Never played Stars, just how good are FPPs?

[thegowzer]

I'm looking for another site to play at, but refuse to play anywhere without rakeback. Thats why i've never played pokerstars.

I've seen a lot of posts about their FPPs, and it seems as though they can add up to something equivalent of rakeback once you hit supernova? I would play about 50k hands a month of 2-4 NL, how long would it take to achieve this "supernova" status?

And also, can anyone estimate the total "rakeback" given by Pokerstars? What i mean by that is,

Absolute is (including bonuses, rakeback, points) roughly 43%
FTP is 27%
Ultimate bet is roughly 40%
Pokerstars (fpps) = ?

I'm not really looking for a $$$ figure, i'm looking for a percent. If anyone can help, that would be great thanks.

ps - i already created this thread in the rakeback section but they said i'd get a better response here.

[excession]

They used to say 27% equivalent at best.

UB and just about all the euro networks (Tribeca, B2B, etc) are better for bonuses/RB.

I don't play cash games at Stars so I've no idea how soft or otherwise they are.

[nation]

i heard 30+% for nova

[OnlinePro]

Here is a calculation from me. I play 5 10 full ring and 10 20 full ring. over 90% of these hands have been on 5 10 full ring fixed limit since Stars doesnt have the 10 20 full game going that often.

90,289 hands played

93,430 VPP earned ( Ive also played a few tournaments, but not many )

I am platinum so multiply by 2.5 = 225,000 FPP

Total rake I have paid is 8,183.55

225,000 x .016 = roughly 3,100

= 37.8 rakeback % for my particular case and that is at Platinum level.


someone please correct me if my calculations are wrong. I hav been on a bad losing streak so I havent been winning much so my paid rake is pretty low, although my paid rake is always low because I play 12 / 11 very tight aggro style

Hope this helps some people

O we can also add about 500 dollars in tournament rake paid

[BigBluffer]

[ QUOTE ]
Total rake I have paid is 8,183.55

[/ QUOTE ]

I would use the total MGR figure shown on the Game Notes tab. Make sure to set the Rake filter to $0.00. How does that compare to the Total Rake figure on the General Info. tab?

[MicroBob]

Whoever is saying 27% at best is WRONG.

It can be much higher than that depending on what you play.

I don't know how much it would be for 2/4 NL 6-max.

My rough guess would be in the 25-30% range at SN but without the data I really can't say.


You can compare for yourself using your numbers from other sites since that will be fairly close.

At SN you get 3.5 FPP's per hand that is raked $1.
You get 7 FPP's per hand that is raked $2 on 6-max. Or at $3 on full-ring.

FPP's are 1.6 cents each.


I imagine you would get to SN fairly quickly at 2/4 6-max.
You get 1 VPP per hand that is raked $1.
You get 2 VPP's per hand that is raked $2 on 6-max.
Or $3 on full-ring.
You need 100k VPP's for SN.

So I'm thinking at 50k hands a month that maybe it would be 30k-40k raked-hands. So I would think SN in 3 months would be possible.


Consider a hand that is raked $2 on a 6-max table when you are already SN.
You get 7 FPP's * 1.6 cents = 11.2 cents.

Your contribution would be 1/6 of $2 or $0.33.
So getting back about 11 cents would be about 33% rakeback for that hand.


You still only get 11.2 cents for a hand that is raked at $3 on 6-max.

This should be enough to get you started.
Look through your numbers to figure it out.


I also believe that somebody else made more accurate calculations for some of the NL levels.

[BigBluffer]

Let's see if I can get my math right. I've been playing mostly $1/$2 FR LHE. Here are my stats since November 1:

Hands played: 26,709

VPPs: 10,558 (39.5%)

FPPs and value:
at Platinum (2.5): 26,395 * $0.016 = $422.32
at SN (3.5): 36,953 * $0.016 - $591.25

MGR (per Game Notes tab): $959.57

Rakeback equivalent:
at Platinum: 422.32/959.57 = 44.0%
at SN: 591.25/959.57 = 61.6

Corrections or confirmation would be appreciated.

[5thStreetHog]

I still dont understand how any of this is considered RB.Am i correct that you need to gain 100,000 points just to get a $1500 bonus that a site like AP offers every week for nothing?And the idea that i can get ten hats and an ipod for my points, and after doing the math this means im getting 60% RB seems silly as well.Could someone once and for all help me understand why player points that are also given on top of actual RB($) at other sites,somehow can be a substitute for an actual cash RB program?Someone convince me to play at Stars just from the RB angle.I see other reasons that make Stars attractive to play at,but just ignore them for the sake of arguement.

[5thStreetHog]

lol at "RB Equivalent" theory ...Someone change my mind.

[BigBluffer]

Just for kicks I just did the same sort of analysis for my recent play on Absolute. I started earning RB there around the end of November, and was hoping to make them my home site before they changed their bonus terms. Anyway here's a breakdown of my play at Absolute while the old bonus terms were still in effect. This is all at $1/$2 FR LHE.

Hands: 17,716
VIP Points: 6,013 (33.9%)
ARP Points:
Basic: 6,013
Elite (3x): 18,039

Cleared Bonus (old rules): $601.30

MGR per affiliate: $1,189.02

Rakeback (28%): $332.93

Cash equivalent of ARP Points ($0.01 per ARP point):
Basic: $60.13
Elite: $180.39

Total Earnings (Cleared Bonus + RB + Cash equivalent of ARP points):
Basic: $994.36 (83.6% of MGR)
Elite: $1,114.62 (93.7% of MGR)

This does not even include the value of the VIP freerolls.

Right now I've withdrawn my entire balance from Absolute. I am waiting for the next reload bonus, then I will play a thousand or two hands to see how the new bonus clearing rate changes the above calculations.

Top 5 reasons why Stars is better than Absolute despite the above stats:
5. Stars has better game selection
4. Stars has games availabile at my preferred limit 24/7
3. Stars' FR LHE games are 10-handed vs. Absolute's 9-handed. Bigger pots and higher percentage of pots reach the level required for a VPP.
2. I have a higher win rate at Stars than I do at Absolute (simple, though possibly flawed, conclusion: Stars is fishier)

And the #1 reason why Stars is better than Absolute despite the above stats:

1. Lee Jones