Monster tables

[Tera_flop]

I didn't realize that the load only applied to 25 cent + rakes.

There is a rake filter (upper right of Game notes). I recalculated using only 0.25$ rakes and higher.

raked hands 4199
raked hands won 500
Total load $250
% change -21%
PTbb/100 lost with monster 1.5

edit: the other relevant figures are unchanged from my previous post, just a few above.
BTW, I've been running hot at 7 ptbb/100 for this database (8316 hands), so I think the most relevant figure is bb lost.

[carnivalhobo]

just played more MONSTER tables with 40+vpip were everywhere, im convinced its still +ev enough to play at party, but the rest of you can leave.

[goofyballer]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone here is treating this like a rake increase, and that it is going into thepit of oblivion known as Dikshit's bank account that will never see the light of day. There is a decent chance to get this back.

[/ QUOTE ]

I, for one, love my odds of hitting the bad beat jackpot, or slogging through a donkament (which, barring a BBJ miracle or *gasp* accumulating party points through playing NL, which we all know is impossible, can only be qualified for through other donkaments) with 8000 entrants.

Let's be honest, you can count on one hand the number of SSNLers that will get $$ back from this.

I guess my stay at $50 is gonna be a little longer than originally planned for this...I suppose I'll build up a roll worthy of taking a shot at $200. $100 sucks anyway.

[Rockymv]

I played a few thousand hands of 100NL 6max tonight (regular tables), and it didn't seem too much rockier than usual.

Anyone else try the regular tables? What were your observations?

[DWarrior]

haha, I'm seeing a lot of the $100NL regulars at the $50s.

FU party, FU dikshit, FU sexton

[Tixmaster]

I just finished up 100K hands of 50NL by 12 tabling and have now started the 100NL last week and am at 10K hands. this makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. first Eurobet, now Party ups their rake by .50 . this is going to significantly affect my winrate and my income. no more grinding on party and I will only be playing here during peak times and only for about 2-4 hours. daytime hours will be spent playing on other sites where i have good "Unmentionable". I am probably better off just going back to the NL50s and grinding instead of trying to play my new limit with the sick rake. F the "Monster Rake Tables" [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[yad]

It's really interesting what this is going to do with levels at party. If things stay as they are at the moment, 100NL will be unplayable, so you'll have to jump from 50 to 200. I'm hoping that most of the 100NL players move on up to 200 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Certainly this is going to make me work extra hard to make 400nl stick.

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
this is pretty bad for all limits. at 3/6 NL its calculated to be roughly -.4 ptbb/100, which might not seem to be much, but its HUGE.

if you play 30k hands/month a 3/6 NL, you are losing roughly $2400/month.

that translates to about $28,000/year for a 3/6 NL player.

[/ QUOTE ]

The games are soo much better right now though. I doubled up almost every time with AA/KK tonight and I've cut my c-betting to about 1/2 it's usual frequency (when i miss). Man I hope the games stay this way for a while.

[sdfsdf]

[ QUOTE ]
I played a few thousand hands of 100NL 6max tonight (regular tables), and it didn't seem too much rockier than usual.

Anyone else try the regular tables? What were your observations?

[/ QUOTE ]
i played some of the 100NL regular tables too. i thought they were tighter but there wasn't a huge difference. there were a couple of maniacs too

[Tera_flop]

Goofy,

Here are my equivalent figures for a very large 100$ database:

3900 monster raked hands (5$+ pot) that I won.
1950$ monster load (3900 * 0.5$/hand)
62,579 hands total

Monster load in ptbb/100 = 1.6

It is good to see that your number and mine, here and from the previous post's database, are falling in the 1.2-1.6 bb/100 range. This is not such a big deal, if the games are a little better.

Thanks for the very useful post. too bad it took me so long to find it.


[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]