[David Solomon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again for you WSEX shills and apologists. Rake free means I get all of MY rake back or it is never collected in the first place. It does NOT mean I share in a community pot of collected rake.

Nits and grinders love to share in a community pot so that they can defray the costs of waiting and waiting and waiting for a premium hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker at WPEX is a positive sum game, because of the Aces Never Lose promotion. All tournament fees are returned as part of the rakeback. They run a bunch of tournaments every day with guarantees which are seldom met, so every tournament has an overlay with no entry fee.
...
You also seriously overestimate how much a tight player benefits from the dealt rakeback, compared to just receiving what he has actually paid in rake.

In my case, after 3673 hands of $1/$2, $2/4, and $3/$6 limit holdem, Poker Tracker shows my total rake paid as $168.75. My MGR is $250.29.

Poker Tracker shows my VP$IP = 12.93% and my PFR = 7.30%. I don't think too many people play tighter than that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, David, your stats prove Tuff's point quite forcefully. You have received 148% of your rake back! That is a huge deviation from 'rakefree'. That extra 48% came directly out of the pockets of the loosest players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, those statistics are distorted somewhat by the fact that I actually lost $250 before rakeback during that period. If I had broken even, then I would have paid rake on additional pots of at least $500.

[Edit: This is incorrect. This would only be true if all pots were headsup, which is not far from the truth in the games I play. Obviously, I could contribute $50 to a $300 pot with six-way action and win $250. So the subsequent calculations somewhat overstate the additional rake I would pay.]

Poker Tracker shows the effective rake is over 4% of total action for the games I play. So that would add $20 to the rake I actually paid. If I had won $250 before rakeback, that would add another $20, making my total rake paid about $210 versus MGR = $250. That doesn't sound so impressive.

This example illustrates two points about the current rakeback calculation. First, losing players benefit more from rakeback than winning players. Second, an individual player benefits more during a losing streak than during a winning streak. Those are both desirable.

[ QUOTE ]
If the stats are reversed for a very loose player such that he receives only 52% of the rake he paid back on Monday, then this is obviously a very powerful factor in the earnings for these two extremes.


[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you get the 52% figure? If I am playing with nine fish, let's assume we all pay equal rake. Then the fish get (1 - 0.148)/9 = 95% of their rake back. Of course, I actually pay less rake than they do, so they will get more than 95% of their rake back.


[ QUOTE ]
And, for the loose player, it's unlikely that the Aces Never Lose promotion is enough to overcome the disadvantage of his rake being redistributed, so the site is not likely a positive sum game for him.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such thing as a positive sum game for one player. I think you mean a positive expectation game. The game is positive sum for the group of players who participate in the Aces Never Lose promotion

[ QUOTE ]
If WSEX truly wants to run their poker site for the casual recreational player, then they should switch to a contributed rakeback scheme of some sort.

It will definitely cause looser play and better games:

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yes. If WPEX changes its method of calculating rakeback, large schools of fish will suddenly say to themselves --

"ZOMG!!! WPEX has changed its method of calculating rakeback so we will get back more money than under the old method. We should all go play at WPEX."

This is nonsense. NEWSFLASH! Fish are only dimly aware of the rake in the first place, and most of them don't have a clue about rakeback. If rakeback influenced their decisions about where to play, they would already be playing in large numbers at WPEX, since the existing rakeback scheme is far more generous for them than they can find anywhere else.


[ QUOTE ]
1) Loose players will get more money back on Monday, so they will play more.

2) Pros and semi-pros will have an incentive to loosen up, so the typical game filled with a majority of those types will play looser.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why will the tight players have an incentive to play looser??? Less rakeback = greater burden of rake = incentive to play tighter. You don't think so??? Suppose rakeback were abolished entirely, so everyone paid the full rake. Obviously, the tight players would tighten up even more.

[ QUOTE ]
Looser games = more fun games = player population growth.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct. Fish will come to the games because the games are loose, not because the rakeback calculation method is changed. The current method gives fish far more financial incentive than rakeback at any other poker room.

The solution is not to change the method of rakeback calcuation. The solution is to publicize the existing rakeback scheme in venues where fish will get this information. I think the solution might be for WPEX to change the rakeback to 80% and use the revenue for advertising.


[ QUOTE ]
WSEX GM, I seriously think you should chang the rakeback calculation so that it does not favor the ultra tight grinder so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

You and tuff are greatly exxagerating how much the existing scheme benefits tight players.


[ QUOTE ]
You will not find many proponents of this change on this site, which is dominated by those tight pros and semi-pros that benefit from the current calculation. But the casual sports-bettor who wanders over to the poker game will get a better deal and will find more loose and fun games if you make the change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. Changing the rakeback calculation as you and tuff suggest will not make the games looser or attract new players. What it will do is make the existing player base play even tighter, and some of them might leave because of the reduced financial incentive.

You don't build a poker room by alienating your current player base. You need the base of professional players to get games going. Cardroom management 101. The existing rakeback scheme has generous financial incentives for loose players. The problem is letting them know what they are missing.

[ QUOTE ]
I personally have benefited from the current calculation to the tune of an extra $2,000 rakeback in 2007 over what I paid, which works out to 115% rakeback for me. I play a pretty standard TAG game. But, I'd rather see looser games and a growing player base than pocket that money.

[/ QUOTE ]

That means you have received about $15,000 in rakeback. After rakeback, are you a net winner or loser?


David Solomon