How much does the increased rake at party effect us?

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

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. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]


[/ 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.