Interest in me doing that bet ?

si senor, por favor

Shooooots fired !

Has your AIEV line adjusted at all lately or are you still running horribly under AIEV?

I was a lot under ev for 14-16months. This year i am probably also under ev in bb but i am running hot on zoom2k so actually i am above ev in $.

crazy, whats your screenname? Many crazy russians around ... Not many below ev though ;P

he doesn´t play under russian flag (ChicagoJoey actually talked about getting him on a podcast because he moved up from PLO50 to PLO 2k in the last year)

Would bet the 5k vs you as well

I'd be in for 5k as well vs the unknown russian or alexo .

don't u think ev bb/100 is easy to manipulate by adjusting some? like delaying more action to the river where ev is always 100% with the winner.

How much potato could a stereo eat if a shovel could swim houses?

I think one explanation why NLHE zoom is less profitable is because people tend to be more tight in zoom. And lets remember, PS only rakes when there is VPIP and flop, isn't it?

And I have no idea why PLO sucks so much in zoom in comparison with normal tables.

???
risk of loosing ..

depends on the shovel

Nlh looks more the same, zoom or not, while plo is clearly on the line of tighter and tougher as zoom, showing the future of plo. The random additional of there being less plays at zoom tables, including bad ones, doesnt seem right thinking about the nlh scores. Information, that one gets at zoom also, and more so w smaller pools.

The nexy level winning players figure to get better still playing vs. tight style. After that if not sooner we will see balanced players preventing any possibility of winning w significant rake. But i think it takes 24 years.

You guys need to look beyond your own winrates, and rakeback. I guess one cannot expect more from poker regs, but your moderate winrates are not the main concern in regards to the rake system at Pokerstars. What you guys need more than anything else is a steady supply of recreational players that do not mind donating their earnings from the real world outside of poker. That supply is currently, to a significant extent, being held back by the rake system.

I happen to be one of those guys, and with a busy life, the stressful game of poker is actually a way for me to have some fun and relax. However, since I don't play regularly, some months not at all, playing at Pokerstars would mean that I pretty much do not get any rakeback at all, at least not my first few sessions of the month, which might very well be my only sessions. Perhaps OP can run an analysis on how fast a few buy-ins at PLO25 and PLO50 disappears in my, and many other recreational players, case (feel free to set our winrate to -20bb/100 pre-rake). Only a fraction of these buy-ins is donated to all you regs, and due to the moderate winrates amongst you, pretty much nothing is pushed up the foodchain.

Conclusion; you regs at low/mid-stakes should stop whining about your poor winnings, and either find another place to play PLO cash games, or go look for a job. Because unless rake is being reduced, or recreational players also receive decent rakeback, the PLO eco-system at Pokerstars will remain unhealthy.

Oh, one more thing, recreational players are indeed aware of the rake. As soon as you once have been all-in pre-flop and ended up halving the pot, you do notice that there in fact was a winner of the hand.

Seriously, if someone can give me a site with comparable traffic to Stars, I'll move there.

where did u get this data?

also could u do this without rb and also show how much rake is paid in these games?

i.e. whats the winrate vs rake among these players would be good to understand.

im a MTT donk who played around 100k hands of PLO lifetime. what odds would i be getting to make 5evBB/100 over 100k hands @plo200z in 1month?

Sorry guys...i've read all but didnt fully understand.

Could someone just give an example of the winrate pre and post rakeback of the NL 100 zoom?

Never mind...think i got it.

More difficult then i thought making 2bb/100 pre rakeback at NL 100 zoom.

The main problem with analyzing high volume regs as a group is that we are creating a sub-category of players that account for a large % of total hands played. Lets say we make a list of 50 players that played the most hands at zoom 100 and it turns out they were involved in 80% of total hands played. It shouldnt be suprising that this group will have a very low avg winrate if not negative, after all they have to beat the remainder of the players for 4xrake just to break even.

That being said, rake is indeed skyhigh at lower levels.

Where do you got your wrong numbers?

I had no idea NLHE is more profitable than PLO, how is this possible? There are much more regs at NLHE..

I find it hard to believe that the rake at PLO zoom negates all the extra value from having a much higher fish to reg ratio. Somethings must be wrong with this data