WSEX: Official Monthly Thread: June. (#10 of 10.)

[rwesty]

My goal at WSEX is to win one of the freerolls by going allin every single hand. My highest chip stack so far is around 15000.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are vastly underestimating the effect of running hot or cold on the rake contribution. 3k hands is nowhere near a signifigant amount to determine rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree Solomon's example is likely not significant. I think it's funny, though, that he was putting those stats right next to statements about how the rake calculation doesn't matter as much as Tuff was making out.

Expanding on the stats I provided earlier:

Sample A: 15% higher payment to me than a rakefree model would provide, 72k hands. My VPIP/PFR: 24/16 Average Players per Hand: 6.3

Sample B: 64k hands, I received 123% of my paid rake. My VPIP/PFR: 23/16 Average Players per Hand: 7.3

Overall I've seen $4800 transferred directly from loose players pots to my tight ass pocketbook.

How about some other people share their stats? Any of you super tights?

At any rate, I think my stats are sufficient to say that my moderately tight play is seeing a big benefit: Averaging about 19% bonus over 135k hands.

A tighter player will see more benefit, so I think it's reasonable to posit that a super tight grinder will clear more than a 25% bonus over a rakefree calculation over the long term.

That bonus comes directly out of the pockets of the looser players.

I submit that it is obviously significant to the WPEX poker ecology to drain that much extra from the live ones pockets.

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
does wpex take the yellow prepaid visa gift cards, i wanna get some money in there, but all of my credit cards get declined. they seem like they have some cool guaranteed tourneys and rake free sounds cool. someone let me know some easy ways to get some money on there. thanx

[/ QUOTE ]

xxxslicknick,

I'm not sure about prepaids, but the Money Transfer (listed as the first option on the homepage) works like a charm. It is fast and WPX covers the fee if you deposit over $300, so it might be a better deal than a gift card.

To the rest of you,

If ya'll are so concerned about this site growing you might want to take two seconds to answer these types of questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

k, try simple credit/debit cards. Many of them still work.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
First, losing players benefit more from rakeback than winning players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, how so? Under the current equal share calculation of rakeback, the loosest players are getting screwed. They are likely also the losingest players.


[ QUOTE ]
Where did you get the 52% figure?

[/ QUOTE ]

I got it from reversing your 48% gain over a rakefree model into a 48% loss.


[ QUOTE ]
If I am playing with nine fish, let's assume we all pay equal rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your assumption is absurd. Your tight ass will be sitting there waiting for a good hand while they are in many more pots. That's exactly the point that Tuff and I are making. Fish pay more rake, they should get more back if you are going to say a site is 'rake free'.


[ QUOTE ]
There is no such thing as a positive sum game for one player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider a loose player who, on an average week, pays $1,000 in rake, but he only gets $750 back. And he wins, on an average week, $200 in the Aces Never Lose Promos, for an average net loss to rake of $50. Is he playing in a positive sum game? From his point of view, I say not. From his viewpoint the game is being raked, on average, $50 per week: a negative sum game.

Meanwhile his tight counterpart is getting a rakeback bonus of 25%, plus Aces Never Lose. The tightie is experiencing in a super positive sum game.

I don't want to get caught up in semantics. I could see debate on this point going on forever and it doesn't really matter what we call the game. But, you should acknowledge the scenario I lay out where a loose player may still be getting raked in this 'positive sum game' of yours.


[ QUOTE ]
Fish are only dimly aware of the rake in the first place, and most of them don't have a clue about rakeback. If rakeback influenced their decisions about where to play, they would already be playing in large numbers at WPEX, since the existing rakeback scheme is far more generous for them than they can find anywhere else.

[/ QUOTE ]

You argue against a straw man here. I fully agree that most recreational players don't know or care how rakeback is calculated.

But, they certainly know and care about how much money they get back on Monday. And when they get more back, they will play more. Very simple and irrefutable logic.

Existing loose players and the newb who wanders in will go broke slower and play more hands if they get more money back on Monday.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2) Pros and semi-pros will have an incentive to loosen up, so the typical game filled with a majority of those types will play looser.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why will the tight players have an incentive to play looser??? Less rakeback = greater burden of rake = incentive to play tighter. You don't think so??? Suppose rakeback were abolished entirely, so everyone paid the full rake. Obviously, the tight players would tighten up even more.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the crux of the issue, and you show a lack of understanding in your response. I do not in any way propose 'less rakeback'. I propose a change in the way it is calculated so that a person gets back whatever rake he paid out of pots he won.

