.

The point is that way too much is sucked out of the economy and landing in stars pockets.
A 3bb winrate with 3bb rake is way better than a 0bb winrate with 10bb rake.
Also stars claimed that the winrates (and that's pre rb afaik) are higher in PLO than in NLHE - yet the list shows the opposite.


Making up numbers makes no sense but I'm pretty sure it's way below that.
Afaik stars has a higher income per worker than google.

This makes me think i'm better of at no limit

what about playing on euro networks with high rb? Is that a better alternative than playing on stars if you aren't SNE or good enough to crush MSPLO+?

If elected I will definitely take this to the stars player meetings. And if not, the players chosen definitely need to be made aware of this thread and the evidence/stats.

Is it any better at other sites?

Do NLH players ONLY make a profit from RB these days? Why should it be impossible for PLO players to win before RB via skill? You have to play for SN+ to make a profit at all unless you run hot and the majority of the player base isn't going to grind it out. They've turned PLO and CAP into roulette with the rake.

You are far from the truth here. It's PLO 100. I would be amazed if it was more than 35-40 percent
Neeeever
That is the only number you pulled I tend to agree with

Cliffs: We could all start pulling out numbers out of our arses, but I think we're much better of with just tangible stats like OP's stats for example

[img]http://s21.************/460ehczhz/Screen_Shot_2013_03_28_at_4_43_26_PM.png[/img]

I'm glad this is coming to light. I've struggled with PLO 50 and below for more than 200k hands, refusing to give up. losing at~ 2bb/100. Always thinking that winning was just around the corner. It's not. -2bb/100 is basically crushing these games. Overcoming 15+bb/100 in rake, and 25+bb/100 in blind posting. Considering your avg. PLO win/loss rate is in fact -12bb/100. that says alot.

I love how stars claims the games are healthy. " there's 25% winners". ya. over how many hands? i guarantee that if the whole PLO population was forced to play 100k + hands, that the winner % would be less than 5.

I too, have a masssive PLO database (5MM+). Guess what? 1 ****ing guy who was crushing. the same guy. who dumped back all is winning in the next 6 months of play.

Low stakes PLO is a shill. don't believe all the BS you see posted by shill accounts. Do you really think that some sites wouldn't sink low enough to have a few shill posters on the forums, claiming sick winrates and posting sexy graphs? it's not hard to edit out losing hands from a database.

The PLO games are NOT healthy. not even close. and its no wonder stars if trying to push omaha right now. they would LOVE for all of you to chase after the holy grail. omaha is their cash cow.

Thanks joeri.

I'm sorry but I didn't get exactly what you're suggesting. You're saying to split the database in half and check how players with best winrate in first half did in second half?

One thing that I can add is that, when I was importing the hands, I stopped 2 or 3 times to take a look how things were doing and they weren't any better at all.

I bought these hands this week with the only intention of checking how regs were doing and to see for myself how big the winrates in PLO really are. I don't have that many hands on any other stake or game yet.

Right now I'm rebuilding cache on my database (running for 12hours and will stiil take about 8 hr more). After that I'll see if it's possible to filter the database in some way to be able to check the avg losing rate.

@ gui,

yes thats what i mean. Lets say you select the 250 biggest winners (in bb/100) on your first 2,5 million hands (min 20k hands played). Then i would like to see how these players (as a group) did in the rest of the sample. The idea is that you select mostly "good" players and you look at how the good players did.

That way you won't have a bias for running hot/cold en moving up/down.

I'm likely #4 or #5 on that list (play roughly 50% 0.5/1, 50% 1/2 - 2/4), but am SNE so am profitable. Based on volume and my own data I'm guessing there are no more than 5 regs who are SNEs at these stakes.

It is my opinion that its virtually impossible to be profitable over a decent sample (let's say 500k hands, 100bb stacks (deep is different) for the sake of argument) without decent rakeback (SNE) and/or heavily table selecting. And - this is important - Stars are currently trying to reduce table selection or eliminate it altogether. WTF are they thinking? Maybe this is relevant at 5/10+ but at small stakes - do this and you COMPLETELY kill the small stakes games - and don't think there's no connection between small stakes and 5/10+. I hope some Stars rep is reading this - and maybe you can make the data you showed at the last Stars/2+2 rep meeting that apparently claims winrates are higher at PLO public?

I work on my game, am intelligent, but have never table-selected and lack discipline, so maybe if I can get my act together I'll get there. But it's so hard... have tried to move up in the past but meh, permanent runbad. I feel sorry for anyone just starting out who just doesn't have a chance.

GL

haha no table selection and you won't see me playing a single hand @plo w/o drastic rake reduce.
i am a big fan of competition but came to the conclusion that the 7th player sitting at every table is just too strong

Great post.
[unfortunately it doesn't encourage me to play ...
And what is gonna to happen if there is not many new players coming to the game?]

Shimmy what do you think average RB for players are in this sample? Grizy guessed ~40 but probarly way lower if its just 5 SNE's?

45-50 at least. SN gives you 45.

All the players in that screenshot will be SN (about 0.45 - 0.5 VPP/hand at .5/1 PLO), so I would guess 50% average if what cbt says above is correct (not sure of exact figure for SN).

Woah!

Not touching PLO with a bargepole until the rake is improved, no matter how tempted I am

Should be a starting 35% for SN.

$1 rake = 5.5vpps

5.5vpps x 3.5 = 19.25 fpps

19.25 fpps x 0.016 = $0.308

$2600 milestone bonus = 100k vpps or $0.143 per 5.5 vpps

So minimum of 45.1% rb when you're SN and keep playing and more when you're getting higher milestone boni.
Starting as SN and achieving SN again is only ~38% tho i think, cba atm to calculate ^^.

let's also not forget that a huge part of that rake is recreational players that get a much smaller cut on the rakeback

the picture provided in the OP only accounts for around 9-10% of overall rake totals

yea was just putting up some numbers for SNs.
everyone else is getting back 9-22% or so.

yeah i was just giving a (probably too high) estimate for the players in the OP's screenshot, obv average rakeback for all players is much less, probably 20-25%, and that is likely optimistic.