Absolute bonus clearance $20/hr possible?

[Pokerlogist]

Does AP have a loophole in their current bonus system?
AP gives $5 per 20 bonus points. You get 1 bonus point for being in a raked hand with min $.50 rake (5% of pot). If there are 80 hands per hour per table and you play every hand and every pot is of minimum of $10, then you would get 80 points an hour and make $20/hr from bonus alone on one table. Of course, this is unworkable on a normal tables since you would lose too much money with trash cards. But what if all players at the table agreed to small change in the rules? They each must limp in every hand and play normal after the flop. If all players at a 6 max table with a $2 BB agreed, each player would make $20/hour per table in bonus alone. If you can get 4 tables going you get $80 an hour in bonus. Getting poker players to agree on anything is tough but this setup is not totally unknown since it is something like a straddle.
Is this really possible? What am I missing?

[ZOMG_RIGGED!]

AP locking your account for collusion?

[Bobo Fett]

1) You should be able to get in a lot more than 80 hands/hour doing this.

2) You forgot to deduct the rake - 80 x $0.50 = $40/6 = $6.67/hr.

3)
[ QUOTE ]
AP locking your account for collusion?

[/ QUOTE ]
You think Absolute is the only site this sort of scheme would make money at? You think you're the first person to think of this? I imagine all of the players involved would have their accounts locked so fast it would make your head spin.

[Pokerlogist]

I searched through 4 years of posts using keywords bonus, collusion, abuse and found nothing either for or against this idea. No one seems to have proposed this. No site was said to specifically ban it. The AP site doesn't say anything about it. AP could actually benefit from it since they would make much more rake on a "must limp" table.

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
AP could actually benefit from it since they would make much more rake on a "must limp" table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, what???? You proposed getting a whole table of players together to collude/soft play every hand because the bonus would be greater than the rake. How exactly is this good for AP? If all the players break even against each other, then either AP makes money off the rake OR your bonus scheme makes you money. It can't be both. So if your scheme is profitable, it will lose money for AP, and they will have you shut down in a hurry.

I'm not going to go rooting through AP's T&C's, but I'm quite sure they'll have something that covers this (collusion/soft play). If by some strange oversight, they don't, they'd have it in a hurry!

[Pokerlogist]

It is not necessarily collusion or soft play. There are no specific rules against it. Under this strategy, the average bonus clearance would still not necessarily be greater than the average rake so AP would still make money. The traditional bonus clearance methods are not greater than rake either.

[2461Badugi]

Try playing HU instead.

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not necessarily collusion or soft play. There are no specific rules against it. Under this strategy, the average bonus clearance would still not necessarily be greater than the average rake so AP would still make money. The traditional bonus clearance methods are not greater than rake either.

[/ QUOTE ]
Before I started rebutting all of your points, I had a more careful read of your OP, and I found what I missed:

[ QUOTE ]
They each must limp in every hand and play normal after the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mea culpa, I missed the playing normal part. Still, you're getting all of the players to agree to limp every hand...it certainly could be interpreted as collusion/soft play if the poker room wanted to. The question is, would they want to?

AP gives out $1 per 4 points. Your plan would have 6 points given out every hand, which means AP would be giving back $1.50 per hand. I'm assuming anyone with you in such a scheme would also be getting RB. The pots would likely have to be raked over $2 for AP to make more money, or be averaging over $40 per pot. Sounds like a money loser for AP, and probably something they'd be happy to shut down.