How tough is it to clear the TruePoker signup bonus?

[Bytestream]

?

[playersare]

it's the same exact structure as paradise and absolute.

$10 released every 100 raked hands.

[TruePoker CEO]

You clear bonuses the same way, $10 per 100 raked hands, BUT our rake structure is more favorable than theirs.

A raked hand is one in which you are dealt in that is eventually raked; it is not necessary for you to have made any bet for a hand to count as raked, (so long as someone else plays it and it is raked).

We do not rake pots below $12 in $1-2 limit games or below $20 in higher limit games, so you do not get bonus clearing credit for those smaller hands, which we do not rake. Those smaller hand winners do not pay rake of course, so there is a real savings anyway.

.... you can play multiple tables as well.

[playersare]

the truepoker rake structure is certainly different than absolute and paradise...saying that it is "more favorable", however, really depends on what the player's specific goal is concerning the rake itself.

the topic of this particular thread is bonus clearing. since all three sites we are discussing have the same criteria (100 raked hands = $10 bonus), the key then becomes which rake structure allows the maximum percentage of hands which will rake the minimum amount in order to fulfill the requirement.

the best way to calculate the 'percentage' of raked hands at specific limits is to chart the number of BB's needed in the pot to induce the rake, let's compare:

TruePoker $1/2 - $12 pot for $1 rake (6BB)
Absolute $1/2 - $5 pot for 25c rake (2.5BB)
Paradise $1/2 - $5 pot for 25c rake (2.5BB)

so to more accurately answer the original question, "How tough is it to clear the TruePoker signup bonus?" I would say, 'a bit harder than absolute and paradise at low limits'.

raking a full dollar at $12 pots in $1/2 limit yields a maximum 8.3% drop for True Poker...not a great deal either. the schedules at Absolute and Paradise ensure that the house edge never exceeds 5%. the raked hand definition you've indicated in your post is the same definition that virtually every major poker site uses already, no need to emphasize the obvious.

also, mentioning that TruePoker doesn't rake higher limit pots below $20, and that you can multitable, these are not particularly competitive selling points anymore, if they even ever were. the only site that would fear statements like that is Pacific Poker/888, and they essentially fear the existence of anyone with half a brain to begin with.

[TruePoker CEO]

Your post raises a couple of points I welcome discussion on re rake comparisons and deposit bonuses. (A reasoned discussion on this topic is unfortunately rare in my experience, thanks for bringing it up)

Your deposit clearing points are valid. My tieing of "bonus clearing" to rake structure also was intended to point out however that ("no bonus credit" for an unraked $5.00 pot at Truepoker) may be preferable to getting (a Bonus credit while paying rake on that same pot elsewhere). An analysis of overall return from play must consider win rates, plus each rake $.50 saved as well as each bonus dollar earned.

I

"mentioning that TruePoker doesn't rake higher limit pots below $20, and that you can multitable, these are not particularly competitive selling points anymore,"

You may be right about market inelasticity with respect to rake structures (or is that elasticity, I forget ... just call it relative insensitivity).

What I was trying to highlight is that our definition of a raked hand would not include pots other sites routinely rake for up to $.75, while "returning" a deposit bonus based on those pots at around $.10 in value. Our structure allows the winner of "small, i.e unraked, pots" to keep the $.50 (Party at $5.00) or $ .75 or whatever.

You may be right about there being no competitive advantage to advertising or keeping our current structure. As part of our adoption of chips below $1.00 in value (in development currently), we will likely revisit our rake structure to get in line with the "standard" $.25/$5.00 step increases, as well as micro-limits et cetera.

Comments are welcome at management@truepoker.com

II
"raking a full dollar at $12 pots in $1/2 limit yields a maximum 8.3% drop for True Poker...not a great deal either"

I do disagree re your analysis to point out that a fair comparison would have to credit that same player with whatever comparative "nonraked" benefits he/she got at Truepoker on all pots won between $5.00 and $11.75. Those quarters and $.50 rakes lower on the distribution of pot sizes do add up. A Truepoker player does not pay those and we do not collect them. In other words a comparison of 8.3% AT $12 must be adjusted for 0% at $5.00 to $11.75 sized pots.

Truepoker Management

[Bytestream]

Assuming you are a solid player folding most hands, ideally you would like those pots to be raked to earn credit for the hand. Since many pots will not be raked it invariably means that many more hands will be required to clear the bonus. Of those many more hands, you will no doubt contest a few. So the question becomes do you wind up paying more rake clearing a bonus with this structure then you would in a structure like Party's?

Anyway, after TGC changed its bonus structure I've been looking at some other sites to see if they would be worth going for. Still thinking about TruePoker, but decided to go with Hollywood Poker for the time being. A little better bonus stucture but a lot more traffic.

That last point makes me wonder the most. Party has the largest amount of players (by far) and the best bonus offers. It just doesnt seem like the competition is even trying to challenge them or give players a reason to play anywhere else.

[naschburger2]

gaming club now has the easiest bonus to clear by far with party second. I came back to gaming because of the change in rake definition and their new bonus. I started with $30 that sat in the cashier for over 6 months have cleared $200 of the $300 bonus and have $600 in my account. I play omaha 8 so I love that the prima sites have added that game and almost every hand in 50 1 pl omaha 8 is a rake and counts 3 points with 300 needed to release $20 in bonus. I like truepoker and cleared the bonus playing 1 2 and 2 4 omaha 8 but it is definitely harder to clear than party or the other sites mentioned. But once again with omaha 8 a higher % of hands at lower levels are raked.

[lefty rosen]

How come you have to pay two full blinds and why is the pot raked at a dollar at 12 which is the worst rake online at the 12 buck mark? I mean it beats party and that's saying alot....

[Wabby]

I don´t think its fair to focus at just the game with a 12 usd pot. You should take your last 200 hands at a given level and compare the total rake for that. I think True Poker will come out as cheaper than Party and not even close.

I am not associated with them in any way. I don´t even play there. This thread may get me to check it out soon though. I like the fact that their CEO is prepared to discuss these things in the open.

[Wyers]

[ QUOTE ]
I don´t think its fair to focus at just the game with a 12 usd pot. You should take your last 200 hands at a given level and compare the total rake for that. I think True Poker will come out as cheaper than Party and not even close.

I am not associated with them in any way. I don´t even play there. This thread may get me to check it out soon though. I like the fact that their CEO is prepared to discuss these things in the open.

[/ QUOTE ]

I recently set up an account at True Poker and closed up shop about half way through the bonus. The rake at 1/2 (above $12) is huge, regardless of the fact that there is no rake on small pots. In addition you are forced to play 2 big blinds - there is no small blind. It seems miniscule but it does add up - it also somewhat counters the benefits of the small pots not being raked.

I also was not a fan of the software. Of course this is simply a personal preference. At 1600X1200, any action at the far end of the table is virtually indecipherable. It made for an unpleasant gaming experience and may have been the most significant factor in my decision not to continue with the site.