The Monster's Effect on $2/$4NL 6max - Page 2

PerDoom · #11 07-26-2006, 02:43 PM

I hate the Monster tables just as much as the next guy, but couldn't the win rate be contributed to the addition of some donators being more likely to play becuase of the jackpot feel? I'm sure that the average winrate will drop because of the extra rake, but perhaps this could cause something around .5BB/100 loss due to the fishiness factor.

Could you also tell what the VP$IP average is over those 3,500 hands compared to the 60K hands? Thanks.

spino1i · #12 07-26-2006, 02:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I hate the Monster tables just as much as the next guy, but couldn't the win rate be contributed to the addition of some donators being more likely to play becuase of the jackpot feel? I'm sure that the average winrate will drop because of the extra rake, but perhaps this could cause something around .5BB/100 loss due to the fishiness factor.

Could you also tell what the VP$IP average is over those 3,500 hands compared to the 60K hands? Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

What your suggesting is that more new fish are brought in by the monster promotion. I doubt this is the case, mainly because they havent done any advertising about it. I suspect only the current fish know about it. Maybe when they start advertising it more fish will come but I doubt it will have a significant effect. I dont think the games are any easier now on the monster tables than before..

PerDoom · #13 07-26-2006, 02:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hate the Monster tables just as much as the next guy, but couldn't the win rate be contributed to the addition of some donators being more likely to play becuase of the jackpot feel? I'm sure that the average winrate will drop because of the extra rake, but perhaps this could cause something around .5BB/100 loss due to the fishiness factor.

Could you also tell what the VP$IP average is over those 3,500 hands compared to the 60K hands? Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

What your suggesting is that more new fish are brought in by the monster promotion. I doubt this is the case, mainly because they havent done any advertising about it. I suspect only the current fish know about it. Maybe when they start advertising it more fish will come but I doubt it will have a significant effect. I dont think the games are any easier now on the monster tables than before..

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, maybe not new fish, but myself (and I'm sure other TAGs) have left Party because of this new addition. If more winners leave, and no fish leave, the games become fishier.

XChamp · #14 07-26-2006, 03:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I hate the Monster tables just as much as the next guy, but couldn't the win rate be contributed to the addition of some donators being more likely to play becuase of the jackpot feel? I'm sure that the average winrate will drop because of the extra rake, but perhaps this could cause something around .5BB/100 loss due to the fishiness factor.

Could you also tell what the VP$IP average is over those 3,500 hands compared to the 60K hands? Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fishyness of a table should have very little impact on the average player win rate at NL$400. If there was 0 rake then the average win rate would be 0.0 PTBB/100 regardless of the style of play. Because the avg pot size increases with fishyness, you will see some drop in average win rate because more rake will be taken, but I think that will only affect things by, at most, about .2 PTBB/100. This is because the avg pot at a tight table is approx. $30 (so <$1.50 rake) and at a loose table it is $60+ (which will mean <$3.00 avg rake).

The average player VPIP is extremely dependant on table selection. You would have to table select randomly to get good data on that, and I do not select tables randomly.

Sponger. · #15 07-26-2006, 03:04 PM

I'm not sure I believe that last post.

XChamp · #16 07-26-2006, 03:09 PM

Ok. Why?

AngusThermopyle · #17 07-26-2006, 03:13 PM

In other words, the average player is losing $8.88 MORE per 100 hands compared with before the Monster Promo.

Duh.
Surprise!
More rake == AvgPlayer loses more

100 hands, $0.50 more rake per hand...let's see, $50 more rake per 100.

6 players, that's, oh, $8.33 per player.

Matches your stats, more or less.

Ok, not all hands get the extra rake, so it should be lower than $8.33 . Say, $8.00

But if the pots are uniformly larger, the "normal rake" will be higher. Do you have stats on AvgPot size too? Is that larger? By how much?

Apparently, $0.80 or so of the increase is due to the fact that the pots are generally larger, and hence non-Monster raked more. Clearly this is dwarfed by the increase due to the MonsterRake, but it indicate that the games have gotten "bigger".

The question, in the short term, is "are the pots you win, on average, more than $0.50 larger, before rake" ?

Your stats on that?

Long term, yes, The Monster's effect will be as a tapeworm/leech, sucking money out of "the game".

george w · #18 07-26-2006, 03:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Full ring is just as bad. 2/4 nl full ring is low enough stakes that its going to severely cut into your win rate playing on the monster tables. I mean you can still win, but probably for about a half as much as you used to. My advice: Play anywhere else than Party right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

maxtower · #19 07-26-2006, 03:57 PM

Party doesn't want winning players to play on its site. It wants to completely break every fish it signs up. I am surprised they didn't come up with the monster plan sooner.
For every winning player who takes money out of the poker economy, Party loses. Fish may win one day or two, but over the long haul the money just changes hands around so that they all just end up losing to the rake. Having a higher rake or Monster program achieves two goals.
1. They collect more rake.
2. They drive winning players away, keeping the fish ratio higher so that the money eventually just winds up getting eaten up by the rake as it trades in and out of fish hands.

We should all hope that other sites don't realize this and start raking their games even higher.

The key problem we should all realize here is that fish lose money, and whether its to the rake or to a winning player, they are not going to recognize the difference. If they did, they would all be playing at WPX. The sites make more money by driving winning players away. They are all incentivized (not just party) to raise their rakes to levels high enough to keep winning players away. Hopefully they don't all follow Party's lead. Scary...

krazyace5 · #20 07-26-2006, 04:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Party doesn't want winning players to play on its site. It wants to completely break every fish it signs up. I am surprised they didn't come up with the monster plan sooner.
For every winning player who takes money out of the poker economy, Party loses. Fish may win one day or two, but over the long haul the money just changes hands around so that they all just end up losing to the rake. Having a higher rake or Monster program achieves two goals.
1. They collect more rake.
2. They drive winning players away, keeping the fish ratio higher so that the money eventually just winds up getting eaten up by the rake as it trades in and out of fish hands.

We should all hope that other sites don't realize this and start raking their games even higher.

The key problem we should all realize here is that fish lose money, and whether its to the rake or to a winning player, they are not going to recognize the difference. If they did, they would all be playing at WPX. The sites make more money by driving winning players away. They are all incentivized (not just party) to raise their rakes to levels high enough to keep winning players away. Hopefully they don't all follow Party's lead. Scary...

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this approach is that they are cannabilizing their business, sure its great in the short term but it will kill them in the long term. And the long term in this case is not very long. It's a [censored] business strategy and any other site would be crazy to follow their lead if they really want a longterm viable business.