Re: Monster tables
I just calculated how this would have affected me at NL $50 with the following method:
I chose my last 13411 hands of NL $50 (random number, just selected all hands at $50 since June 1). I filtered for hands with at least $0.25 in rake (that's how much rake is taken out in a $5 pot) and then sorted the hands by who won. I counted all the hands I won in that list; there were 504, which means that at another $0.50 per hand the extra rake (if it were in place) would cost me $252. $252 over 13411 hands = 252 big bets in 13411 hands = 0.0188 bb/hand = 1.88bb/100.
At NL $100: over 20641 hands, 1020 hands I won would have qualified for the monster jackpot. That's $510 it would have cost me, which works out to 255 big bets over 20641 hands = 0.0123 bb/hand = 1.23bb/100.
4bb/100? Hardly. That's still a decent-sized drop in winrate but it's not as bad as you guys are making it out to be, unless my method was flawed somehow.
|