5/10 and 10/20 UB is definitely better though, isn't it?

Re: Yes, look here... Re: Isn\'t Party rake still better than UB? N/M
 

I'm not sure what it is on UB, but the Party NL rake didn't change ... it always sucked.

Re: Yes, look here... Re: Isn\'t Party rake still better than UB? N/M
 

Did they always charge $0.05 for each additional $1.00 ???

If thats the way it was before than nothing has changed but I dont remember the breaks being every fuggin one dollar.That has changed I think.I'm not sure.
Now all action is pretty much raked 5% unless you get pots above $60 or played 1-5 handed.
I dont remember it sucking that bad ..but I never checked.

Party NLHE Rake

Re: Yes, look here... Re: Isn\'t Party rake still better than UB? N/M
 

Hrrrr....:) For $3-6 number for UB must be $15,247. There are another steps than for $2-4 in their table (also there are same mistake at $3-6 UB column in spreadsheet).

So for full table with 6-10 players (9.6-9.7 on average) best rake for these limits is at PokerStars
$2-4 - $0.86 per hand
$3-6 - $1.26

ParadisePoker (same as "old" Party's scale)
$2-4 - $0.89 per hand
$3-6 - $1.36

PartyPoker (current scale)
$2-4 - $0.99
$3-6 - $1.46

UltimateBet (or Cryptologic where scale is the same)
$2-4 - $1.21
$3-6 - $1.55

Pay attention that this is projected average numbers of rake per hand for full table games assuming that all 20,000 pots used for this calculation are equal at all 4 sites. However actual pot sizes at some sites (Paradise) are smaller because of tighter games, so average rake per hand will be even smaller.

If to be serious there are no real use for these numbers [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] (Out of comparing Party old-new rake).