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

[metsandfinsfan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

i disagree. The fish are happy to see any money. And tight players are playing for their rakeback .. and cont rakeback hurts the tight player and he may not play there as much

leave it the way it is

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

None yet. Man I hope all of them. I can't wait to take all teh Gildwulf's monies.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad to see this has made it onto the list. I think it is completely in line with your philosophy of offering a room for the benefit of the casual poker player ... a place where they won't be facing a table full of 8-tabling nits using heads-up statistical displays to troll the waters and cull money from the fish.

I agree it won't have any quick impact, but in the long run it encourages loose play, and will make the loose, losing players last longer. That's got to be good for the long term health of the site.

I look forward to the day that the people seeing only 10% of the flops aren't subsidized by the rake taken from pots they never played in.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
tight players are playing for their rakeback

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think loose players are playing for their rakeback too? I disagree.


[ QUOTE ]
contributed rakeback hurts the tight player and he may not play there as much


[/ QUOTE ]

And we'll miss them sooooo much. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[David Solomon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

I just gave you an example where a player who loses $250 benefits more compared to a player who wins $250. Apparently you cannot read for comprehension.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

And, of course, there is no mathematical justification for that. Apparently you cannot read for comprehension and you are innumerate.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Thanks for confirming again that you cannot read for comprehension. I made a simplifying assumption to show you something, but of course you snipped the rest of my argument, which showed that even if I paid as much rake as the fish and got 148% back, they would still get 95% of their rake back. Since I pay less rake than they do, they will get back more than 95%. Here is the part that you snipped --

"If I am playing with nine fish, let's assume we all pay equal rake. Then the fish get (1 - 0.148)/9 = 95% of their rake back. Of course, I actually pay less rake than they do, so they will get more than 95% of their rake back."

For example, suppose nine fish pay 11% of the rake each, and I only pay 1%, but get 148% of my rake back. Then the fish will get (1 - 0.0148)/9 = 98.5% of the their rake back.


[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. The game is positive sum, but negative expectation, for him.

Going for the trifecta, eh? You have demonstrated you cannot read for comprehension. You have demontrated you are innumerate. Now you have demonstrated you do not understand the baskc terminology of game theory.

You snipped this -- "I think you mean a positive expectation game."

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

ALL THE PLAYERS WHO PARTICIPATE IN THE ACES NEVER LOSE PROMOTION ARE EXPERIENCING A POSITIVE SUM GAME. THE FACT THAT YOU ARE PLAYING A POSITIVE SUM GAME DOESN'T MEAN YOU WILL WIN.

What part of that do you not understand?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to get caught up in semantics.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your case, that would be a very bad idea.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

Listen. Loose play is losing play. If there is a rake, loose players lose. If there is no rake at all, loose players will still lose. If there is rakeback, regardless of the method of rakeback calculation, loose players will still lose.


[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then your whole argument that changing the method of rakeback calculation will attract new players goes out the window.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently you do not understand that your simple and irrefutable logic applies to all players, not just loose players. Tight players can have losing streaks too, you know. If you change the rakeback calculation so they will get less rakeback after a losing streak, they will play less.


[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you have zero understanding of the issue, I find that amusing.

[ QUOTE ]
I do not in any way propose 'less rakeback'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow!!! You are an intellectual basketcase. Of course you are proposing less rakeback for the tight players. That's your whole argument.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course that would benefit winning players to the detriment of losing players.


[ QUOTE ]
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 already explained to you why that is false. If you reduce the amount of rakeback tight players receive, that increases the burden of the rake, which provides an incentive for tighter play.

Apparently you do not understand that, even in a rakefree environment, tight play is winning play and loose play is losing play.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the purest nonsense. The money was not transferred to you from loose players. Your statement makes sense only in the context of comparison to a rakefree model.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

The number is not exaggerated. What is exaggerated is your hysteria over the unfairness of the current method of calculating rakeback and the potential for attracting new players by changing the rakeback calculation.

Here is why rakeback calculation using the dealt method is fair --

If there is no game, there is no rakeback for anyone. The tight players, by sitting in the game and posting blinds, make the game possible in the first place. Therefore, they are entitled to a share of the rake for every hand they play. The idea that the winner of the pot should get all the rakeback is nonsense. Giving rakeback to every player dealt into the hand is fair and reasonable.

Maybe you missed it, but Full Tilt Poker uses the dealt method. They are far and away the largest and most popular rakeback room.



[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh no. You sir, are the moron.

[ QUOTE ]
The logical response is to loosen up.

[/ QUOTE ]

100% incorrect. Under the current scheme, I am getting more than 100% of my rake back. You are proposing giving me exactly 100% of my rake back. Marginal situations which were profitable before will no be unprofitable. I will play fewer hands. I will definitely play tighter.

You and tuff should both STFD and STFU, because neither of you understand the basic mathematics of poker.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

The games will not be any looser. You have presented no logical argument that they will. Your argument that changing the method of rakeback calculation will attract more players is the purest nonsense.


David Solomon

[David Solomon]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course changing the method of rakeback calculation will not have a significant impact on traffic.

Look. Full Tilt is far and away the largest and most popular rakeback room. They use the dealt method of rakeback calculation. That is empirical evidence that the dealt method of rakeback calculation is preferred by players for whom rakeback is a significant factor in deciding where to play.

Changing the method of calculating rakeback will not make the games looser. Nor will such a change attract new players.

Arguments by tuff and Benjamin to the contrary are fallacious and demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the mathematics of poker.

I think you should consider changing the rakeback to 80% and using the generated revenue for advertising.

Changing the rakeback calculation method as proposed by tuff and Benjamin will only alienate your current player base.


David Solomon

[David Solomon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad to see this has made it onto the list. I think it is completely in line with your philosophy of offering a room for the benefit of the casual poker player ... a place where they won't be facing a table full of 8-tabling nits using heads-up statistical displays to troll the waters and cull money from the fish.

I agree it won't have any quick impact, but in the long run it encourages loose play, and will make the loose, losing players last longer. That's got to be good for the long term health of the site.

I look forward to the day that the people seeing only 10% of the flops aren't subsidized by the rake taken from pots they never played in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, if you were dealt into the hand, you played in the hand.

Here is why rakeback calculation using the dealt method is fair --

If there is no game, there is no rakeback for anyone. The tight players, by sitting in the game and posting blinds, make the game possible in the first place. Therefore, they are entitled to a share of the rake for every hand they play. The idea that the winner of the pot should get all the rakeback is nonsense. Giving rakeback to every player dealt into the hand is fair and reasonable.

Maybe you missed it, but Full Tilt Poker uses the dealt method. They are far and away the largest and most popular rakeback room.


David Solomon

[David Solomon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
tight players are playing for their rakeback

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think loose players are playing for their rakeback too? I disagree.


[ QUOTE ]
contributed rakeback hurts the tight player and he may not play there as much


[/ QUOTE ]

And we'll miss them sooooo much. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you will. Without them, you wouldn't have any games to play in. Your posts in this thread reveal a complete ignorance of how card rooms actually work.

Mason Malmuth has written extensively about this. Tight, winning players are the essential core of every poker room. Because they are winners, they don't run out of money and can be counted on to play regularly. They are essential for starting new games and keeping existing games going.


David Solomon

[Gildwulf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

None yet. Man I hope all of them. I can't wait to take all teh Gildwulf's monies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will play you hu until my eyes bleed or you need a diaper change, whichever happens first

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

[DING-DONG YO]

one hundo, yo?

(still kinda busto and all [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])