How much does the increased rake at party effect us? - Page 11

Moozh · #**101** 09-02-2005, 01:01 AM

So let me get this striaght. The change is an extra dollar out of every pot $60 or more. I play 3/6 for now so I wanted to get a feel for how much this change would have affected my month.

I took all my hands for August, sorted them in the Game tab of Pokertracker by net and then counted the number of hands that that had pots $60 and over. I ended up with near 300 out of 22,800 hands, which translates to a .22bb/100 loss for 3/6. Not as bad as the higher two limits, but still very significant.

Edit: I didn't check to see how many of those hands were 5-handed or less.

witeknite · #**102** 09-02-2005, 01:09 AM

You have to check for that. It was a pain in the ass counting, but for my 3/6 hands it was (for the big pots) about 77% for 6-man hands.

WiteKnite

MicroBob · #**103** 09-02-2005, 01:12 AM

(haven't played ring-games today so I don't know).

Didn't I read in this thread that they are also taking an extra $0.50 at $50.

Did you factor this in witeknite?
This too is quite significant I would think (especially at 3/6 and maybe at 5/10 where I suspect you can get more pots falling just short of the $60 mark)

witeknite · #**104** 09-02-2005, 01:13 AM

Yes I took this into acount. For my 3/6 play, it acounted for .03Bb/100.

WiteKnite

7ontheline · #**105** 09-02-2005, 01:27 AM

So purely based on rake, is it cheaper to play at Stars now? (Disregarding the quality of the players) And how much?

MicroBob · #**106** 09-02-2005, 01:33 AM

If you are talking in terms of total rake being paid then it would definitely be stars.

If the players are tighter and more passive at Stars then the average pot-size will be lower.
you will be making it past the $60 mark for the max-rake less often.

Of course, this is partly counter-balanced by the possibility of earning rake-back at Party.

Moozh · #**107** 09-02-2005, 01:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes I took this into acount. For my 3/6 play, it acounted for .03Bb/100.

WiteKnite

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds like the number I got when I counted the number of hands where I netted over 60. When I counted the hands where the pot was over 60, it was about 8 times as much.

witeknite · #**108** 09-02-2005, 01:39 AM

You have to go off of pot size. If 4 people contribute 15 each, then you net 45. If 2 people contribute 30 each, you net 30. That .03BB/100 is only on the pots I won that were between $50 and $60.

WiteKnite

chezlaw · #**109** 09-02-2005, 01:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Supply and demand.
The demand will be virtually the same on Party with the rake-increase.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could they keep increasing the rake until only fish are left (except maybe at very high stakes) or do they need winning players like B&M does?

chez

witeknite · #**110** 09-02-2005, 01:44 AM

I did take an extended shot at 5/10 back in spring of about 18k hands. I don't know how good that data is since I played poorly, and ran terribly during that time. For those 5/10 hands I would have lost 0.28BB/100 to the increased rake. Not as bad as my exprapolation, but still worse than 3/6 in terms terms of dollars and BB/100. If my numbers are right, a 4 tabling 5/10 short players just took an $8/hour pay cut.

WiteKnite