The myth of PS rakeback

[Komodo]

[ QUOTE ]
The freerolls on Stars are one of the major reasons I don't focus my play there. There's so much value in those tourneys that I can't take advantage of because I have a wife and kid and can't spend all day Saturday playing tourneys. Why waste my time earning $3k worth of equity in those tourneys that I have no choice but to forfeit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats one of my problems I have with microbobs analyses.
A freroll with a 50$ value is not exactly the same as 50$ in my pocket unless u already are a MTT player.

[That Foreign Guy]

[ QUOTE ]
No you prove it didn't happen!

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no way of proving a negative. Unicorns might exist, all the evidence suggests it doesn't so if you say "I own a unicorn" I don't think it's unreasonable to put the burden of proof on you.

[NU Star]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No you prove it didn't happen!

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no way of proving a negative. Unicorns might exist, all the evidence suggests it doesn't so if you say "I own a unicorn" I don't think it's unreasonable to put the burden of proof on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

[KSOT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No you prove it didn't happen!

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no way of proving a negative. Unicorns might exist, all the evidence suggests it doesn't so if you say "I own a unicorn" I don't think it's unreasonable to put the burden of proof on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can I be expected to prove it happened with anything other than my word? Our exchange took place about a year ago and I certainly don't have any emails that old sitting in my inbox.

You're the one who is questioning the validity of my post, so I think it's only fair that the burden of proof falls on you, impossible as you might think it is. Furthermore if you are unable to provide any form of proof, then I think at the very least you owe me a public apology for essentially calling me a liar.

[terrellk11]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rek, you never replied to my earlier question. If you are in London, why are FT and Stars your only choices? SO many great bonus/rakeback schemes out there for those of us not in the US. Just curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not, I place more importance on quality of service and software regardless of what you might interpret from some of my posts.

I have played many sites (William Hill was one of my favorites) but have found FTP & Stars far far superior to the rest.

Choice of games and volumes of users are unrivaled. I did hope that WPEX was going to take off with their "no rake" structure and supported them for a while but it was a losing battle unfortunately.

Long answer to a short question.

I love Stars but do get frustrated when legitimate questions are posed and are derided by the PokerStars Appreciation Society (and no MicroBob I am not including you). It seems if you have a beef about "a,b or c" on Stars then people post replies about how good "x,y and z" is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I miss the Crypto network . . . was a goldmine.

[Abbaddabba]

Who cares which offers more?
They're both offer significantly less than other major sites.
Stars has a lot of strengths, but this is not one of them.

You can bitch about trivial differences in value between FTP rb and Stars FPP all you want, but there really isnt a big difference. It's like a wendy's enthusiast reeming out a mcdonalds fanboy in a discussion of fine dining.

[grouchie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

BTW, I saw a few people here post about Stars' superior software. Are you guys on crack or what? Full Tilt's software is lightyears ahead of Stars.

[/ QUOTE ]


some people have some real problems with FT's software.

FT froze on me all the time when I played there.
I would also get the famous yellow-screen of death, the sound would cut out, etc. Lots of problems.

I just don't have those disconnect, blank-screen or vanishing-sound problems at Stars.
I also find it much easier for multi-tabling but that's probably just a personal preference.

[/ QUOTE ]

when I play on Full Tilt, My computer loses it's sound. I have to play an MP3 or something to get it to come back on, but 10 minutes later it will lose its sound again.

I also cannot use a HUD because a HUD and full tilt slows down the computer so bad that my mouse delays, everything lags and I start timing out at tables like mad.

I cannot stand the Full Tilt Software personally. If I could play with a HUD with no slowdowns (like I do on stars) then I'd be happy.

[grouchie]

[ QUOTE ]

I miss the Crypto network . . . was a goldmine.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFMFT

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The freerolls on Stars are one of the major reasons I don't focus my play there. There's so much value in those tourneys that I can't take advantage of because I have a wife and kid and can't spend all day Saturday playing tourneys. Why waste my time earning $3k worth of equity in those tourneys that I have no choice but to forfeit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats one of my problems I have with microbobs analyses.
A freroll with a 50$ value is not exactly the same as 50$ in my pocket unless u already are a MTT player.

[/ QUOTE ]


Then you actually agree with my analysis more than you might be aware.
Many of us Stars SN's have been whining about "those damn freerolls tying up our Saturdays" for quite awhile.

On most of my mentions of the freerolls I have included statements like, "if you are interested in playing them" or something like that.

They can be great value if that is the type of thing that excites you which is what Stars is trying to do with them.

If you don't have time for them or have zero interest in dealing with them then obviously you shouldn't include those in your analysis of the value of your rakeback-equivilent playing there.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I suspect that for almost all players who have access to rakeback and are playing decent volumes (like, 5 or 10 hours a week quoted by MB) it is a marginal decision either way.

If you're not makign those volumes, you're only talking $5 or $10 a week.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is taking it too far josem. Because my example was only trying to prove that it's not an obvious decision for ALL low-mid volume players.
Specifically, limit full-ring players.

On NL full-ring I really don't know but my suspicion is that you could be a relatively mid-volume player and the decision for total RB value wouldn't be quite as close.
Even at gold or platinum level you might be pushng it to make 15% at Stars.

Same goes for limit 6-max. At 1/2 through 5/10 you aren't doing as well at Stars even at the gold level.
The rake is going to be the same but the amount that YOU contributed to that rake is going to be way higher because there are fewer players at the table. Yet you are getting back only the same 1 VPP as you would get on the full-ring tables.
At 3/6 and 5/10 you somewhat make up for that with all the hands that are raked $2 that get 2 VPP's where you would would have only received 1 VPP on a full-ring table.


And at NL 6-max....well, my hunch is that it wouldn't stack up too favorably there either.


I was just trying to demonstrate that the argument that FT is clearly a better RB-value for ALL low-volume players isn't correct because there are SOME stakes where they measure up similarly.

But there are many situations, low-stakes NL players mostly I suspect although I'm not positive, where you can definitely make more than $5 or $10 a week worth of FPP's and only be making in the 10-15% range on Stars at some stakes.