Party changed theit raked hand definiton (now participated hands).

[Sifmole]

Bob -- I appreciate the sentiment, but if I had said on Thursday that Party was gonna split into two networks, would you have believed me?

Beware, they have already shown a willingness to make drastic and somewhat underhanded moves without notice. They are going to be experiencing significant pressure from stockholders due to dropping revenues and stock prices. And many options will be examined.

[MadMat]

I've just cleared the party bonus, after reading this thread earlier today

4-tabled $25NL, 1128 hands played to get 700 raked. If anything it's even easier now than ever thanks to the 0.05 rake on $1 pots!

Mat

[BruinEric]

[ QUOTE ]
Bob -- I appreciate the sentiment, but if I had said on Thursday that Party was gonna split into two networks, would you have believed me?

Beware, they have already shown a willingness to make drastic and somewhat underhanded moves without notice. They are going to be experiencing significant pressure from stockholders due to dropping revenues and stock prices. And many options will be examined.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this thread was originally about what has HAPPENED, not conjecture or what "options might be examined."

What HAS happened has been a change in wording. This *MAY* be about a forthcoming change in raked hand tabulation to a contributed-pot definition. Or it instead *MAY* be a clarification so that NLHE rakes of .10 count as "raked hands" but NLHE rakes of .05 do NOT.

As of this moment, according to several on this thread, Party is continuing to tabulate raked hands in the same way as before -- and that method includes crediting a player for hands in which he folds pre-flop without putting money in the pot.

I have made it clear in my prior post that if/when I see actual evidence of a change in how Party is tabulating raked hands, then I will certainly defer to such evidence. At this moment, there is none.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, this thread was originally about what has HAPPENED, not conjecture or what "options might be examined."

What HAS happened has been a change in wording. This *MAY* be about a forthcoming change in raked hand tabulation to a contributed-pot definition. Or it instead *MAY* be a clarification so that NLHE rakes of .10 count as "raked hands" but NLHE rakes of .05 do NOT.

As of this moment, according to several on this thread, Party is continuing to tabulate raked hands in the same way as before -- and that method includes crediting a player for hands in which he folds pre-flop without putting money in the pot.

I have made it clear in my prior post that if/when I see actual evidence of a change in how Party is tabulating raked hands, then I will certainly defer to such evidence. At this moment, there is none.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the original thing that had HAPPENED was supposedly a change in the definition of a raked hand; not a change in the counting of raked hands -- a change in the language. Notice the difference?

Company write text that reads a certain way for a reason -- and often are informed of how to write it by lawyers. Whether they are currently counting as contributed or not is irrelevant, they CAN do so at any point they want.

The more interesting thing is that some people are saying that this text has always read this way -- that means party has always stated that it was contributed hands but computed the count differently.

All I am saying is this -- if the text reads a particular way but things are done a different way, don't be suprised when it changes.

[boondockst]

Maybe it's just to cover for people who are clearing bonuses multitabling the Micro-Limit Beginner tables where a possible 10 people "PARTICIPATING" in a hand still account for <0.01 per person in rake...

[bwana devil]

for what it's worth, i wrote for clarification and this is what i got. i guess i need to learn to ask one question and leave it at that....

to party:
must a player actually put money in the pot in order for the hand to count as a raked hand? if I receive cards, fold my cards and the pot is raked does this count as a raked hand?

from party:
If a player just participates in a hand even if the cards are folded the hand is considered to be a raked hand by contributing 1 cent or more.

[andrew26]

[ QUOTE ]

to party:
must a player actually put money in the pot in order for the hand to count as a raked hand? if I receive cards, fold my cards and the pot is raked does this count as a raked hand?

from party:
If a player just participates in a hand even if the cards are folded the hand is considered to be a raked hand by contributing 1 cent or more.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, well that certainly clears it up.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
that means party has always stated that it was contributed hands but computed the count differently.

[/ QUOTE ]


No.
what it means is that party's definition of 'contributed rake' on a hand has never been what you would think it might be.

'Contributing rake' on a hand means that I just played the hand.
'Contributing directly to the pot' would be different.

Something like that anyway.

I'm not saying that it's beyond Party to decide to change the rules by which players clear a bonus.
I'm saying that you guys are reading 'contributed rake' to ABSOLUTELY mean that the player must bet into the pot on that hand....and it just isn't how Party DEFINES it.


you play a hand and fold pre-flop.
The rake is $2 and there are 10 players.
Party says that your 'contributed rake' on that hand is $0.20.
THIS is oviously how party is defining 'contributed rake'.


If Party wants to change it in the future then that's up to them.
I'm saying that they have done NOTHING to indicate that they are changing it yet (or now).

People are simply misinterpreting what is meant by 'contributed rake' (because Party has a tough time clarifying specifically what they mean....which may have also gone into whatever loop-hole they used to get out of their agreement with the skins now that I think about it).

[Mike O'Malley/PartyPoker.com]

[ QUOTE ]
you play a hand and fold pre-flop.
The rake is $2 and there are 10 players.
Party says that your 'contributed rake' on that hand is $0.20.
THIS is oviously how party is defining 'contributed rake'.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct. The change in text was made to cover the situations where <$.01 was attributed to a player. Other than that, nothing has changed. If you are dealt into a hand, and the rake is $.10 or more (less in obvious situations), it will still count as a raked hand regardless if you fold preflop or not.

Enjoy!

[MicroBob]

Thanks Mike.

You may want to consider RE-changing the wording on the web-site for clarification.

Obviously there are A LOT of people who view the term 'contributed rake' to mean something OTHER than just playing the hand.

I don't blame people for seeing the word 'contributed' and thinking that this must somehow mean that they need to have contributed into the pot themselves for it to count.


This is the 2nd thread we have had on this confusing issue.
And I'm sure other players trying to figure it out are confused as to what constitutes a 'raked-hand' for bonus-clearing purposes because the wording is so vague and there is no carification given.


Thanks for clarifying it here for us.
But please consider clearing it up a bit better on the party web-site too for everyone else.