Party Responds - Hilarity Ensues

[MrMon]

After thinking about how to model it, I've come up with the answer to whether or not high rake is good or bad for a player playing tigher than the table. It ain't gonna be pretty...

Net = [(1-T)(Pot)(R) - (RB)[(Pot)(R) - ((T)(Pot)(R))/N]]/N

Where:

Net = Cost per hand to player
T = Tightness as a % of tightness vs. the average player
Pot = Average Size Pot
R = Rake %
RB = Rackback %
N = Number of players

Running some rake numbers through the equation, assuming I got it and the spreadsheet correct, the only time you benefit from a high rake structure is if you play at 95% tightness, or you're contributing 5% of the rake of the average player. This is impossible simply because of the blinds.

Why is this true? Because you are also part of the equation. The less you contribute, the less you'll get in rakeback. Sure, contributing less is somewhat of a benefit, you do wind up letting others pay for your play somewhat, but an overall rake reduction far outweights the benefits of tightness. The lesson seems to be, go for the cheapest place to play.

All subject to revision of course.

[MrMon]

Found an error in the spreadsheet with some interesting results. The tightness in play required to benefit from any given rake structure is directly tied to the rakeback number. (I had determined this earlier, but wound up not posting the message.) Also, the point at which one rake structure becomes more profitable than another it always when it costs you zero to play.

In English: If you get 30% rakeback, you need to be contributing slightly more than 1 - 30% less rake than the average player to benefit from higher rake, at which point you'll be paying a net of zero. So if you get 30% rakeback and can somehow manage to pay ~73% less rake than the average player at your table, you'll benefit from a higher rake structure. Otherwise, always take the lower rake.

Maybe this will help explain it:



Now to add bonus into the formula...

[MicroBob]

my brain is spinning trying to figure out what you are saying.


I'm going to go drinking later tonight and may give this another try after I get drunk.

[MrMon]

The answer is pretty simple even if the math isn't. Lower rake structure is always better. If Party is charging you a fortune in rake so they can run their VIP promos, go elsewhere. (It's probably still worth doing various 7x and 10x reloads, but I've still got to work on that.)

[soah]

After staring at the chart for 3 minutes, I think I've finally figured out that your point is that if your rakeback percentage remains constant, then you will always pay more rake in a higher rake structure than a lower rake structure. However, if you are paying no rake at all, then you will pay the same amount of rake either way.

I really hope I'm missing something.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
After staring at the chart for 3 minutes, I think I've finally figured out that your point is that if your rakeback percentage remains constant, then you will always pay more rake in a higher rake structure than a lower rake structure. However, if you are paying no rake at all, then you will pay the same amount of rake either way.

I really hope I'm missing something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, you've pretty much got it. There is no escaping rake structure. Once you establish rake structure and rakeback (and bonus), no amount of style play will alter what has already been established. <font color="black">It is a fallacy to believe that playing tigher can make up for a bad rake structure. </font> If you play tight, fine, play tight. If you play loose, that's fine too. But do not alter your play structure thinking that it will make up for the rake, it won't.

I believe rake structure has received insufficient attention in our pursuit of rakeback and bonus. They need to be evaluated as a package, not in isolation. Paying high rake just to achieve a high bonus may be a worse deal than just paying low rake.

[MicroBob]

"It is a fallacy to believe that playing tigher can make up for a bad rake structure."



Rake structure can most certainly be considered. You may want to consider playing differently based on the rake-structure.


marginal heads-up battles on AP 6-max (for example) would be less advantageous because they are taking already raking at $10.
Sometimes you have only a very slight advantage with certain blind-stealing or blind-defending hands...and if it gets raked sooner then that can erase the advantage pretty quickly.

Although there is still meta-game stuff to be thrown in there too.


Otherwise, I still am not quite sure I know what you are trying to say or if this somehow relates to what I was saying before.

[Dazarath]

[ QUOTE ]
I an just nitting against those who say, "that site's rake is 10% less....and that's just as good as 10% rake-back" because it isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is true for sites like Party, where they calculate MGR as rake/#players, but at a site where they calculate rake based on the amount contributed to the pot, I don't think it should matter.

What if you had the option to take x% rakeback, or a y% reduction in rake, where both would amount to a z increase in BB/100. In this case, I would take the rake deduction, because it helps the fish lose money slower, and keeps them around longer.

[Q_and_A]

Back to the Party player specific bonus offers.

1. The Party points awarded for the different limits (ie 12 pp for 20 hands @ 3/6, 18 pp for 20 hands @ 10/20) tries to take into account the total Party rake, first, by the total hands raked v. total hands played at each limit and, second, by the average amount of rake per hand raked at the different limits (or no-limit as the case may be).

2. Players that have established a history of high volume play are rewarded with an accelerated point accumulation, Silver/Gold.

3. The result is that the players that generate the highest volume rake (most income to Party) receive the most party points.

After a point is earned, a point is a point as a point. There should be no further need to adjust or vary point quotas for player specific bonuses.

Bonus incentives are desinged to reward players for past play and, most importantly for the site, to offer incentive for increased and CONTINUED play. The Party point accumulation formula as it applies to EVERYONE is designed to do this by merely EARNING the points. There need be no subsequent individual player adjustment after the points are earned like we're seeing in the player specific offers, currently the Acceler-8-tor offer.

Offers should be evenhanded across the board. If a player wants to attain Gold status, play more, he/she will be rewared within 3 months. Plenty of incentive, exactly what the site would like to see. It was incentive enough for me.

The players that have been loyal, played and maintianed high volume at Party, are now feeling betrayed. Their bonus point targets/quotas are being quadrupled or worse. Their corresponding bonus money is proportionately and significantly reduced compared to the low volume/limit/ LOW RAKE player.

This all seems backwards.