***** November LC Thread *****

[whaahhahahah]

i'm really good at poker.

[ChicagoRy]

The non-blogging, former 35k month hu cash king shows his face!

How random.

[cwar]

Hows teaching going wha?

[chrismystero]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm really good at poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

[TNixon]

I posted a while back about getting rakeback on FT. I decided to try to put together an email that wouldn't just be immediately ignored or stock-replied to about the possibility of adding rakeback to existing accounts. In case anybody is curious, here's the response I got back from FT (which shouldn't really come as any surprise, except for maybe the possibility that they're looking at something for the future), and a copy of the email I sent:

Full Tilt Response:
---------------------------------
Thank you for your email. I apologize but we can not add Rakeback to an existing player account. However we are looking into organizing something that will help people with accounts that are not tagged to an affiliate. We have added your username to our file for further consideration. Please be patient.


Best regards,

Lisa

The Affiliate Team at Full Tilt Poker

Full Tilt Poker
---------------------------------

My email:

---------------------------------

Is there any possibility of getting rakeback on an existing account? I realize there's a stock answer to this question, but before auto-replying that answer, please hear me out.

Here's my quandary:

I'm playing mostly heads-up sit & gos. I didn't know about rakeback when I started my account, but I've paid a *boatload* in fees and rake (more than I've won, and I'm actually a winning player overall), so 27% of that is a very significant amount.

Most of the people I've talked to about rakeback just say "start a new account with rakeback, duh", like there aren't any ethical questions at all.

I realize rakeback bonuses are set up as a way to attract new players to the site, and that there's practically no incentive to offer RB to existing players, and some good financial reasons *not* to, and even if I were willing to tiptoe around the ethics of the situation, there are a couple problems.

First of all, it would need to be a new name and probably a new address, in order to avoid getting "caught", which is a lot of trouble, but probably worthwhile (again, 27% of the rake I've paid over the last year is a very significant amount). Second, again in the interest of avoiding getting caught, I would have to cash out and redeposit, and getting another $600 match bonus just feels *way* too much like outright theft to me.

I might be willing to tiptoe around the rules a little when there's a perceived unfairness going on (somebody who happened to know about rakeback when they originally joined can get 27% back, but somebody who didn't has no way to get the same deal?), but the extra deposit bonus for some reason just makes it impossible for me to consider. Which is just a little bit silly, I guess, since if we're viewing lost income to Full Tilt as theft, then the impact of 27% of my rake is going to be *much* larger than $600 long-term. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

However, there's another piece to this puzzle. I'm reaching levels in HUSNGs where it's getting more and more difficult to find opponents. If I were willing to switch to turbos, that wouldn't be as much of a problem, but the FT turbo structure is just too fast for my playstyle, and I don't actually enjoy the faster structure, whether I could learn to be a winning player or not. So while I could certainly adjust and learn to play turbos (and did try that for a while), it seems just a bit silly to learn to play at a pace that I don't actually enjoy.

But the PokerStars turbo HUSNG structure is very close to the Full Tilt non-turbo structure for the first 15 minutes of the game, and a quick analysis of my history shows that my average game lasts somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 minutes. After 15 minutes, the stars structure really ramps up, but for about half of my games, it would feel pretty much the same. I'm pretty sure I could more successfully adjust to that structure than the FT turbo structure, which is much faster. In addition, Stars has a larger overall playerbase, which means there would be that much less trouble finding opponents to begin with.

I don't really want to switch to stars though. I like the Full Tilt interface much better, and I have written a little add-on that gives me a few extra buttons that makes it much easier to play multiple tables, adding a preflop button that I can cycle between 2.5x, 3x, and 4x, a 1/2 pot button, and a 2/3 pot button. It would take a lot of work to even figure out how to make that work on stars, since they're not using standard windows controls for anything.

I've also written a custom set of Perl scripts that I use to analyze my hand histories, and am in the middle of writing a full-blown analysis app, since there are so many things that Pokertracker handles in very infuriating, counter-intuitive ways, so there's a fair amount of programming work I would have to do just to be able to move and have access to all the tools that I have now on Full Tilt.

Please don't view this as a "givez me rakeback NOW, or I'm leaving" threat. I've been thinking about this for quite a while, and haven't moved any money over yet. But there are some very good reasons to consider moving money over to Stars for HUSNGs (which is by far what I play the most of), and a few not-quite-so-good reasons to stay on Full Tilt.

But if I did happen to have 27% rakeback, this very close decision would suddenly become a no-brainer.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Now, if you need to fire off the stock "no, we can't do that, sorry" response, feel free, but I've done my best to be thoughtful enough that hopefully this message will make it up at least a few rungs of the ladder before being discarded.

---------------------------------

[daveT]

That super - generous "bonus" comes out of your rakeback.

Sorry.

----------------------------------------

So, I just played a 135 game marathon, unreal, btw, since I hit exactly two flops the whole time. Here is one. This hand was totally playable at this point:

Full Tilt Poker, $5 + $0.25 NL Hold'em Sit n' Go, 15/30 Blinds, 2 Players
LegoPoker Hand History Converter

BB: 2,000
Hero (SB): 1,000

Pre-Flop: (45) 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] dealt to Hero (SB)
<font color="red">Hero raises to 90</font>, BB calls 60

Flop: (180) 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 Players)
BB checks, <font color="red">Hero bets 150</font>, BB calls 150

Turn: (480) T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero checks

River: (480) 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 Players)
<font color="red">BB bets 200</font>, Hero calls 200

Results: 880 Pot
BB showed 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (a pair of Twos) and LOST (-440 NET)
Hero showed 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (two pair, Fives and Twos) and WON 880 (+440 NET)

So retarded. I should have bloated the pot more.

[chrismystero]

fwiw i've decided my pooh-bah post is gunna be why you shouldn't play Heads Up with 3 buy ins.

[ChicagoRy]

Dave: Did you 5 table those 5 dollar games on FTP or something?

135 games is sick.

Nixon: Never feel bad about getting anything extra from a casino, online or otherwise. It's too overwhelming to think about a person having sympathy for a 8-9 figure company that has poor customer service/communication.

[pokercurious]

Why isn't this all my opponents? I like it when they're easy to read and hate money.

Poker Stars, $11 + $0.50 NL Hold'em Tournament, 25/50 Blinds
Hero (BB): 2,095
SB: 905

Pre-Flop: (75) A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] dealt to Hero (BB)
<font color="red">SB raises to 200</font>
<font color="red">Hero raises to 2,095 and is All-In</font>
SB calls 705 and is All-In

Flop: (1,810) T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

Turn: (1,810) T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [ 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] ] (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

River: (1,810) T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [ 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] ] (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

Results: 1,810 Pot
Hero showed A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (a flush, Ace high) and WON 1,810 (+905 NET)
SB showed 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (a pair of Eights) and LOST (-905 NET)

[HokieGreg]

Dave,

If you have a decent winrate 5-tabling any level I am beyond impressed. I would start crying the first time I face a tough decision.