Party Responds - Hilarity Ensues

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's mine:

Dear Raphael,

Thank you for contacting us.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for sending us your feedback on February's promotion. This will be passed on to the concerned department who will analyze your feedback and take it into consideration for future offers.

This offer has been made to you based on your level of play in the previous months. Go ahead and try your very best in achieving the targets set. Surely you will see that if you do reach the target for the 8 weeks it will all be worth it at the end of the day.

I wish you the best of luck and hope you have a nice day.

Should you require further assistance, our Customer Care Department is available 24/7 to assist you via email.

Thank you for choosing us as your online gaming site!

Alfred
VIP Club
Customer Care

[/ QUOTE ]

This is unbelievable!

I received the same response from Alfred word for word! (except it was at least addressed to me)

I have already told them I felt insulted by their offer due to the sheer inequity of their program from player to player. (That is by their goofed up program it appears they value some players over others for similar results.)

Evidently, they must have received so many complaints on this, the replies are now starting to come out in a form letter.

Ahh, it's great to get VIP treatment....

[KudzuKing]

[ QUOTE ]
Games will still be decent of course, you just can't get rid of all the fish...but they probably will not be quite as fabulous

[/ QUOTE ]

I used to play exclusively at Party 3/6, before the 6max games.

There were dozens of games ave. $40+ per hand.

I just went to Party 10min. ago to check the 3/6 full games.
Here is what I saw:

4 games of 3/6 full.
ave pot: $32, $30, $24, $24.

Ack.

[MrCharlie]

I have a pretty bad one also, worse on a percentage basis, but, not as many hands:

4370 points for $155/week.

[4thstreetpete]

Bob, you shouldn't be so thrilled with your second email response that you got back.
After reading his response to you, it got me more annoyed. It was a form letter and the same guy responded to me with the same email. Just changed the numbers and targets.

Like you I wrote out a thoughtful, respectable email. His response to me shows he did not actually read my email and thus just copy and pasted the email that he gives everyone and did not addressed the concerns that I have put forward.

[4thstreetpete]

[ QUOTE ]
This is unbelievable!

I received the same response from Alfred word for word! (except it was at least addressed to me)

I have already told them I felt insulted by their offer due to the sheer inequity of their program from player to player. (That is by their goofed up program it appears they value some players over others for similar results.)

Evidently, they must have received so many complaints on this, the replies are now starting to come out in a form letter.

Ahh, it's great to get VIP treatment....


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[MrMon]

After thinking about how to model it, I've come up with the answer to whether or not high rake is good or bad for a player playing tigher than the table. It ain't gonna be pretty...

Net = [(1-T)(Pot)(R) - (RB)[(Pot)(R) - ((T)(Pot)(R))/N]]/N

Where:

Net = Cost per hand to player
T = Tightness as a % of tightness vs. the average player
Pot = Average Size Pot
R = Rake %
RB = Rackback %
N = Number of players

Running some rake numbers through the equation, assuming I got it and the spreadsheet correct, the only time you benefit from a high rake structure is if you play at 95% tightness, or you're contributing 5% of the rake of the average player. This is impossible simply because of the blinds.

Why is this true? Because you are also part of the equation. The less you contribute, the less you'll get in rakeback. Sure, contributing less is somewhat of a benefit, you do wind up letting others pay for your play somewhat, but an overall rake reduction far outweights the benefits of tightness. The lesson seems to be, go for the cheapest place to play.

All subject to revision of course.

[MrMon]

Found an error in the spreadsheet with some interesting results. The tightness in play required to benefit from any given rake structure is directly tied to the rakeback number. (I had determined this earlier, but wound up not posting the message.) Also, the point at which one rake structure becomes more profitable than another it always when it costs you zero to play.

In English: If you get 30% rakeback, you need to be contributing slightly more than 1 - 30% less rake than the average player to benefit from higher rake, at which point you'll be paying a net of zero. So if you get 30% rakeback and can somehow manage to pay ~73% less rake than the average player at your table, you'll benefit from a higher rake structure. Otherwise, always take the lower rake.

Maybe this will help explain it:



Now to add bonus into the formula...

[MicroBob]

my brain is spinning trying to figure out what you are saying.


I'm going to go drinking later tonight and may give this another try after I get drunk.

[MrMon]

The answer is pretty simple even if the math isn't. Lower rake structure is always better. If Party is charging you a fortune in rake so they can run their VIP promos, go elsewhere. (It's probably still worth doing various 7x and 10x reloads, but I've still got to work on that.)

[soah]

After staring at the chart for 3 minutes, I think I've finally figured out that your point is that if your rakeback percentage remains constant, then you will always pay more rake in a higher rake structure than a lower rake structure. However, if you are paying no rake at all, then you will pay the same amount of rake either way.

I really hope I'm missing something.