Stars New Rakeback Values for $100NL and $200NL Full Ring

[tautomer]

[ QUOTE ]
edit: it's better only for rakeback counted by rake (% you get back).
For rakeback counted by hands (rakeback per hand) it seems to be about the same (very lightly better for 6max because of the hands with rake taken between $2-$3).
for rakeback counted by hours (rakeback per hour) the 6max is obviously better (but you obviously pay more rake per hour at 6max also)

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. For full ring I am coming up with 71.6 hands/table hour and for 6max I'm getting 94.2 hands/table hour. Since this is a bonus (at least for the table I posted) and NOT really rakeback, the 6max players get to the points needed for each bonus much faster. He will be able to clear more bonuses over a long period of time than a full ring player who plays the same number of hours and tables. But yes, in the end the 'rakeback' number is lower for 6max. Something is better than nothing though, so 6max players please don't complain. I'd hate them to stop offering these bonuses in the store, it's the only time I ever win lol.

[Dazarath]

Using the following SQL query, I calculated 20.32% rakeback for 2/4 NL 6-max.

I made the following assumptions:
- The player is SuperNova (x3.5)
- Each FPP is worth 1.5 cents (x0.015)
- The answer is actually in % (x100)

I'm not 100% sure that it's correct though. Could someone tell me if "select sum(rake / number_of_players) from game" works the way I think it does?

select (((select count(*) from game where game_level_id = (select game_level_id from game_level where game_level_desc = 'NL ($4) (6 max)') and site_id = 2 and rake >= 1) + (select count(*) from game where game_level_id = (select game_level_id from game_level where game_level_desc = 'NL ($4) (6 max)') and site_id = 2 and rake >= 2)) * 3.5 * 0.015 * 100 / (select sum(rake / number_of_players) from game where game_level_id = (select game_level_id from game_level where game_level_desc = 'NL ($4) (6 max)') and site_id = 2))

EDIT: Fixed the query

[Dazarath]

If I do the math the long way:

43,609 hands with rake >= $1
29,258 hands with rake >= $2
$18,829.37 in MGR

So for a SuperNova, I'd have:
(43,609 + 29,258) * 3.5 * $0.015 * 100 / $18,829.37 = 20.32%

So I believe my math to be correct. This is over 116,409 hands at the PS 2/4 NL 6-max.

[bmxreed36]

[ QUOTE ]


So for a SuperNova, I'd have:
(43,609 + 2(29,258)) * 3.5 * $0.015 * 100 / $18,829.37 = 28.47%

[demon102]

deleted

[Dazarath]

[ QUOTE ]
So for a SuperNova, I'd have:
(43,609 + 2(29,258)) * 3.5 * $0.015 * 100 / $18,829.37 = 28.47%

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I had this correct. It's 43k hands were with rake $1+ and of those 43k, 29k were $2+.

[AmPm]

Im having trouble with some of the abbreviations and I searched but I cant find what mgr means. Could someone enlighten me please.

[freecard4all]

[ QUOTE ]
what mgr means.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's equal to your share of rakeback.
i.e. there are 10 players and the rake is $3. You MGR is 3/10= 30cents.

Rakeback is then calculated as a portion of MGR. Thus 33% rakeback is 30*.33 = 10 cents.

[steel108]

I just dont get it.... people are saying that for 6max NL games, FPP are better than FT rakeback in some cases. I jsut dont see it. A supernova only gets ~20% at 400NL, I think 27%>20%

[gameplay]

POST YOUR TOTAL AVERAGE MGR RAKE FOR THE LEVEL YOU WANT FROM THE POKERTRACKER/100 HANDS. ALSO POST THE NUMBER OF VPPS YOU GET FOR 100 HANDS ON THAT LEVEL AND IT IS THE EASIEST THING TO FIND WHAT RAKEBACK YOU GET. WHY ALL THESE POSTS WITHOUT RESULT?