rake per 100 hands is higher in ante games for me.

i think the effective rake on huge pots doesn't overcome the fact that the structure encourages more flops seen in steal versus defense situations.

good post OP, GL us at the meetings.

Stars I think everyone can thrive with a rake model that gives players a chance in the long run.

I feel bad for a player today with a 1K bankroll and a dream to climb the PLO ladder. Hes drawing dead.

But people please, Stars can do whatever the F**K they want, we are at their mercy. so when you construct arguments, don't act entitled to anything, because you are not. Explain why lower rake can benefit them too in the long run. Find solutions that benefit everyone.

Interesting, looks horrible.

I dont play at stars but dont they have pretty good return on that rake?

Thats the total loss of >10 million hands. As poker is a zero sum game (minus rake) the total loss will be the size of the rake.

Or alternatively if player A wins a 100$ pot from player B, then player A will win like 98$, player B -100$, and the total "profit" is -2$ (rake).

yeah sure. But here are missing alot of players that are not in the list but that have been playing vs those players in the list.
Therefor the 0-sum game is not fitting. It would be true, if those hands only contain hands, where those players in the list played each other.
But if player A wins 100$ from Player B (who is not in the list), then Player A wins 98$, and the losing 98$ of player B is not in the list.

That said, the grinders in the list seem to be regs. Yes, there might be a 0-sum game for the hands they played each other, but all of them should have winnings from recreational players that are not in the list.

Maybe I am just stupid and miss something completely, but this really confuses me.

kreatief, everyone is included in the list. you only see the top in hands played

yea you're missing that everyone is in that list, even the recs with 10 hands ^^

omg, ok. That makes sense. Maybe a mod can just delete my posts and the relating ones. Sorry for that

The rake should be higher at .5/1 ante than .5/1 regular because the stakes are higher. At a .5/1 ante table with 6 players, there is $2.70 in the pot preflop, ($.50 SB, $1 BB, $.20 x 6 for antes) which means you are playing approximately $.9/$1.80 which is nearly twice the stakes. I would be incredibly surprised if .5/1 ante gets raked 80% more than .5/1 regular.

I dont understand how that is possible. How did OP get all hands ever played in last 12 months? + I would have expected much more then 10 million hands in a year...


anyway, ty OP for this

Edit: how dumb of me - just realized that this is only PLO100. I guess 10 million hands makes sense. Still wonder how you get all these hands.

Do you have the same stats for all stakes OP?

$8 mil rake from 1 stake of PLO

therefore:

$8M x 10,000 stakes of different games = $800000000000000000000000000 billion profit per year.

Easy game

OP would be nice if you could get the hands from PLO 200 and plo 50. 1 game over and 1 game under. This way you could get more people who "climbed" the ladder.

It's one thing to have 500k hands on a break even player and it's one thing to have 500k hands of someone who went from .25/.50 to 1/2.

A winning player is likely to do just that. It might change things a bit to see that some player have a positive winrate and just climbed it


Also I seriously doubt you are going to see something like that as you barely see new names on higher stakes. People like odseen are barely existent in PLO. In fact the total opposite is true. You see more and more people dropping down in stake before realizing the rake is unbeatable.

Also could you get us the "average losing rate" of lets say the 1000 players who have over 200 hands of PLO 100?

What I would like to see is how many of these players do you need at a table to pay the 75bb/100 PS is taking out of the game.

In NL the worst players are losing over 50+++bb/100 easily as it's NO limit and equities run so far appart in PLO I wouldn't be surprised if it's way down that as the equities run closer together

No, this was my first thought as well.

What you see is the first page of the report, sorted by most hands played. It's not possible to show all the players on a single screen shot, because there are thousands of them. But the last row of the screen shot shows the numbers for the full report, so every player is included, even the ones with one hand. <--- I need clarification on this by OP because he says it's only players with > 10K hands in that report. Which is true?

It's not 10 mill hands, look at the screen shot. The last row of the hands column reads 63.8 million hands. You can't just divide it by 6 because there's 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-handed play on a 6-max table in that sample. <--- If this is a report for only the players with > 10K hands than dividing by 6 is out of the question.

I also have no idea how OP is able to gather this information but it'll be really, really helpfull if he's able to provide us a simillar screen shot for as much limits as possible so we can analyze the data as a community and come up with a new rake model to be represented at the meeting which will be fairer and hopefully of mutual interest for both Stars and the players.

Without the data there's not much we can put on the table at the meeting.

@ antchev, he said in the op "more than 10 million" hands

@ mig and @ antchev; If you analyse it the way i proposed, you don't really need to consider players moving up and down. moving up or down only results in a smaller sample for the second period. But you can still analyse how the "good players" from section one did on section 2 over xxx hands.

Depressing :*(

OK, I didn't know that "10kk" = 10m, my bad

The purpose of looking at more limits is to analyze how the rake affects the whole picture, not only PLO100. I don't really care about people moving up and down because their results are the most likely to be skewed by the extremes of the variance.

Have to assume this is even more of an issue at .25/.50...

It's a little deceptive I think - first, pokerstars has to return about 50% on average in player incentives for those high volume players (that number may be a little high, depending on how many make it to SNE. Payment processing, security for the games, customer support, servers, etc. probably costs about 15-20%. Marketing might be somewhere between 10-20%. Then, you have to look at specific one time costs like the DOJ payment. They probably only profit about 15-25% even before those kind of events. Is there room to drop rake 5-10%? Probably. Will they do it with a uncertain future and stronger competition looming on the horizon? Probably not. I think players should be very satisfied with a 5% rake reduction.

A lot of this just stems from the fact that players prefer a higher rake and in turn higher loyalty based rewards. In fact, this is much better for the high volume player because they realize a greater percentage of the proportional return to players due to the multi-tier structure. In the end, professional players will go to where ever they think they can realize the highest hourly, rake or no rake.

@ 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)

Assuming ~40% rakeback, about half of the players, not just 3, are marginally profitable.

I would have thought significantly more so.

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.