Quote:
Originally Posted by Lun@tic
You are little confused, and example u make is not proper.
We are (I hope so) not about getting pump, we are about our income.
Simple math: U play X hand (does not matter how much) and win $1000 before rake taken. Lets say you pays $800 rake to the room (under 5% system) (exact number not matters too). If u get 60% RB it will be $480 back. Lets sum income: $1000 - $800 + $480 = $680
Moving on. Imagine rake is 4.5%. U pay from net winnings only ($800*4.5/5)=$720. 60% RB will be $720*0.6=432. Calculating income: $1000 - $720 + $432 = $712
Not focus only on RB, we are playng to win!
Yes, of course your example is correct. It is obvious that if the rake is reduced and nothing else changes then that is better for everyone. You don't need a detailed example and an excel picture to prove that.
But that isn't what we're talking about.
We are talking about a solution to compensate for the new WC rake (which on average looks like it reduces VPP value by 20%.) So we are comparing a hypothetical solution which involves reducing the rake by 20% and reducing VPP value by 20% with the old 2011 situation.
So, using your numbers (and factoring in the estimated 20% drop in VPP value for 2012) and comparing with 2011 numbers we get:
A loss of $54.40
---------------------------
So, whereas a reduction in rakeback is still better than a kick in the balls, it is not the best, fairest, or simplest solution.
(Also, and it's been mentioned before, a reduction in rake by x% wouldn't actual save you x% in rake paid unless the cap was reduced by the same percentage. In reality, in the example above where rake is reduced by 10% you wouldn't go from $800 in rake paid to $720, because the cap will have been reached in many of the pots. You would actually pay more than $720.)