I have made some queries today to discover what's happening with regs winrate at Fast Forward nl100 at Party Poker.
My sample is not so big, I have played just 350k hands overall.

My definition of reg :
1. Player with more than 500 hands played
2. Player with a ratio of PFR/VPIP > 67%

It's just a simple way to figure out who are the regs in my sample and if someone have a better idea I'm all ears.


Results of the query are :


I have calculated the Average Reg Winrate plus Rakeback in bb/100(at the botton in the field Reg winrate bb/100).
I tried 30%,40%,45% and 50% rakeback.

As you can see, average reg is losing if the rakeback is 40%, which is the maximum rakeback possible to be won in Party Poker. The average reg is making -0.33bb/100 post rakeback.


I'm posting this to warn any reg coming to Party Poker about the dangers of this field. Also I would like other regs to make their own queries so we can be sure of what's going on.

Are you suggesting there might be foul play on Party's end or that the field is tough?

500 hands is way too small for a "reg" sample

Roughly (or exactly if you have the number) how many "regs" fit into that filtered sample, and do you know what proportion of them are winning pre-rakeback?
There are presumably a LOT of breakeven regs on every network, but there could be a problem if <10% are making money pre-rakeback.
There were similar issues with Zoom on Stars a couple of years ago, (especially in PLO Zoom, where hardly anyone except bots were profitable pre-rakeback) but I haven't seen any recent figures.

I was expecting this to be about an online player called 'Analisis' and their winrate.

I was wrong.

438 players out of 4823 players fit into that filter.
About the proportion of winning pre-rakeback players I have no clue because the reg I have most hand in has 28k hands in my db and second reg 18k hands (not enough sample to know anything about individuals imo).

I'm myself losing prerakeback by -1.5bb/100 (350k hands sample).

Can you set the filter to a higher number of hands until you get about 100 players? It would be somewhat interesting/useful to know what percentage of the highest volume players are winning. I would expect at least a quarter of your 438 "high volume" players are beating the game, but maybe it's the case that the guys that play the most are actually more likely to be small winners or slight losers. (Winning players tend to move up before you have thousands of hands against them, big losers drop down).
The two guys with the absolute highest volume are winners in your database, I take it?

FWIW, I vaguely remember you (I think) doing a similar analysis of FTP's Adrenalin Rush, which more or less proved that game was unbeatable due to the rake being too high and the skill edge being too small. 100NL FF should still be beatable for a few bb/100 though, shouldn't it?

Ok, I have set the hands > 3400 this time so the total number of players is 100 as you're suggesting.

Here are the results :




And here you can see the winrate of the 40 regs with more hands in my database.



Second reg with highest volume in my database is losing -2.29bb/100 prerakeback but as you can see this is better than average reg who is losing -2.79bb/100 prerakeback according to the first picture.

And yes, I did this analysis about adrenaline rush =P

Would be interesting to see if you could add won wsf%? Out of curiosity how many bots are still running in that sample. With some players the preflop stats are quite similar.



Like these two here. Don't mind the stats in between.

Some of those loss rates are astonishing. Obviously there is a lot of variance in NLH, so it's possible that some players that were losing in the hands on your table might be at least breaking even elsewhere, but it kind of blows my mind to think that some people will play hundreds of thousands of hands without being able to beat the game. e.g. the guy you have 18,000 hands on where he was losing at 17bb/100. That just seems mad. It's almost as if losing at 1.5bb/100 can be considered a brag. :/
At least there are a few people winning >5bb/100 (and some at 10bb+), so the game isn't totally broken... yet.

So, is it normal for people to only be winning with rakeback then? Like generally across all stakes/sites?

Given that would mean that on some sites, no one is winning, I'll go with "no".

I tried fast forward nl25 just to see how it plays got -2bb over 100k hands I have millions hands sample on stars zoom 50-100 with 4bb. I guess I will try to 6 table 4zoom tables 2 fast forward and see if I can breakeaven. More regs could share database to see if fastworward is beatable, and when you could filter for good reg stats like 23-26 Vpip 17-22 pfr 7-11 3 bet when I have hands on 100nl fast forward I could send you.

Hey there!

Any update? I'm really curious what you guys find out!

regards,
mjq.

You cannot determine if a player is a winner or loser over a 500 hand sample.

That's irrelevant and not what he's doing.

His criteria of 500 hands fyi is fine since he's averaging all data. Good for you OP for checking into it.

The sample is slightly biased because of the random seating in zoom formats. The OP occupies a seat that on average would be occupied by a worse player. Assuming this is 6-max, as long as an average seat loses 10 bb/100 after rake, that could make up for the losses that you see.

Micro ff at least seems like a dead game. I put on a few $ the other day just to check it out again and got crushed, set over set 5 times, and lost every pot with sets, in a 4k session. Couldn't value bet anything, I ran terrible but same thing happened in their rake back gladiator challenge last year, when every single player I know got crushed on 10nl, even strong zoom winners.

Good to see this analysis OP. I've got my own views on PP that are clouded by my experience there.

share them please

your sample is too small , the highest amount of hands you got on an opponent is 28k hands , thats nothing

the only thing this proves is that the games are tough at party but nothing else , i really dont think no one is winning money pre rb

What should I (roughly) expect in terms of winrate if I am currently almost 4bb/100 at z200 nlhe @pokerstars? (both pre and post rakeback)

If you adjust your rake paid to party's; you are almost cutting your 4bb in half.
If you adjust your winrate with the reg/whale ratio(almost inexistant, while very common on stars) you are now almost breakeven or losing
if you adjust your winrate with the reg/fish ratio of party, you are now decently losing

But you've gained like 2-3bb in rakeback.

But now you've got to adjust your winrate with the added stress of a low winrate + the strong game of bots compared to a lot of really bad reg and regfishes on stars.

Unless you run hot, most likely -1bb with rakeback included.

#

Don't forget this @all-guys-posting-here

Had done a similar analysis @NL100z a while ago and got roughly the same result.

If a 10bb/100 reg would do the same analysis he would find the regs to be losing even more! Like 2.x or 3.xbb/100.

Really?? So from winning almost 4bb/100 at one of the toughest 6-max games in the world to -1bb/100 with 50% rakeback at lower stakes limit at softer site? That seems a bit ridiculous.

i play both party and stars. no way party regs are better than stars. there are some really spewy regs on party (me included )