What has party done to 2/4?!

[five4suited]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The extra rake is $.50. If you win 8 raked hands/100 then you'll pay an extra $4.00 in rake every 100 hands.

At 2/4 this will take a 2BB/100 player down to 1BB/100. Even at 5/10, it's costing .4BB/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is totally OT, but I wonder why Party chooses to add more rake to games when most sites (like WPEX) are choosing to lower it or not have it at all....

Haupt_234

[/ QUOTE ]

I know it's been said before in this thread, and I don't want to sound like chicken little, but it's pretty obvious to me that Party is doing this to increase their profits in case online poker is outlawed in the US. There was an article about one of Party's owners in the LA Times about 6 months ago, and she is an "early-investor" (as opposed to early-adopter) in online businesses. She was in porn in 2000 IIRC, and moved on to poker.

Ask yourself, what would Walmart do? You're pretty close to anticipating what Party will do.

[JayKon]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course this is mere conjecture on your part. Historically, most of the good posters in this forum have chosen to play in the 'tighter' non-BBJ games, although there have been a few good posters who have championed the extra looseness of the BBJ tables. At this point, 3 days worth of data isn't enough to tell if the Monster tables will be loose enough to justify an additional ~.5BB per 100 hands or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, I moved to the BBJ tables about 6 months ago and play about 1,500 hands a week. The action has always been better. Now its better yet.

[ QUOTE ]
At any rate, forcing players to pay an extra .5bb/100 is a low-class move by Party. It may be that they have enough of a monopoly that serious players will simply have to suck it up because there's not a better place to play (I know I have), but this type of heavy-handedness by Party keeps many players, myself included, continually looking at other sites for a better place to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Despite the fact that I think I've benefited from the change, Party has pissed me off yet again. You are correct, they do what the f'in well please without regard to what their regulars may want.

In particular, that monster/jackpot sliding annoyance uses an amazing amount of CPU. Tough when you're running PT, PA & other things.

[JayKon]

[ QUOTE ]
I know it's been said before in this thread, and I don't want to sound like chicken little, but it's pretty obvious to me that Party is doing this to increase their profits in case online poker is outlawed in the US. There was an article about one of Party's owners in the LA Times about 6 months ago, and she is an "early-investor" (as opposed to early-adopter) in online businesses. She was in porn in 2000 IIRC, and moved on to poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm sure they are running the promotion to make a profit, nothing wrong with that. Only you're saying that some of the $0.50 is going directly into their pocket, when it is not. In the old BBJ Party kept 10% (I think) and now they keep none. Also, even with only $0.35 going to the jackpot, it is growing much faster than it ever grew before. Perhaps they figure to keep a big chunk of the Monster, don't know.

Again, I am not saying the cost isn't higher, only that there are compensating factors and that it isn't as bad as some have implied.

For the record, I used to beat the 2/4 games for 2.26 BB/100 and I have been beating the BBJ/Monster games for 2.89 BB/100. Like I said, the action is just plain better.

Postscript:

Something just struct me, I seem to be defending Party. Well, I suppose I am, only I really hate their f***ing ass. The ONLY reason I play there is because I can't find jucier action anywhere else and I'm playing for a living. I would love to move to stars, or somewhere else, but I'm just not good enough to reliably pull $150-$250 a day from any other game.

[SeaEagle]

1) Yes, it does sound like you're shilling for Party.

[ QUOTE ]
I moved to the BBJ tables about 6 months ago and play about 1,500 hands a week.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the record, I used to beat the 2/4 games for 2.26 BB/100 and I have been beating the BBJ/Monster games for 2.89 BB/100.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The ONLY reason I play there is because I can't find jucier action anywhere else and I'm playing for a living.

[/ QUOTE ]

2) So you're saying that the BBJ tables moved you from $135/week to $173/week. I think panhandling probably pays better [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[SixForty]

[ QUOTE ]
I would love to move to stars, or somewhere else, but I'm just not good enough to reliably pull $150-$250 a day from any other game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Play 10/20 live! The action is far looser, and the profits are much higher! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[JayKon]

[ QUOTE ]
2) So you're saying that the BBJ tables moved you from $135/week to $173/week. I think panhandling probably pays better [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Something is screwy with the numbers. My weekly deposit is $400-$600 and I sometimes transfer money to Tiger to play pan (if you don't know what that game is, don't ask - its a sickness).

[JayKon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would love to move to stars, or somewhere else, but I'm just not good enough to reliably pull $150-$250 a day from any other game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Play 10/20 live! The action is far looser, and the profits are much higher! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I do, only I've been on a bad run live and its hard for me to get to the game right now.


Anyway, I'm done with this thread. I'll read it, but will not post to it any more.

[SixForty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Play 10/20 live! The action is far looser, and the profits are much higher! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I do, only I've been on a bad run live and its hard for me to get to the game right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was mostly tongue in cheek! I just love live games - it's insane how much easier they are to beat for vastly larger sums of money than online poker!

As for the bad run lately, no worries, they happen. I had a complete losing week at the beginning of this month - very discouraging. Especially since an annual family reunion prevented me from playing for more than 8 straight days this month! It looks daunting to try to get back in the black for the month when something like that happens.

But just remember - if you play good poker and are consistently one of the best at the table, all the money comes to you in the end! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[crablegs33]

take up 7/stud

[Sirasoni]

I was first disgusted with the new monster rake (pun intended) but after playing for a bit (only 2.5k hands however), I felt that a lot of the tables are incredibly profitable. The play at most 2/4 tables is similar to what I experienced at .25/.5 and .5/1. It basically assembled a lot of fish into the same area (I can easily see many .5/1 and 1/2 regular fish jumping into higher games like 2/4 just to partake in the promotion). Obviously there are still tags around, but instead of 4-5 tight players/rocks, 2 loose players, you, and a couple unknowns, it's basically 6 bad players, 2 tags, you (loose generalization but you get what I mean).

Of course the rake is a huge problem, but I really don't see myself at another software. I tried full tilt and I detest their table layout for some odd reason, Poker Stars is great and has awesome support but I worry about the softness of the tables and lack of datamining. WPEX looks promising but as I hear, it's a rock garden there. The argument for moving to WPEX is, "Does the inexistence rake make up for the tighter players?" That sounds really similar to the question asked for playing on the Monster tables, "Do the amazingly bad players make up for the addition to rake?"