How much does the increased rake at party effect us?

[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? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[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?