I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

Don't even ask how i did it. Just believe it.

19482 hands 1384.40 rake
NL 100 6 max
Rake per hand= .071060

% $0.40 =33.71% 6567 FPPS
% 2nd fpp for above 2$=7.54% 1468 FPPS
Total FPPS=8035
FPP is worth .0159$ if used on sunday $215 ticket

Rakeback in terms of VIP status
bronzestar=9.24% Busto rakeback
silver=13.84 % Pity rakeback
Goldstar=18.45% "OK" rakeback
PlatinumStar=23% ohhh not bad rakeback
Supernova=32.22% Baller status rakeback

Conclusion:

Though it's a bitch to get to supernova, it pays off. Also you can brag to your friends how you are a vip and they will think you are a good poker player when in actuality you are busto. And they will bask in jealously.


If you want rakeback for nl 400 or higher, go ahead and send me money. K thanks

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

Sample size [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

How did you do it?

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

I concur. Using the 1FPP = 1.59 cents assumption, I calculated a rakeback of 31.8% over a smaller 13000 hand sample.

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

how many hands at NL600 do you need to play to get supernova?

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

Assuming I get the 42" plasma, one full tilt point is worth 0.78 cents to me after I subtract for loss of mgr. That should put full tilt back on top for rb, even disregarding the time spent to reach supernova.

I don't know what plasma TVs cost in other countries, though.

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

Why are you subtracting loss to MGR? Unless you're somehow getting PS rakeback the FPP are worth more than FTP because your stars "rakeback" is rolled into your FPPs, so they should be worth more.

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you subtracting loss to MGR? Unless you're somehow getting PS rakeback the FPP are worth more than FTP because your stars "rakeback" is rolled into your FPPs, so they should be worth more.

[/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
That is why I'm subtracting for loss to mgr.

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]
how many hands at NL600 do you need to play to get supernova?

[/ QUOTE ]
send me 12k and I'll have the answer in 2 weeks.

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

I've been seeing alot of questions on this so I'm bumping this.

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

Barrin, this is wrong, you used rake per hand when it should be MGR per hand (there IS a difference)

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

I'd like to be able to calculate the rakeback equivalent for someone (like me) who just wants cash. No tourney tickets or anything like that. This seems to work out to $.015 per FPP.

I'll be happy to compute for different levels if someone shows me how it's done (and we can agree this is correct.)

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

EliteSupernova Baller status rakeback would be what?

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]
Barrin, this is wrong, you used rake per hand when it should be MGR per hand (there IS a difference)

[/ QUOTE ]
what? explain.

I'll try and found out rb for elite supernova when I have time

holla

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Barrin, this is wrong, you used rake per hand when it should be MGR per hand (there IS a difference)

[/ QUOTE ]
what? explain.

I'll try and found out rb for elite supernova when I have time

holla

[/ QUOTE ]

youre using actual rake while other sites split the rake between all players in the pot, so for most players here your calculations look better than they are when compared to other sites rb

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

oh ok then, I give up

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

I know this post is kinda old, but has anybody figured out how to express pokerstars RB more accurately than how Barrin has already?

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

At 6max, bronzestar is 2FPP for $2 of rake divided among 6 people, at $0.0159 per FPP. That's 9.54% rakeback.
So it goes:
Bronze - 9.54%
Silver - 14.31%
Gold - 19.08%
Plat - 23.85%
Nova - 33.39%
Nova El. - 47.7%

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

Keep in mind though that those numbers can vary depending on a number of factors - items other than the Sunday Million buyin have different $/FPP rates (cash tops out at $0.015/FPP, electronics can vary significantly). Plus, those calculations only hold if you are playing high enough stakes that every hand that sees a flop has at least $40 in pot (ie, at least $10/$20) and I imagine very few bronze or silverstar players play at those levels. Furthermore, at 200NL and lower, the first FPP is awarded at $0.40 rake, so a table with an average pot of ~$12-15 might actually have a slightly higher effective rakeback.

Therefore, unless you actually are playing 10/20NL or higher and are spending your FPPs on buyins to the Sunday Mil, the numbers above won't be *exactly* the rakeback you get, but they should still be within 1-2% of the actual value.

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]
At 6max, bronzestar is 2FPP for $2 of rake divided among 6 people, at $0.0159 per FPP. That's 9.54% rakeback.
So it goes:
Bronze - 9.54%
Silver - 14.31%
Gold - 19.08%
Plat - 23.85%
Nova - 33.39%
Nova El. - 47.7%

[/ QUOTE ]


1 - Why was this bumped?

2 - It appears you just calculated the effective rakeback for any any hand that is EXACTLY raked $2.
Somewhat interesting for anyone who cares.
But to other people it is going to look like that is the rakeback you get for ALL hands played at that level which is not correct.
And doing this definitely doesn't make this thread worth bumping.

