How much does the increased rake at party effect us? - Page 6

Bellagibro · #51 09-01-2005, 08:00 PM

I'm getting out of the 6max games and stiffing out the full ring games. F U once again Party. You dirty #%&#@

Jake (The Snake) · #52 09-01-2005, 08:20 PM

A couple questions:

1. It would be really helpful if somebody put some math up here showing the exact differences from now and before and show how we can expect our winrate to change at various limits. .13/100 and .75/100 is a big difference. Shillx's guess seems to be more reasonable to me. I can barely keep my eyes open otherwise I'd do it myself.

2. On that link Party has 4/8 listed as a limit. Am I missing something?

baronzeus · #53 09-01-2005, 08:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
A couple questions:

1. It would be really helpful if somebody put some math up here showing the exact differences from now and before and show how we can expect our winrate to change. .13/100 and .75/100 is a big difference. Shillx's guess seems to be more reasonable to me. I can barely keep my eyes open otherwise I'd do it myself.

2. On that link Party has 4/8 listed as a limit. Am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the 4/8 is for 800NL or 1600NL. (though I'm just guessing)

As far as the other thing, I'd find out but I dont have big enough of a database, although I would like to know. If I feel like my winrate after rake can be better somewhere else I will stop playing party, since party obviously doesnt give a [censored] about 2+2ers.

sxb · #54 09-01-2005, 08:31 PM

0.3BB/100hands

Jake (The Snake) · #55 09-01-2005, 08:41 PM

another thing:

since the change applies only to tables with 6 players or more, would it make sense to just leave a short table whenever it fills up to 6 now? I mean if I can save almost 1bb/100 it would make sense right?

DMBFan23 · #56 09-01-2005, 08:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
another thing:

since the change applies only to tables with 6 players or more, would it make sense to just leave a short table whenever it fills up to 6 now? I mean if I can save almost 1bb/100 it would make sense right?

[/ QUOTE ]

you have to calculate the BB/hour you lose by switching and balancing that against the increased BB/100.

this sucks [censored] balls.

Entity · #57 09-01-2005, 08:45 PM

From randomly taking 20,000 hands observed yesterday and almost the same amount (18k) today, it appears that the difference in rake adds up to .364BB/100. Ick.

Today's stats:

Hands - 20,050
Raked hands - 16,783 (83.7%)
Players - 5.62
Rake - 2.29/hand
Rake per Player per hand - .40747/hand
Rake per 100 - 40.74733
BB/100 in rake - 2.037BB

Yesterday:
Hands - 23,194
Raked hands - 19,397 (83.63%)
Players - 5.71
Rake - 1.91/hand
Rake per player per hand - .3345/hand
Rake per 100 - 33.45
BB/100 in rake: 1.6725

Difference: .364862

This is just from observation. There may be other confounding factors in the "study", but this should be pretty close to accurate. This amounts to a .35BB/100 loss for us 10/20 players before rakeback.

Rob

Shillx · #58 09-01-2005, 08:48 PM

Rob,

Are you playing 5/10 or 10/20? Also how much time do you spend at "full" tables?

Brad

Edit - Yeah sorry I see it is at 10/20. People at 5/10 should be very worried.... [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

partygirluk · #59 09-01-2005, 08:49 PM

I got the figure of .13bb/100 by comparing the rake shown in the "summary" tab of pokertracker before and after the changes. Note this is the average for all 5/10 players, if you play tighter than average this figure would be slightly smaller.

baronzeus · #60 09-01-2005, 08:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Rob,

Are you playing 5/10 or 10/20? Also how much time do you spend at "full" tables?

Brad

Edit - Yeah sorry I see it is at 10/20. People at 5/10 should be very worried.... [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

pots hit 70 (or 60?) less often at 5/10 so i'd be surprised if it's much different