Party and Stars 3/6 6-max rake in BB/100

[Keepitsimple]

Well the structure is worse. They rake 1/20,1.5/30,2/40,2.5/50,3/60 instead of 1/20,2/40,3/70. I dont know what this translates to though. Is it possible to sort by potsize in ptracker?

[MicroBob]

Yes...those half-dollars on party are definitely worse (as well as the $60/$3 rake vs. $70).

Party $51 pot = $2.50 rake
Stars $69 pot = $2 rake


That's all the proof you need right there.


However, it is completely impossible to tell that Party's rake is precisely x% worse just by looking at average rake taken per hand.


Another example:
If the numbers you came up with showed that Party was taking more than double the rake of Stars per 100 hands...this would almost definitely show that the ACTION on Party is so much better so as to overcome the difference in rake structure.

In other words, the greater the disparity in rake/100 hands, it's possible that you should be MORE inclined to play there (if the rake-structure itself is not of a similar disparity...such as raking $5 for a $30 pot or something ridiculous like that).


Looking at the rake-structure DOES tell you something.
Looking at rake/100 hands tells you practically nothing in and of itself.

[Jake (The Snake)]

Even without all those considerations aobut pot size, the fact that Party players suck horribly at this level defenetely overcomes the difference in rake. If you can't get rakeback though, or bonuses change the difference or something else, then it becomes an option to play at Stars.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
Even without all those considerations aobut pot size, the fact that Party players suck horribly at this level defenetely overcomes the difference in rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

The players at stars seem worse than they used to be. How can you so confidently say that the Party players are still so much worse as to overcome the rake difference?

[Keepitsimple]

I dont understand this either. Rake is the biggest enemy at low stakes. Its simply impossible for example to win big with a 5BB/100 rake. You either run good or are playing only morons. I have played a decent amount of HU with no rake on stars and the players there are morons. I am 8BB/100 there over 10k hands and I think its sustainable. But thats HU.

0.5BB/100 less rake is huge. When we are looking at winrates around 1-3 for good players.

[PokerPadawan]

According to my data, the avg pot at Party 3/6 is 0.3 BB larger than on Stars 3/6.

I don't think that is enough to make a big difference.

[PokerPadawan]

Also, there is some value in having to not pay as much money in the first place, rather than paying more and then getting a % back next month.

[Jake (The Snake)]

While I agree that Stras players seem worse at the moment, I do absolutely believe that the difference is not small.

From my PT data, the difference between the two sites when I do Total Rake/Total Hands * 100 is only about .2 or .3 BB/100. I certainly think that that can be overcome by the difference in our opponents, but I don't have enough stats to back it up.

I do know this. When I open the two sites, I see WAY WAY more shorthanded games at Party, which makes it much easier to find good games, and game selection means so much on your winrate.

[MicroBob]

"While I agree that Stras players seem worse at the moment, I do absolutely believe that the difference is not small."


I agree.

Certainly easier to find really good tables at Party (the type with a 60/2 and 90/20 guy at the same table).

Stars is not as rockish as it was previously imo...but it is still not as fishy as party.

[Greg Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
Both. IIRC, they accrue points at the same rate. The utility for supernova is marginally higher, since there's more stuff you can get, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, PlatinumStar members gain points at a 2.5x rate, while Supernova members gain them at 3.5x.