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind though that those numbers can vary depending on a number of factors - items other than the Sunday Million buyin have different $/FPP rates (cash tops out at $0.015/FPP, electronics can vary significantly). Plus, those calculations only hold if you are playing high enough stakes that every hand that sees a flop has at least $40 in pot (ie, at least $10/$20) and I imagine very few bronze or silverstar players play at those levels. Furthermore, at 200NL and lower, the first FPP is awarded at $0.40 rake, so a table with an average pot of ~$12-15 might actually have a slightly higher effective rakeback.

Therefore, unless you actually are playing 10/20NL or higher and are spending your FPPs on buyins to the Sunday Mil, the numbers above won't be *exactly* the rakeback you get, but they should still be within 1-2% of the actual value.

[/ QUOTE ]



This entire post has mistakes as best I can tell.

At 10/20 you do not have every hand raked $2. Some will be raked $3 but you still get the same number of points.
You will also have some of your hands played with less than the table-max number of players.

Your point about 200NL appears to be backwards.
An NL hand that is higher than $8 still gets raked in nickel-increments.
So having a pot raked $15 means you are paying a higher MGR but to not get any more RB compared with an $8 pot.
Which means that on such hands you are actually getting a lower rakeback on the larger pots...which is the opposite of what you said.

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

Sorry, for some reason I had the impression that the maximum rake at 6-max was $2 not $3. Oops!

As for the 200NL, I am not wrong. If the average pot were $8 then the majority of them would have less than 40c rake, and therefore not give points, thereby lowering the number of points you get per dollar rake. However, as long as the amount of rake taken in a hand is between 40c and $1, you're making more points per dollar rake than you would at a higher table. Ideally, you want as many hands to fall between 40c and $1 as possible, which they do if the average rake is 70c, corresponding to $14 - which is within the $12-15 range I posted.

As for bumping it, this post was linked to in a more recent one, and I decided to reply without first looking at the date to see how old it was. Sorry.

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

" However, as long as the amount of rake taken in a hand is between 40c and $1"


Okay, this is all kind of weird and doesn't really help a whole lot.
Yes, if the rake is always between 40c and $1 then you will do better than on a table where the take is exactly $2 on every hand.

Unfortunately, this NEVER happens.
On the lower-stakes tables you will also have hands that are raked less than $0.40 in which you get zero VPP's but still had MGR.
And you will have hands that make it over $1 also.

Besides that, the general point that "RB is usually going to be better on .5/1 NL then on 10/20 NL is pretty meaningless to almost anyone.
If you switch from 10/20 to .5/1 because your rakeback is 3 points higher than you might be the stupidest poker player ever.

The only real question for most people is, "What is the RB at the stakes that I play...and what would the RB be if I played at a different site instead?"

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

pokerstars is rigged- but you do get good rakeback..... you do the math

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]
you want as many hands to fall between 40c and $1 as possible, which they do if the average rake is 70c, corresponding to $14 - which is within the $12-15 range I posted.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your range is way too narrow.
You will not earn a VPP on a majority of your hands if the average pot is $14 at NL200.
I'm almost certain about this but you can check your own stats to be sure.

A lot of times you can have plenty of hands on a $14 average table that do NOT fall between the $0.40 - $1 rake you like so much.

Just look at the past hands on such a table.
Oftentimes the total pots won will be:
$2
$2.25
$4.75
$63
$6

You make it sound like a $14 avg-pot table at 1/2 NL is going to earn a VPP on practically every hand.
This just isn't the case.

You will earn about roughly 0.5 to 0.57 VPP's per hand at those stakes just going on the old stars-VPP/hand thread.
And a decent percentage of those hands will be $40 pots where you get double VPP's meaning that you almost certainly are playing more than half of your hands without earning a VPP at all.

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

Alright, I see your points, and can see that FPP/$ at those levels probably isn't better. In any case, the numbers above essentially represent the maximum rakeback, and depending on your stakes you'll probably make slightly less in a full ring, and around 2/3 of that in 6-max.

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

Glad you are seeing some of the mistakes there...but I think you just made another one but can't tell for sure.

Your effective rakeback should actually be a little higher in full-ring.
Every hand that is raked $0.40 at a 9-handed table means you had an MGR of 4.4 cents.
If you are Supernova you are getting back 5.25 cents worth of FPP's which takes you over the 100% mark for those hands.

On a 6-max table, when the rake is $0.40 then you paid 6.67 cents in MGR but you are still only getting back the same 5.25 cents so it's "only" 78% on those hands.


I don't know exactly what you mean by the "2/3 of that in 6-max" comment.
You already say that you make slightly less in full-ring...but then you make only 2/3 of that in 6-max?
Me confused.

Overall, the best way to figure it out is look at how many of the hands you ACTUALLY play earn 1 VPP or 2 VPP's and compare that with the amount of MGR you pay to get those.

Making estimates and assumptions always needs to include some actual numbers of how many VPP's you are REALLY going to get in those games. Something like that anyway.

