Hello guys.

First I'd like to introduce myself. I am a SSPLO player and I'll be in the next Pokerstars player meetings representing brazilian poker forum MaisEV. I am creating this topic in HSPLO forum because this is where all rake-related discussions are happening.

One of pokerstars' arguments to not lower the rake was that players had better winrates in PLO. Well, I brought some numbers. These are the players that played most hands in the last 12 months in pokerstars $0.50/$1 PLO 6max (more than 10kk hands total):



(all winrates are in ptbb)

Take a look at the winrates. Only 3 out of 25 regulars are winners. The rest of them are all either losing or even. Remember, this is a stake where the field is soft, theres lots of fish!! Still, regulars struggle to make a profit. Games are dying and it's not because of field toughness. Now think about stakes below that pay even more rake. PLO will never get close to its potential. The situation is totally unsustainable and can't stay like this.

this is very sick print screen. everytime i heard people saying ''nobody is making money at plo small stakes, rake is huge, game is not sustaintable'', i used to think ''lol this donks don't know how to beat the game. off course there are some people crushing plo100". but today one friend (gui166) sent me this print screen at skype, and blows my mind. i got very shocked... couldn't believe, in fact, nobody is making money at plo100...

from 25 players, 22 are losing or breakeven. thats ridiculous !!!! i saw the name of the regs, and from this 25 players, there are some decent players who i play sometimes at 2/4, people who are skilled to win at 0.5/1, but this players are breakeven and some of them are losing !!!! theres some solid players on this list...

gui was going to make a standard post at one of this threads already exist about plo x rake in pokerstars, but i was so shocked, that i told him to create new thread, because this print screen is really really sick.

edit: and one or arguemnts from pokerstars about big rake at plo is ''rake at plo is bigger because winrate are biggers than nlhe and other games''. wheres the big win rates?

Only counter argument I can think of is people who crushed $100PLO over like 20-100k hands and moved up quickly.

where did you get all this data? 64million hands

It's actually 10 million . It is showing 64million because poker tracker is adding up all players individual hands, so hands are being counted more than 1 time each.

Really curious about who the two guys with 3.5ptbb/100 winrates are, they both play identical vpip/pfr as well. I'm guessing you aren't going to out anyone, but impressive winrate I think... really impressive if they aren't running super hot.

Are these hands from zoom and regular games, or only regular games?

The regs that have put in the most hands play too many tables. I believe most of them have had decent post-rakeback hourlies due to the massive volume, especially the SNEs (not all their yearly rake is counted in this DB, e.g. they could shoot at PLO200). That being said, the spreadsheet is still shocking.

sickness... wonder which one i am

agree completely tho. this game should be thriving and on a course of popularity similar to holdem; sites and players alike should be loving it. instead its being crippled due to short-term greed. truly sad for poker.

It's really difficult to reach SNE playing PLO100, you have to play almost 2kk hands I think

This is a pretty fair point. I think most regulars want to move up as soon as possible to get to the lower rake stakes.
I think there might be alot of players who were able to move up after around 100k hands.
And its tough to use this information, as we all know that 100k hands is just no sample for evidence in PLO.

We're gonna take 75bb/100 out of your games and completely break your PLO economy, but it's okay guys, here's an "Omaha Week"!! 50% more VPPs for 15% of the day!! Wooo!!

this x1000 !

leaves stars as a bunch of liars (not shocking for me tho, the screen just proofs what i've already figured for a while).

This is awsome Gui and i'm really happy that an actual plo player is going to these meetings after all. Great to see that you go with this in your mind as well.

I want to give you one major thing to think of (in case you didn't before), what i posted a few times earlier. Your analysis is a very very good insight, though it's not totally fair to just take the players that played the most hands like this. Maybe winning players move up? Also very likely is that the players running good keep in the game and play a large volume, the ones running bad will quit and don't make the list. So i expect the real list to be even worse than this.
When you are at the pokerstars meeting you can show them this. They will argue that there are still sizable winners at those stakes. Both reasoning hugely neglects the huge variance of plo (or alternatively poker in general). If you have the possibility to do some analysis with some of the Pokerstars staff member you should construct your analysis like this:
- Split your sample in two parts for every seperate stake
- Over the first part you select the 'good" players by a metric you've choosen (for example, select the players with the best winrates with minimum 100k hands played)
- Then test the winrates of these players over the second part of your data.

These winrates would be a more fair indication of a good players winrate.

Good luck at these meetings!

this

it is beatable... you just gotta say f u rake and play like a boss

in all serious though best of luck at the meeting, nice to have a plo player representing us, and the rake at small stakes is disgustingly high and has a very negative effect on the longterm profitability

plz don't post 25k hand samples as it's not productive to the conversation

if u can monster it up for another 175k hands minimum i will be the first to award you a cookie

25k hand sample lol

hehe I agree my bad

lifetime these stakes I've raked more then what I've ever won. just checked that for the first time now and that is staggeringly high and surprising. didn't know it was that high until now. this is obv terrible for the future of plo and hopefully stars will listen at the meeting

This kind of thinking really annoys me. You have a sample of 25 people with plo variance. Wouldn't you expect the outliers to be winning a winrate like this? Nothing impressive about it.

@gui

do you have a db on nlhe as well by any chance?

would really like to see the LOWER winrates there...

Hm, maybe you are right, it only stood out to me because they had identical looking stats (for reference, nobody else in that list is anywhere close to as identical as those two from what I can tell). I don't actually know what kind of winrates I should be expecting for the outliers, I'm not familiar with that kind of math.

Olangotang, what you fail to point out is that that is almost all on deep tables where stacks are often 250bb+ effective (from the looks of the spikes in your graph, sometimes as high as 1000bb), on an all-in $500 pot with PokerStars' $2.80 rake cap you are getting back 99.55% so paying an effective rake of .45%, a player at 100bb effective playing an all-in $200 pot is only getting back 98.6% so paying 1.4% effective rake. The deep tables aren't affected by the rake anywhere near as much as the 40-100bb games at 100PLO are since when you get all-in for 250bb rather than 100bb you are paying over 3x less rake on the pot.

To put things into perspective, I remember that you posted these graphs in the SSPLO BBV thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=26351

lol sigh. ty SeaKing.

could a mod please delete all the Olangotang-related graphs from this thread?

it's pretty obvious this is going to be a very relevant thread for the next week or so, and these graphs are dumb and cluttery and BBV zzzzzz

This seems like a very good idea, would be interested to see the split here!

One thing I dont really get: The rake is nearly exact as high as the losses. This means, there are no winners on average PRE rake. As those are all kind of grinders, Id not expect to be many recreational players in the list. This is kinda strange to me.

Am I missing something?