Tight players, who play in and win fewer pots than their equal share, would see less rakeback. Loose players, who play in and win more pots than their equal share, would see more rakeback. The average player would see no change.

So, loose play is rewarded and those players who are aware of the fact will loosen up their play.


[ QUOTE ]
I think the solution might be for WPEX to change the rakeback to 80% and use the revenue for advertising.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yikes. I could see some skim for advertising, but I'd say maybe 5% house take instead of 20%.


[ QUOTE ]
You and tuff are greatly exxagerating how much the existing scheme benefits tight players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have matter of factly laid out my stats and demonstrated a roughly 19% bonus on my rakeback over a rakefree model. $4,8000 transferred by WPEX, without regard to skill or cards, from the loose players to me. I very logically assume that a tighter player will see more of a bonus, and I use a moderate assumption of 25% bonus for the super tights. How is that exaggerated?


[ QUOTE ]
Changing the rakeback calculation as you and tuff suggest will not make the games looser or attract new players. What it will do is make the existing player base play even tighter, and some of them might leave because of the reduced financial incentive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any player who tightened up in response to the change I propose is a moron. The logical response is to loosen up.


[ QUOTE ]
You don't build a poker room by alienating your current player base. You need the base of professional players to get games going. Cardroom management 101. The existing rakeback scheme has generous financial incentives for loose players. The problem is letting them know what they are missing.

[/ QUOTE ]

My proposed rakeback calculation has generous financial incentives for the pros. If any of them decide to leave because they took a small cut in pay, then they won't be missed. The increased looseness of the games will help the site grow.


[ QUOTE ]
That means you have received about $15,000 in rakeback. After rakeback, are you a net winner or loser?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a winner! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[WSEX GM]

We will be adding No Limit Heads Up and raising the stakes on the Fixed Limit Heads Up later today or tomorrow.

While the contributed rakeback request has been on the to do list, it has been at the bottom. I will consider moving it up a few notches but I really don't think it will have a significant impact on traffic.

Fred

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
We will be adding No Limit Heads Up and raising the stakes on the Fixed Limit Heads Up later today or tomorrow.

While the contributed rakeback request has been on the to do list, it has been at the bottom. I will consider moving it up a few notches but I really don't think it will have a significant impact on traffic.

Fred

[/ QUOTE ]

swee-heet!!!!

[metsandfinsfan]

the current system works best for the losers.

Say you have 100 bucks. You lose it all without winning a hand. Come monday, you have money again.

[Gildwulf]

[ QUOTE ]
We will be adding No Limit Heads Up and raising the stakes on the Fixed Limit Heads Up later today or tomorrow.

While the contributed rakeback request has been on the to do list, it has been at the bottom. I will consider moving it up a few notches but I really don't think it will have a significant impact on traffic.

Fred

[/ QUOTE ]

whoah you have limit headsup?

what limits?

[metsandfinsfan]

[ QUOTE ]
We will be adding No Limit Heads Up and raising the stakes on the Fixed Limit Heads Up later today or tomorrow.

While the contributed rakeback request has been on the to do list, it has been at the bottom. I will consider moving it up a few notches but I really don't think it will have a significant impact on traffic.

Fred

[/ QUOTE ]

DO NOT DO IT

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
the current system works best for the losers.

Say you have 100 bucks. You lose it all without winning a hand. Come monday, you have money again.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you never win a pot you are doomed in any kind of scheme.

The 'win the pot and get the rake you had taken out of that pot back' approach would leave the occasional loser who wins no pot out in the cold, it's true.

But, contributed rakeback could also be implemented as a 'see the flop and get an equal share of the rake on that hand', or as a more complicated division of rake by participation in each round of betting.

The simple 'see the flop to get an equal share of that hand's rake' would be easy to implement and would be very loser friendly.

Any form of contributed rake will, on average, be far more loser friendly than an equal share division that takes no account of contribution, despite the occasional flash in the pan loser who drops some small amount of money without winning a pot.