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

Sorry, I wasn't clear in that last comment I made. That statement was in reference to games where the rake would typically exceed $2 on every hand. In that case, most hands would likely have $3 of rake, which would drop my numbers by about 1/3. However, in a 9-handed game the rake is divided among 9 people instead of 6, increasing the number of FPP/$ back to what I had originally calculated. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

If I'm understanding you correctly...
yes, on a game where the rake is going to typically max-out on pretty much every raked-hand your effective RB% will be better with 9 players instead of 6.

This increased RB percentage along isn't enough to justify playing in those game however. The amount you make from that extra RB shouldn't be enough to make up for a potentially better game at 6-max.

IOW - at those stakes you should just be chasing the better games and not marginal increases in RB.

At other stakes there is some validity to the idea of preferring full-ring over 6-max for better RB% assuming you are really trying to crank out the points.
But that just means that doing so for your FPP accrual is not a terrible idea...doesn't mean that the 6-max players are making any kind of significant RB error or anything like that or are really losing out on THAT much.

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

I'm pretty sure there's entirely too much bad math in this thread, because I calculated this around 1 yr ago for 1/2 NL 6-max in SSNL using another 2+2er's data and Supernova was like 25% rb.

Assuming anyone wants to properly calculate it, do it like this:
- In PT, for a specific game level (MGR per hand will be different between different stakes and 6-max/non-6-max/HU so don't even bother), grab # of hands and MGR over that sample (MGR is in game notes)
- Figure out # of FPPs earned over that sample; you may have to do this manually, I don't play on Stars but if they do, like, 1 FPP for every hand over XX rake then you can filter out hands below XX rake in game notes and calculate how many FPPs you earned that way
- Figure out the $$ per FPP exchange rate (i.e. if you can trade 1000 FPPs for a $500 tournament entry (lol we wish) that's $0.50 per FPP)
- Take (FPPs / # hands) * ($$ per FPPs) / (MGR / # of hands)

Resulting number should be a decimal. Multiply by 100 and that's your rakeback percentage.

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure there's entirely too much bad math in this thread, because I calculated this around 1 yr ago for 1/2 NL 6-max in SSNL using another 2+2er's data and Supernova was like 25% rb.

[/ QUOTE ]


Note that even this wouldn't be entirely accurate either as I assume you are just looking at FPP value.
if you choose to play the freerolls or if you play enough to make it to the 200k or 300k milestones because there is some extra value there.

It also can vary some on 6-max NL depending on playing-style and table-selection.
And I think this can be more exaggerated at NL then limit.
If you limp-along or cold-call a ton instead of always folding/re-raising then I would think that would lead to a lot more points. Although I'm hardly advocating playing a -EV style just to get a few more points.
Just saying that the RB% could bounce around some from player to player based on these things.

although for most TAG-type players from the SSNL forum I suspect the RB% will be pretty consistent.

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

That's also true of rakeback on any other site fwiw - the percentage will stay constant of course, but some players' styles will generate different amounts of MGR than others. I don't think the effect is that big though.

Also, you can include the value of freerolls or milestones or whatever in your FPP/hand numbers. If you expect to make X FPPs this year and you're going to play in 12 freerolls with $Y EV, then your $ per FPP figure increases by 12Y/X. If you expect to hit suchandsuch bonus, it goes up by $bonus/X.

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

Why worry about all this. Just log in good quality hands and the rest will take care of itself. Instead of taking the time to do all this, you could have played and made money. Am I the only one who thinks this way?

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why worry about all this. Just log in good quality hands and the rest will take care of itself. Instead of taking the time to do all this, you could have played and made money. Am I the only one who thinks this way?

[/ QUOTE ]

what if your effective rakeback at stars is 15%? you're burning 12% of rakeback over the course of a year... the reason to do this is to make more money

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why worry about all this. Just log in good quality hands and the rest will take care of itself. Instead of taking the time to do all this, you could have played and made money. Am I the only one who thinks this way?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Could probably say "gee, how much $$ would I have made playing poker instead of doing _____" about most things in my life
2. Obviously properly calculating this can help you figure out if you'll make more money on one site versus another which IS helpful

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

I did my own calculations - for the SNG player.

If I play 400 $10 SNGs and pay $400 in tournament fees, I can get a Women's Cotton/Poly Hooded Sweatshirt - or a copy of Harrington on Hold'em.
True.

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

The Milestones add a good amount for people who get a lot of fpps (obv).

For example, if you earn 300k VPPs in a year (assuming you are nova the whole year, carryover or w/e), thats 1.05 mil FPPs = roughly 17k in fpps.

The 2 milestones you earn give you $3500 in value (accounting for the fpps used to buy them), so thats 20% of what you got in RB. If nova is normally 30ish %, this makes it 36.

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

If I am not wrong, I think PokerStars has lower rake than other sites, so this will obviously compense for lower rakeback, right?

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

yes, Stars also has lower rake at many stakes.

Re: I did the math for you. Pokerstars Rakeback
 

has anyone figured out how much the last Poker Stars price increase reduced the rakeback by on average?