|
|
#72
10-21-2006, 05:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Pokerstars - 6max players get shafted when it comes to FPPs
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 6 max Horton or Full? [/ QUOTE ] 6-max. [/ QUOTE ] Wait. Complete rewind. I just got a IM from the guy I was talking to when I was sober. It wasn't 24%. It was 23-25$/hour. 8 tabling. Sorry for the confusion. Those stats are probably wrong too. So I'm just gonna go away till tomorrow. 
|
|
#73
10-21-2006, 05:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pokerstars - 6max players get shafted when it comes to FPPs
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 6 max Horton or Full? [/ QUOTE ] 6-max. [/ QUOTE ] Wait. Complete rewind. I just got a IM from the guy I was talking to when I was sober. It wasn't 24%. It was 23-25$/hour. 8 tabling. Sorry for the confusion. Those stats are probably wrong too. So I'm just gonna go away till tomorrow. [/ QUOTE ] 24% is a GROSS overestimate!
|
|
#74
10-21-2006, 05:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pokerstars - 6max players get shafted when it comes to FPPs
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 6 max Horton or Full? [/ QUOTE ] 6-max. [/ QUOTE ] Wait. Complete rewind. I just got a IM from the guy I was talking to when I was sober. It wasn't 24%. It was 23-25$/hour. 8 tabling. Sorry for the confusion. Those stats are probably wrong too. So I'm just gonna go away till tomorrow. [/ QUOTE ] 24% is a GROSS overestimate! [/ QUOTE ] If your a supernova, I don't think it's that GROSS. But we'll see.
|
|
#75
10-21-2006, 06:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pokerstars - 6max players get shafted when it comes to FPPs
Wow, I didn't know this post would get this much attention. I did the calculations mainly for my own curiosity but I guess it was well worth posting it.
So I've recalculated the numbers with the new scheme, and yes, they are quite an improvement: NEW NUMBERS (Bronze/Silver/Gold/Platinum/Supernova) 100NL Full Ring 9.6% 14.4% 19.1% 23.9% 33.5% 200NL Full Ring 9.1% 13.7% 18.3% 22.8% 31.9% 200NL 6max 7.0% 10.5% 14.0% 17.5% 24.5% (FR games get 1 FPP at $0.40 rake and an additional FPP at $3.00 rake, 6m games get 1 FPP at $0.40 rake and an additional FPP at $2.00 rake) Old numbers for reference: 100NL Full Ring 5.4% 8.0% 10.7% 13.4% 18.8% 200NL Full Ring 6.2% 9.3% 12.4% 15.5% 21.6% 200NL 6max 2.8% 4.3% 5.7% 7.1% 9.9% So yes, thanks Lee. RB plus bonus is still better at FT/AP/UB, but this is a definite step in the right direction. Now when I looked at the new numbers I was slightly concerned that I made some error since the numbers for 200NL FR are *lower* than 100NL FR - which didn't make sense for the old scheme. I rechecked my calculations and they were correct - then I thought about it - almost *all* pots are now generating an FPP in 100NL (as well as 200NL FR) since a single preflop raise and a caller creates a pot of usually at least $8 (pots that do not see a flop don't generate any rake regardless of a raise, so they don't count anyway). The only exception to this is if there's no preflop raise and someone's flop bet takes down the pot before it reaches $8. This is somewhat rare. Now the reason $100 NL is higher is because both 100NL and 200NL are paying rake up to $3 max - but $3 is a higher percentage of the pot for $100NL games, so they are effectively paying more rake per hand proportionately (they pay equal rake percentages except when a 100NL pot exceeds $30 - since rake will be paid up to $60 pots, whereas 200NL pots cut-off rake at the same $60 spot, yet blinds are doubled). Since 100NL pots pay more rake per hand, this generates a higher MGR and more FPPs. Anyway thanks to all who contributed to this thread getting attention - and thanks to Lee for noticing it and taking action. Stars once again comes through. Edit: updated 100NL vs. 200NL rake explanation
|
|
#76
10-21-2006, 06:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pokerstars - 6max players get shafted when it comes to FPPs
Ok my above explanation is completely wrong - the 100NL RB% is higher because since almost all hands are generating FPPs, and the average 100NL pot size is quite a bit lower than the average 200NL pot size, and they are both gaining an FPP at $8 pot, the 100NL hands pay less MGR per hand on average to gain an FPP than the 200NL hands. This is counterbalanced by the fact that 200NL hands are more likely to reach $60 ($40 for 6max) pot size for an additional FPP, but this difference does not make up for the fact that 100NL hands are paying less average MGR per FPP. I hope this makes sense. It's quite confusing and it took a re-read of my post to think it through clearly.
I would expect the percentages to go down as you move up in limits for this same reason (although once pots start consistently reaching 2 FPP per pot this trend may reverse again - RB percentages will start going up). However, I'd assume that 50NL RB% is lower than 100NL since not all pots are reaching the $8 threshold for generating an FPP.
|
|
#77
10-21-2006, 07:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pokerstars - 6max players get shafted when it comes to FPPs
ata, thanks for your work in this thread. I was wondering if you could post your total number of 200NL 6-max hands, the number after filtering for $0.40 rake, and the number after filtering for $2 rake so I can get a feel for the speed at which VPPs are earned at that level.
|
|
#78
10-21-2006, 07:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pokerstars - 6max players get shafted when it comes to FPPs
[ QUOTE ]
ata, thanks for your work in this thread. I was wondering if you could post your total number of 200NL 6-max hands, the number after filtering for $0.40 rake, and the number after filtering for $2 rake so I can get a feel for the speed at which VPPs are earned at that level. [/ QUOTE ] 100NL Full Ring 0 FPP - 55.7% (includes unraked pots that dont see flop) 1 FPP - 38.4% 2 FPP - 5.9% (after $60 pot) 200NL Full Ring 0 FPP - 44.6% 1 FPP - 43.1% 2 FPP - 12.3% (after $60 pot) 200NL 6max 0 FPP - 53.6% 1 FPP - 30.7% 2 FPP - 15.7% (after $40 pot)
|
|
#79
10-21-2006, 11:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pokerstars - 6max players get shafted when it comes to FPPs
[ QUOTE ]
I'd assume that 50NL RB% is lower than 100NL since not all pots are reaching the $8 threshold for generating an FPP. [/ QUOTE ] Right, this is possible. I assume that Stars NL rakes in $0.05 increments or something? so on NL50 you would likely have significantly more hands being raked only $0.30 or $0.35. you are still paying rake on those hands, but you aren't getting anything back. But the difference could still be made up by hands that are raked more than $0.80 but less than $2. If more of the NL50 hands are being raked just past the $0.40 level while more of the NL100 hands are getting raked at $1.80 or something (just shy of $2 where you would get double-points) than the rake-percentage equivilent could still be better on NL50 conceiveably. This is all just theoretical. I haven't played NL on Stars (yet) and I'm making a couple of guesses/assumptions in there. But I'm pretty sure it's not quite as simple as "More hands raked below $0.40 = worse rakeback" This is also going to be heavily dependent on game-selection too and perhaps time-of-day that you are playing. I suspect that many of the 6+ tablers don't do THAT diligent table-selection though so the random table-ness should pretty much even out if someone has a large enough sample.
|
|
#80
10-21-2006, 01:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pokerstars - 6max players get shafted when it comes to FPPs
I have about 48k hands of 50NL six max at Stars and FT which uses pretty much the same rake structure.
From those hands I have 1791 raked $2 or more 9899 raked between .4 and $2 37036 raked less than .4 That should be 13481 FPP if my calculations are right and pokertracker says I paid 2305.35 in rake.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
