Quote:
Originally Posted by joeri
@ tongni; what is your point?
We are looking for possible winrates at ssplo and your post seems to be unrelated to the topic? (and also very debatable)
I'll make the connection for you, on the off chance that you're not being intentionally obtuse.
BB/100 hands is a deceptive metric when dealing with low stakes poker, because so much of the return to the player is given through FPP's and other incentives. The fact that less than half of the players at this stake win even after taking into account all those things is not a strike against high rake. Even in an unraked system, it is likely you would see a similar trend. Most players that are consistent winners would move up to the next level, and you would maintain an equilibrium of bad players running good, good players running bad, and breakeven players.
The OP deals with reducing the rake at low stakes PLO because it is unbeatable. The data provided shows some players winning at upwards of $100/hr over large number of hands, after FPP's are taken into account. It's not like I'm writing anything that PS doesn't know or hasn't already calculated to the 6th decimal place. I think there are other arguments for a modest reduction to rake, but if this is your only argument, then it may be a tough sell.