Monster tables

[CaptainNurple]

Could someone please clarify for me why this doesn't really affect $50NL and $25NL?

Are they not taking the additional rake at those limits? Or is the average pot size less than $5 often enough for it to be a relatively benign change?

(in other words: I had to drain my bankroll a few months back to cover some expenses and am multi-tabling $25NL right now to build it back up, so will this change have any negative consequences at this limit?)

I don't play on Party but had been planning on switching in the next few weeks until this happened, hence the rather uninformed question...

thanks guys. appreciate the info.

[QuentinCompson]

[ QUOTE ]
Could someone please clarify for me why this doesn't really affect $50NL and $25NL?

Are they not taking the additional rake at those limits? Or is the average pot size less than $5 often enough for it to be a relatively benign change?

(in other words: I had to drain my bankroll a few months back to cover some expenses and am multi-tabling $25NL right now to build it back up, so will this change have any negative consequences at this limit?)

I don't play on Party but had been planning on switching in the next few weeks until this happened, hence the rather uninformed question...

thanks guys. appreciate the info.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are currently no 25NL or 50NL "montser" tables, so the rake is as usual.

[ajmargarine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's going to OK for a bit here at first. The novelty of it all. But, just think how much money party is taking out of the cash game economy. 1/2 the hands (or so) are raked enough at NL100 to get the montser rake. That's $35 an hour leaving the table and going into the promotion. How many of these tables are running? A ton. That's alot of $$$ leaving the pockets of all the NL100 players and going elsewhere. Yeah, it might bring in some fish. But, way too many of the fish are going to go broke over the next 8 months.

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's going to OK for a bit here at first. The novelty of it all. But, just think how much money party is taking out of the cash game economy. 1/2 the hands (or so) are raked enough at NL100 to get the montser rake. That's $35 an hour leaving the table and going into the promotion. How many of these tables are running? A ton. That's alot of $$$ leaving the pockets of all the NL100 players and going elsewhere. Yeah, it might bring in some fish. But, way too many of the fish are going to go broke over the next 8 months.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, 8 months is cool. I was thinking that the games will change by the time I get back from vegas [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[dardo]

[ QUOTE ]
I did the calculations from my current PT stats at 100$

$ won $1,173
raked hands 6108
% of raked hands won 11%
Monster load $325
% change in total won: -28%
PTbb/100 lost directly from monster: 2.0

That's a pretty big Party tool [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Some options:
Pursue the tournaments (with numbingly high variance),
Move up (cut the load in half),
Move down

PS- I tried to start a new post that was based on...data b/c this thread was, with a few exceptions, content free. I didn't realize that was a bad thing. Sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

To make the right calculations you shouldn't relate it to your winrate, but calculate the losses just in general.

ie.

Total played hands:
Total raked hands above 0.25$:
Losses: (above x 0.50$ )
Losses per 100 hands in PTBB:

In other words, how many total hands are you using here?

regards,

dardo

[CaptainNurple]

[ QUOTE ]
There are currently no 25NL or 50NL "montser" tables, so the rake is as usual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any idea if they're planning on implementing monster tables at those levels?

[ajmargarine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are currently no 25NL or 50NL "montser" tables, so the rake is as usual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any idea if they're planning on implementing monster tables at those levels?

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhere I read a response from Party CS that they don't plan on doing it at the moment.

[begbie100]

[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Also, it kinda sucks for europeans because the freerolls starts way too late (for me 1 AM).

[Tera_flop]

yes, I agree. There are irrelevant numbers present. the ptbb/100 lost is calculated correctly though. Also see my previous post (to this one) with another dataset.


.

[Tixmaster]

(deleted spam)