I started off playing HUSNGs at partypoker because of the promotion twoplustwo was running where you got free poker books. They were iirc $5+$1 turbos. When I found out that that rake was essentially impossible to beat even for very good players I left party and have never considered playing there since.

People who don't know what rake is care because when rake is low they upswing more often and want to keep playing, but more importantly even complete beginners can eventually realise that the game they've been playing is an insane raketrap, and when they do that feeling of having been scammed by the site takes a long time to go away.

I have never understood the "fish dont know or care what rake is" argument. Whether they do or not is irrelevant to how it affects their cashier balance.

I don't even think micros existed on partypoker back when I started playing poker and rake was at 10%. I was a recreational aspiring to become good at the game and of course like many during that time I ran through at least a few $50 to $100 deposits running up bankrolls and then blowing them with poor bankroll management. I'd imagine alot of the players we want attract to poker fit my profile.

Players interested in using sound bankroll management and depositing $50 and grinding it up at the micros are not the type of players that we want more of on the site. I'd argue that it's possible rake should be kept as high as possible at these micro limits to deter regs from targeting those stakes. Those recs willing to play those stakes with their deposits lose more to all these micro reg bottom feeders than they do to any 8% rake(higher rake). I don't think we are interested in incentivizing more "watergun7" type players in the poker world to grind those stakes.(not a knock on him).

The problem is rake is pretty damn high across all stakes lol.

Just lowering the rake at micro/low stakes without lowering the allowable table count is not the answer. If this happened some regs would just drop down stakes and add to their table count and exploit the weaker players and stake.

The problem with the poker economy isn't just that micros or even the whole system is raked high. It's that with the mass multitabling at the lower stakes the money doesn't trickle up the stakes as it did in the past. Regs stay there in their comfort zone until they start complaining that the rake is too high because more multi tabling regs have been added to the pool, all while the casual player depositing $50 for fun gets shredded and quits the game after a round or two.

If allowable table counts were lowered at those stakes the quality of those games would become better for both regs and recs alike. While some may not be able to achieve the same hourly with the reduced table count, that's a good thing because that would encourage some of them to move up more often and take shots sometimes feeding the higher stakes in the process of those shots.

The recreational players would catch more wins now as well with the consideration that they would have a better chance of playing against other recreational players. Some of them would also of course take some shots with their new found winnings. That's what creates the excitement for alot of them and makes them want to come back for more poker.

PokerStars in their recent changes isn't doing this however. They have simply increased the rake at higher stakes. It's my opinion that this will cause even more stagnation in the poker economy and even create a trickle down effect throughout the stakes.

Table limits is an interesting viewpoint.

I can't say for cash or MTTs, but in my experience, big multi tabling regs in SNGs have a smaller edge per game, and if they quit or reduced their table count, other regs would step in. If those regs were to not play as many tables, their per table edge would be higher than the mass tablers.

In that scenario, a losing player would lose their deposit faster.

Perhaps at the micros that is not the case, is mass multi tabling regs with good edges a common thing in micro spins and husngs? I didn't think that to be the case for levels like $7.

in a $30 spin n go to a fish
real classy gavrin you piece of ****.

I'll never understand people who insult recs, especially in a format where you can't rile people up to get more matches.

chiry i PMd u last week, did u get it? don't make me start another campaign to demod you, u only just survived last time.

Anyone who has a decent sample at 15$ games, how much $/hr are you making? And how many tables/games per hour? Hourly for good players in these games?

(sending hush money immediately)

if stars took your advice they would run the risk of some of them cashing out funds though so.... no





just ask the NRA its a slippery slope to even discuss this type of thing, soon everyone is going to want pricing where more than just a few percent of players can potentially win and then shortly thereafter you wont be able to find even a single gun in the entire country with which to mass shoot people, then you and your family are going to suffer home invasions on a daily basis and all of your lives will turn into a bad acid post apocolyptic nightmare, all because of the few extra percent of rake you didnt want to pay, shame on you

rofl @ gun analogy humor

YOU CANT TAKE OUR RAKE!!!!

nvm.

<3 that handsome devil in the backround looks like he may have lost a frisbee :|

What's worse, people berating recs or regs taking 15 seconds per decision on each street because they're playing too many tables?

The first one.

Lol ok mate. I bet recs love the 4 hands per level.

Why are you asking the question to begin with?

I said one thing was bad and you randomly brought up a different issue as if to say that me thinking it's wrong to bash people in chat is ridiculous. They're both bad and completely separate.

Use the tool called injecting logic in MGOP to not become annoyed by slow clueless players. I have 2x the ROI against this player and will earn more money in the same amount of time.

hi, I have a doubt. what is the risk ruin in the simulation. "Had a downswing greater that XX" or "had a lower point lower than XX". i think that is had a lower point, not?

Sounds like you're talking about SwongSim.

If you never withdraw from your bankroll during the simulated number of games, the (simulated) risk of ruin is "had a low point lower than".

If you always withdraw to maintain a certain number of buyins in your bankroll, then it's the "had a downswing greater than" numbers.

ty!!, is about SwongSwin.

No, I brought it up before you posted. I just find it ironic that someone has the nerve to get irate about someone berating a rec but when I look in the chat box all I see is XXX has 8 seconds remaining to act, or whatever it says.

lol