Re: Stars New Rakeback Values for $100NL and $200NL Full Ring
 

since when does stars give rakeback?

Re: Stars New Rakeback Values for $100NL and $200NL Full Ring
 

[ QUOTE ]
since when does stars give rakeback?

[/ QUOTE ]

People just compare star VIP level earn point and trade for cash Vs 27% FTP rb.

Re: Stars New Rakeback Values for $100NL and $200NL Full Ring
 

I dont want to kill this thread with my stupidness, because my brains can not keep up with you intellectual guys. Still i have to ask this, short answer is enough:

Full ring games have much better rakeback than 6-max games (so ive learned), but isnt this compensated because you play more hands in 6-max games (looser)? So in the end it doesnt matter whether you play 6-max or full ring games?

Or is this increased level of 6-max looseness already taken into your calculations in the comparisons with full ring?

Re: Stars New Rakeback Values for $100NL and $200NL Full Ring
 

[ QUOTE ]
I dont want to kill this thread with my stupidness, because my brains can not keep up with you intellectual guys. Still i have to ask this, short answer is enough:

Full ring games have much better rakeback than 6-max games (so ive learned), but isnt this compensated because you play more hands in 6-max games (looser)? So in the end it doesnt matter whether you play 6-max or full ring games?

Or is this increased level of 6-max looseness already taken into your calculations in the comparisons with full ring?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not stupid. This is actually a very good question. When calculating rakeback %, the fact that you play more or less hands is not factored in, because the calculation basically gives you the average amount of FPP worth over the average MGR. The fact that a game may be looser and yield bigger pots is already factored in, given that you have a large enough sample size.

Besides rakeback %, one may want to calculate $/hour generated from rakeback. That would be slightly different (but still very useful) and you could get the result by tweaking the formulas people have used.

Re: Stars New Rakeback Values for $100NL and $200NL Full Ring
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Factoring in the freerolls is just stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. It depends whether one will play there or not. As quite a lot of people do play then they should calculate their EV in these tourneys and add it their rb calculations. If you don't play tournaments then, yes, don't add.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't take a single statement of mine out of context and then bash it. My point is that many people don't play the freerolls because they are -EV to them (in terms of time). Even a mediocre midstakes player can make maybe $100/hour and I'm sure the freerolls (or at least the ones that happen monthly) don't generate nearly that kind of hourly. So barring any utility benefits, only small stakes players can really play them and have them be +EV. Of course, you could factor in variance and how freerolls can't lose you money, but then this discussion may become complicated. Obviously, if you play the freerolls and they're +EV, they should be factored in in some way, but people who are making posts about the rakeback percentage to the general 2+2 community should not factor them in as they don't benefit many of the posters here.

Re: Stars New Rakeback Values for $100NL and $200NL Full Ring
 

[ QUOTE ]
if you play the freerolls and they're +EV, they should be factored in in some way, but ...

[/ QUOTE ]
agree
It's like a "I don't give you free money but I'll give you job and you can make that $10 per hour" (overlay $10 per hour per player is very unusual).

If someone plays it anyway then it's like a get pay for breathing.
But if it's just another job opportunity...

BTW. sometimes I play free turneys. When the games are tough I put one into the corner of my screen and play PUSH-FOLD strategy (very suboptimal but requires no concentration).

Re: Stars New Rakeback Values for $100NL and $200NL Full Ring
 

I don't think I quoted you out of context. The question is whether the VIP freerolls should be included in the overall rb calculations. In my opinion they should because for many pro players it's a substantial addition.

Let's take for example a SN player who is S & G specialist and earns 10,000 VPP a month to maintain his SN status. 10,000 VPP is $2,000 in rake.

Most relevant VIP freerolls are $50K weekly and $100K monthly. From Stars' lobby there were 818 entries in the last $50k tourney and 3,762 in the last $100k tourney. That's $61 EV in $50K and $26 in $100k. Together they add up to $290 monthly ($264 + $26), which is extra 13% in rb.

The time spent on these tourneys doesn't have to be excessive. They can be played very tight in the beginning in addition to any other normal play (stars has no limit on how many tourneys you play in parallel) and pay real attention only if advancing to the FT or close, when EV becomes worth the concentration.

Obviously if you don't play MTTs then this 13% extra should be discounted but for most folks 13% extra in EV with zero risk is not something to ignore.

Re: Stars New Rakeback Values for $100NL and $200NL Full Ring
 

[ QUOTE ]
Full ring games have much better rakeback than 6-max games (so ive learned), but isnt this compensated because you play more hands in 6-max games (looser)?

[/ QUOTE ]
no, the rakeback per table is about the same (see OP's post). But you divide it by 6 instead of 9. That's all.


BTW. I take this as a pour academic debate (math exercise) and I wouldn't imagine someone would change his level because of this issue. There are many other factors that I see as more iportant.

e.g. the 6max players reach easier the higher levels = get more FPPs per one VPP

BTW. I don't know if it's this thread or just the end of a month (and VPP hunting) but I noticed the PS NL50 FR has now bigger pots.
If it's this thread then WELCOME 6max LAGS to the FR tables! I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] love [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] you and your money too! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Stars New Rakeback Values for $100NL and $200NL Full Ring
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I quoted you out of context. The question is whether the VIP freerolls should be included in the overall rb calculations. In my opinion they should because for many pro players it's a substantial addition.

Let's take for example a SN player who is S & G specialist and earns 10,000 VPP a month to maintain his SN status. 10,000 VPP is $2,000 in rake.

Most relevant VIP freerolls are $50K weekly and $100K monthly. From Stars' lobby there were 818 entries in the last $50k tourney and 3,762 in the last $100k tourney. That's $61 EV in $50K and $26 in $100k. Together they add up to $290 monthly ($264 + $26), which is extra 13% in rb.

The time spent on these tourneys doesn't have to be excessive. They can be played very tight in the beginning in addition to any other normal play (stars has no limit on how many tourneys you play in parallel) and pay real attention only if advancing to the FT or close, when EV becomes worth the concentration.

Obviously if you don't play MTTs then this 13% extra should be discounted but for most folks 13% extra in EV with zero risk is not something to ignore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably only micro-small stakes players will find any value in the freerolls since they are essentially low buyin tourneys with relatively small payouts. Sure, it's "free" money if you cash but I pretty much despise playing tourneys so even as a small stakes player I don't think it is worth it. It does take a couple of hours to make the money, or bust out with nothing, and it's a Saturday afternoon (valuable to me). I do play them occasionally, don't get me wrong. Free money! But I hate tournaments just enough to not care if I miss out.

Anyway, that's my take on it. Obviously if I played the freerolls regularly and cashed I would include my actual results in my own personal numbers, which would wildly vary from person to person. But as for 'rakeback', I think just looking at cash game numbers is best since they are pretty much the same for everyone, plus or minus a few percent. Freerolls add extra on top if you play. And if you win one you can be a proud member of the 10 thousand % rakeback club!