Monster tables

[yad]

[ QUOTE ]
This seems too easy, but if the avg pot goes up by only .50, then we break even? Because avg pot seems to have gone up quite a bit...

[/ QUOTE ]

I really can't understand this attitude. Do you even look at your pokertracker stats?

Just think about it: Out of every 100 hands you win on average about 16 (assuming 6max). So you are paying an extra $8/100 hands. Now if you play 100NL, that is 4 PTBB/100. Do you really think that the increased fishiness is going to turn a 5 PTBB/100 player into a 9 PTBB/100 player, to compensate for the jackpot drop?

And of course, in some overall average sense it is all neutral EV. But you're being forced to play the lottery with the bad beat jackpot, and you're also being forced to enter a "freeroll" to get your money back, spending hours every Saturday to do so. A freeroll, BTW, that all the professional high-stakes tourney players will be participating in, so you get to compete against them to get your fair share of your money back. Sounds fantastic to me.

Basically what is happening is that all of us are subsidizing the tournament players and a few lucky donks who will win the BBJ and then donate their winnings to 2000NL.

[KinkyKid]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This seems too easy, but if the avg pot goes up by only .50, then we break even? Because avg pot seems to have gone up quite a bit...

[/ QUOTE ]

I really can't understand this attitude. Do you even look at your pokertracker stats?

Just think about it: Out of every 100 hands you win on average about 16 (assuming 6max). So you are paying an extra $8/100 hands. Now if you play 100NL, that is 4 PTBB/100. Do you really think that the increased fishiness is going to turn a 5 PTBB/100 player into a 9 PTBB/100 player, to compensate for the jackpot drop?

And of course, in some overall average sense it is all neutral EV. But you're being forced to play the lottery with the bad beat jackpot, and you're also being forced to enter a "freeroll" to get your money back, spending hours every Saturday to do so. A freeroll, BTW, that all the professional high-stakes tourney players will be participating in, so you get to compete against them to get your fair share of your money back. Sounds fantastic to me.

Basically what is happening is that all of us are subsidizing the tournament players and a few lucky donks who will win the BBJ and then donate their winnings to 2000NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do look at my pokertracker stats occasionally...and play 200nl. So $8/100 is 2ptbb, I don't think its crazy to have the opinion that the increased fishiness may negate this. Although due to the reason for the increase, I don't need this completely negated as hopefully I get some of it back. I have the time to play the freerolls since I play heavy on Saturday night anyway. Good luck wherever you decide to go play...

[goofyballer]

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.

[antidan444]

Yeah wheater or not you have the time to play the tournaments, and are reasonably competent at tourney play, makes a difference here. I feel I'd have a big edge in them, but there's no way I can free up the time to play them, which screws me.

Then again, if the 50NL tables go untouched by this, I'll probably play 50NL untill I get $4K then make the jump to $200NL.

[Isura]

Since today's software update [censored] party poker is lagging on me again. FU party poker, this is putting me on tilt.

[yad]

Kinkykid,
I agree with you that it's not nearly such a big deal 200NL and above. IMO it hits 100NL the hardest. Fortunately I am mostly at 200 or 400 now, but a short while ago that it would have really stunk for me.

goofy,
Are you seroius that you only won 1020 hands out of 20641 that exceeded $5 at 100NL? That seems extremely low to me. Are you playing FR? At 6max I find it hard to believe that you aren't winning at least 2-3 times that number...are you a serious nit [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]?

[yad]

Isura,
yeah PP seems to be slower then ever. Ridiculous how lousy the software is.

Is anyone having trouble with PA Hud now? For me the stats no longer update during the session.

[epdaws]

[ QUOTE ]
Since today's software update [censored] party poker is lagging on me again. FU party poker, this is putting me on tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, and this sweet little mishap: the PL 100 tables are listed as PL 1000, and while most players were buying in for 100, some were rebuying for 1k. It was mayhem -- but of course I loved covering those idiots.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
From the midstakes thread on the same subject by Mistermuni:

OK so if a tag wins about 16% of the pots at a 6max tables, that means he wins 16 hands per 100 hands. 16 hands times 50cents per hand is 8 dollars lost for every 100 hands.

at 100nl, 8 dollars is 8bb or 4ptbb.
at 200nl, 8 dollars is 4bb or 2ptbb.
at 400nl, 8 dollars is 2bb or 1ptbb.

Does this sound about right? In effect, discounting any money we win from these freerolls/jackpots, our winrates just dropped anywhere from 1 to 4ptbb/100 (maybe a little less than 1ptbb/100 for those playing 600nl+)? If I'm playing 700 hands per hour at 200nl, thats like $56 lost per hour?

In conclusion, a 2ptbb/100 winner at 200nl is now breakeven. Can someone please confirm this, for this is essentially the end of the world for me and many other players.

This rings true to me. NL100 players are going to be the most effected, with NL50 players right behind them as many of their contested pots reach $5, which is the cutoff for the $0.50 Monster rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not .50/player, it's .50 total...so max is .25/player! of which 100% goes back to players!

[epdaws]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From the midstakes thread on the same subject by Mistermuni:

OK so if a tag wins about 16% of the pots at a 6max tables, that means he wins 16 hands per 100 hands. 16 hands times 50cents per hand is 8 dollars lost for every 100 hands.

at 100nl, 8 dollars is 8bb or 4ptbb.
at 200nl, 8 dollars is 4bb or 2ptbb.
at 400nl, 8 dollars is 2bb or 1ptbb.

Does this sound about right? In effect, discounting any money we win from these freerolls/jackpots, our winrates just dropped anywhere from 1 to 4ptbb/100 (maybe a little less than 1ptbb/100 for those playing 600nl+)? If I'm playing 700 hands per hour at 200nl, thats like $56 lost per hour?

In conclusion, a 2ptbb/100 winner at 200nl is now breakeven. Can someone please confirm this, for this is essentially the end of the world for me and many other players.

This rings true to me. NL100 players are going to be the most effected, with NL50 players right behind them as many of their contested pots reach $5, which is the cutoff for the $0.50 Monster rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not .50/player, it's .50 total...so max is .25/player! of which 100% goes back to players!

[/ QUOTE ]

WE GET IT. You work for PP. It's a good gig, I'm sure. Lots of money going around. How are they with benefits and vacation time?