I am posting this here since the "no money plo, everyone is raked" thread was posted on HSPLO as well.
I will also post this on SSNL as this is of course also relevant to them and so they can have a separate discussion there.

Here are the winrates for the top 100 volume players between PLO25-200 & NLHE25-200 on PokerStars.
The hands are mainly from this year and from late 2013 and usually taken from 10M hand samples.
All winrates are post rakeback & all-in ev adjusted.

I have used various VIP tiers as follows:

BR-GO = Bronze to Gold (~19%)
BR-PL = Bronze to Platinum (~24%)
BR-SN = Bronze to Supernova (~27%)
PL-SN = Platinum to Supernova (~28%)
SN-300k = Supernova to Supernova 300k VPPS (~43%)
SN-500k = Supernova to Supernova 500k VPPS (~45%)
SNE = Supernova to Supernova Elite (~55%)

Keep in mind that this isn't exactly an in-depth analysis on rake rather than one
for strong regular players.
It's also debatable how strong the groups of the top 100 volume grinders are.
I think if you are a regular yourself you likely know most or all of the top 100 grinders
and you will be able to draw your own picture.


PLO25:


PLO25 Zoom:


NL25:


NL25 Zoom:



PLO50:


PLO50 Zoom:


NL50:


NL50 Zoom:



PLO100:


PLO100 Zoom:


NL100:


NL100 Zoom:



PLO200:


PLO200 Zoom:


NL200:


NL200 Zoom:



Results in text form & hourlies:

PLO25: 2.57 / 3.15 / 3.58
NL25..: 2.01 / 2.31 / 2.53

PLO25 Zoom:-0.35 / 0.11 / 0.45
NL25 Zoom..: 0.91 / 1.19 / 1.40


PLO50: 3.76 / 4.16 / 6.18
NL50..: 3.18 / 3.40 / 4.48

PLO50 Zoom:-0.60 /-0.25 / 1.50
NL50 Zoom..: 1.94 / 2.14 / 3.15


PLO100: 3.77 / 5.42 / 6.44
NL100..: 2.90 / 3.91 / 4.53

PLO100 Zoom: 0.87 / 2.38 / 3.32
NL100 Zoom..: 2.13 / 3.03 / 3.59


PLO200: 2.40 / 3.61 / 4.37
NL200..: 2.88 / 3.63 / 4.09

PLO200 Zoom: 0.79 / 1.94 / 2.65
NL200 Zoom..: 1.70 / 2.40 / 2.83


Hourlies 12 tabling or 4x Zoom:
NL 12x80 or 4x240 = 960 hands/h
PL 12x70 or 4x210 = 840 hands/h

PLO25: $5.40 / $6.62 / $7.52
NL25..: $4.82 / $5.54 / $6.07

PLO25 Zoom:-$0.74 / $0.23 / $0.95
NL25 Zoom..: $2.18 / $2.86 / $3.36


PLO50: $15.79 / $17.47 / $25.96
NL50..: $15.26 / $16.32 / $21.50

PLO50 Zoom: -$2.52 / -$1.05 / $6.30
NL50 Zoom..: $9.31 / $10.27 / $15.12


PLO100: $31.67 / $45.53 / $54.10
NL100..: $27.84 / $37.54 / $43.49

PLO100 Zoom: $7.31 / $19.99 / $27.89
NL100 Zoom..: $20.45 / $29.09 / $34.46


PLO200: $40.32 / $60.65 / $73.42
NL200..: $55.30 / $69.70 / $78.53

PLO200 Zoom: $13.27 / $32.60 / $44.52
NL200 Zoom..: $32.64 / $46.08 / $54.34

It's important to note that no FPPS are used until the highest VIP tier has been reached in each scenario for the maximum value.
In real scenarios this might not be possible for many players unless they have a huge roll or run pretty hot.
Also the last VIP tiers are very hard to achieve even for high volume regs.
I'm not sure how accurate the hands per hour for Zoom are, I think it varies a lot depending on how quick you fast fold but I think it's an ok ballpark to go by Stars' rule as they count 1 Zoom table as 3 normal ones.

Mods please feel free to edit mistakes if I should have made any or if
you want to format the post in a better way.

There's a vast difference between the highest volume players and the best regs, you know

Thanks for the investigation. It does show that Zoom PLO-X is less profitable than its counterpart Zoom NL-2X.

That said, at normal tables, BRM in terms in the number of BIs isn't set in stone; and I believe there's more room for table selection in PLO (i.e. a bigger difference in the quality of tables at the same stake). That might balance out the inferiority to normal NL-2X that normal PLO-X has for the regs in your DB who likely don't select tables well.

