How much does the increased rake at party effect us? - Page 13

MikeNaked · #**121** 09-02-2005, 03:15 AM

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

MicroBob · #**122** 09-02-2005, 04:05 AM

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 · #**123** 09-02-2005, 04:11 AM

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 · #**124** 09-02-2005, 04:13 AM

[ 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 · #**125** 09-02-2005, 04:14 AM

[ 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 · #**126** 09-02-2005, 04:27 AM

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

MicroBob · #**127** 09-02-2005, 04:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

jason_t · #**128** 09-02-2005, 04:29 AM

[ 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 · #**129** 09-02-2005, 04:40 AM

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 · #**130** 09-02-2005, 04:42 AM

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