LHE - Stars VIP Status or FT Rakeback?

[Josem]

[x] option c: learn to play NL

[numbnuts007]

I play 2/4 and 3/6 and split my time between 6-max and full ring and get in between 10-20k hands a month. I haven't been super mathematical about it, but I think you'll find that full tilt rb is quite a bit better.

[BradleyT]

So much confusion on the FTP points and rakeback - it's easy.

You pay $10,000 in rake per month for SnGs and earn 70,000 points

Month - 1
Points - 70,000
Store - $0
MGR - $10,000
RakeBack - $2,700
Total Rewards - $2,700

Month - 2
You buy an 80gb ipod with points
Points - 140,000 - 70,000 = 70,000
Store - $350 IPOD
MGR - $10,000 - $350 ($1 for 200 points)
RakeBack - $2605
Total Rewards - $2,955

Yeah so you made more in $$ + rewards than you did the first month even though zomg FTP stores reduces MGR.

[PMR]

Thanks very much to everyone for all the information so far. This discussion has been enormously helpful.

I doubt I would maintain Platinum (or higher) status on Stars month after month, as my play schedule is very erratic this year. For the serious "part-time" player, it looks like Stars' system doesn't measure up against rakeback. Of course, it's still worth keeping an eye on for soft games.

[ QUOTE ]
It also can make a big difference if you like to play a lot of 2 or 3-handed.
In that case Full Tilt would almost certainly be significantly better as I believe they do dealt-hand rakeback so you are getting back a high percentage of that rake whereas on Stars it remains fixed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dealt-hand rakeback on Full Tilt -- thank you for mentioning this very important detail for short-handed players to consider. I love aggressive 3-handed games, and this is a great incentive to play them.

I'm leaning strongly towards Full Tilt with rakeback based on the points made so far in this thread. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't FTP also deduct the value of any store item you purchase from your MGR? If so, that may impact the value of RB+FPP to the point where Stars would be a better value even if he isn't Platinum or Nova.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yikes -- can anyone confirm this? I'll try to look into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I've heard.

[/ QUOTE ]

so i rarely play at ftp anymore but ive played my share in the past and have accumulated a lot of points. plus i got my doyles room points transfered. now i have 71k points.

what happens if i order some [censored] but dont play any hands? negative mgr right? does that screw my affiliate?

[Sciolist]

Nope, they just deduct it from your MGR for next month/whenever/never, depending on when you next play.

[Dennisa]

Microbob,

There is also some value for getting to Supernova this year, so you start out as Supernova for 2008.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I love aggressive 3-handed games, and this is a great incentive to play them.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't necessarily think this should be considered a great incentive to play them.
Only that if you are going to play them then you are probably better off playing them on FT than you would be on Stars.

At 2/4 and 3/6 limit heads-up and 3-handed you are still paying a TON in rake and that is difficult to overcome against players whom you might only have a marginal advantage against.
On FT the reason you are getting so much back per hand is because you are contributing so much in the first place.

So I would caution against going out of your way to play 3-handed just because of all that RB you'll be getting.
That rake really kills at super-shorthanded low-limit.


Much different than playing 30/60 3-handed or something where the rake is not nearly as high a percentage of each pot so its effect is less.


Also forgot to mention that at Stars super-shorthanded the rake drops to $0.50 increments.
This sounds great and of course it is better than paying full rake. But I'm pretty sure they do the same thing at FT too.

The difference is that at FT you would still be making your 27% of the $0.50 rakes. 3-handed you contribute $0.16 of that and your 27% means you get back about $0.04.

While at Stars you get zero points for such hands so zero rakeback.
Because at 2/4 limit and higher the rake has to reach $1 before you get a point (at 1/2 the rake only has to be $0.40).

I imagine a solid majority of hands that are heads-up or 3-handed are either zero rake or raked $0.50.
So such super-shorthanded games really don't get raked $1 very often at 2/4 and 3/6 so the RB difference between the two sites is probably a bit bigger than I originally proposed.

[DMoogle]

Some people, for some reason, don't understand that if you're getting more rake back at one site than you are at another, assuming the %s are the same, you're actually LOSING MONEY. It's not a difficult concept!

I'm not sure about LHE (although I would assume it is the same), I know in NLHE HU on FTP the max rake is a sweet $.50. Of course, someone who doesn't understand that simple concept will think it's bad that the max rake isn't like $3 because of the rakeback they're getting. Higher rake = you paying more money, whether you get rakeback or not!

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Some people, for some reason, don't understand that if you're getting more rake back at one site than you are at another, assuming the %s are the same, you're actually LOSING MONEY. It's not a difficult concept!

I'm not sure about LHE (although I would assume it is the same), I know in NLHE HU on FTP the max rake is a sweet $.50. Of course, someone who doesn't understand that simple concept will think it's bad that the max rake isn't like $3 because of the rakeback they're getting. Higher rake = you paying more money, whether you get rakeback or not!

[/ QUOTE ]


Right, some people don't get that of course which is kind of ridiculous because it should be obvious.

But at FT where the heads-up rake is $0.50 you are getting SOMETHING back (27% of the $0.25 you contributed or about $0.05) whereas at Stars you get absolutely nothing because the rake has to be $1 at 2/4 or higher to receive any points.

A tight player at 8-handed or more probably isn't hurt as much by a higher rake-structure because of the extra rakeback from all the loose players that build up the pots essentially earning the rakeback for you.

But this is hardly a reason to actually root FOR the higher rake. Just that it won't hurt you as badly.

If you're super-tight at 10-handed though then I guess it's possible that a worse rake-structure can actually benefit you because a higher percentage of your rakeback will be earned for you by everyone else.


One weird aspect of all this is that higher RB% on some Stars tables actually equates to earning less $$.
2/4 limit is a good example because that's where the rake has to reach $1 to earn a point.

5 and 6-handed there are a ton of pots that are $19 or less.
So you get ZERO rakeback on these.
But that's because you didn't pay any rake in the first place.

People complain that they don't earn points very fast on Stars 2/4 limit. Ummm, duh. A ton of the hands are 5BB or less and are unraked which is actually a pretty good deal for the player overall.

so at 2/4 on Stars it means fewer points per day BUT a higher RB percentage.