I know, that's why I mentioned it .
I think it's usually a fair mix of some superstars, lots of ok'ish/decent regs and some fishregs.

Your welcome.
Yup and they are both doing poorly.

Basically zoom sucks and is raked unevenly

Biggest volume doesnt equal best player, but I am sure all the best players made the lists at their stakes respectively, maybe not on the top spot but they are all out there on those lists. There is no such thing as great low stake player that 1-2 tables, its mostly about putting some hours in once the skill is there.

However, there must be great low stake players who only bumhunt at Stars and have most of their volume on other networks

Can you post rake for all these levels in bb/100 as well?

why such a big difference on the winrate between zoom and normal tables?

also in PLO the nr of hands/h are much smaller, with 4 Zoom tables its dificult to make more than 650h/h

cliffs?

These figures are post Rakeback... so sick

Nice work op

Zoom is cancer.

could you also perform the same analysis for zoom500 please?

yea would be cool to see the numbers before rakeback too

I didn't think it was that big of a secret that Pokerstars rake the sh*t out of the games, especially PLO. Just pull up your rake paid stat in Holdem Manager and get ready to puke.

No table/seat selection and the ratio rec/reg is much worse, which will be extra punative in an extremely high rake pressure environment.

These figures show why it's a hard argument to lower rake at these IoM meetings. Even though the rake is much higher on the plo part, the actual hourlies are remarkably comparable. This is also similar to what i was shown when went to the IoM. I think that lowering rake for plo will result in a much higher volume of play, because more people will start playing plo. But there is no proof or anything to show this to stars.

BUT, this picture changes drastically for zoom. PLO zoom is much worse off compared to other alternatives. I note 2 things from this:
1. We should keep a close eye to the situation, because if plo is getting thougher and thougher, you will start to see the same disparity between hourlies in normal nlh/plo. The rake is simply double...
2. At this moment it seems very logical to make the argument to stars that zoom plo rake is just too high because there is no seat/table selection and the rec/reg ratio is too bad.

You can figure them out yourself from the posted data on winnings with various RB% (that are specified explicitly in the OP). E.g. rake = ([winnings + 55% RB] - [winnings + 45% RB]) / 0.10.

Sorry for not doing it myself: 1) I have tasks with higher priority now (e.g. grinding the weekend on iPoker ), 2) it's rather your job than mine anyway.

Is game selection/reg ratio the only reason? The difference seems really high, and I have noticed a huge gap between my zoom/reg tables winrate (talking 500PLO and 2/4 - 3/6) and I don't think that there is too much difference in terms of fish/etc.

Or the gimmick account OP that clearly have the stats can just post them..

More background info on plo zoom in a topic by apo5tol:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/38...table-1462282/

Seems like rake at plo zoom is really out of balance...

One other major factor is that the recs play a lot better (or at least tighter preflop) at zoom due to the fast fold option.

Those are for the limits as a whole. Hope that's what you wanted as I can't provide the rake bb/100 for the top100 player lists atm, but this should showcase that the PLO ecosystem is suffering.
No news for most of us but still of relevance nonetheless.

PLO200: 8.89 bb/100
PLO100: 12.53 bb/100
PLO50 : 16.60 bb/100
PLO25 : 18.23 bb/100

NL200: 5.18 bb/100
NL100: 7.13 bb/100
NL50 : 8.23 bb/100
NL25 : 8.58 bb/100


PLO200 Zoom: 8.10 bb/100
PLO100 Zoom: 11.00 bb/100
PLO50 Zoom : 13.74 bb/100
PLO25 Zoom : 15.05 bb/100

NL200 Zoom: 4.83 bb/100
NL100 Zoom: 6.46 bb/100
NL50 Zoom : 7.47 bb/100
NL25 Zoom : 8.57 bb/100


Don't have any meaningful samples on that, sorry.

I've only kept the screenshots and had to delete the db's 2-3 times before importing other limits because of the disk space it consumes.

Since you're a mod, what are the rules on posting these analysis with no hidden sn's?
I think it's a bit more useful w/o blanking sn's out but I can see some problems.

If anyone wants to see some specific analysis let me know.
Re-importing a limit takes 1-2 days, so I won't be doing something
across all limits for the time being, but if it's between 2 limits or so
I'm happy to do that if it's of relevance to the rake analysis.

Hey 1:1,

From where did u get that hands? Russian ptr or did u buy them from some site?

I think that it is a good idea someone with good computer and with some skills to make deep analysis for plo/nlhe stars hands for this year.

also the fish at zoom play way tighter so while they maybe need the same time as on normal tables to lose their money they will play more hands so the regs need to pay more rake until they stack them