*** Official 2012 Supernova Elite pursuit thread, with related chat ***

[krmont22]

Originally Posted by Anders

The winner is the person who would get the money if there were no rake.

+1

[ESKiMO-SiCKNE5S]

Ok ill put it this way lennois - you can definitely make a case that wc or dealt are the most fair systems, but they would be fringe positions.

if you have to take one thing from my post, its this, and its all that matters:

"The switch to WC is to encourage action and to keep losing players from losing their money as fast, which is overall good for the poker economy"

[lennois]

Originally Posted by Anders

The winner is the person who would get the money if there were no rake. That's whose pocket 100% of the rake comes out of, and if what was desired was a fair system, that's who would get 100% of the rakeback for that individual pot.

Sure, and if there was no rake the following view of things obv wouldn't apply

"You can view it as 2 people betting $98.5 against each other (paying stars 1.50 each to facilitate the bet) in which case WC makes sense."

However, unfortunately there IS rake, so the above is perfectly reasonable way of viewing it.

WC and WTA are both 'fair' imo depending on whether you you view rake as a fee on the winner or a fee to facilitate the bet.

Either way they are both a whole lot fairer than dealt which was my point in response to eskimo initially.

[blueodum]

Actually rake is taken out of the pot as the hand progresses (on Stars and most other sites I've played at), not at the end.

[Do it Right]

Originally Posted by lennois

Some explanation that. Do you consider the rake 'paid' when it's sitting in stars corner? If so, how has the winner paid it already when we don't even know who the winner is yet? On a $57 flop with $3 in stars corner already, why is the view that each player has already contributed $1.50 to that $3 not valid?

And not that it's relevant, but I am hurt by WC just like most.

The rake comes from the pot. Who does the pot belong to?

Here's a simple way to understand this. Imagine the site doesn't rake at all during the hand, but after it finished. And let's look at two different scenarios:

1. Winner pays all the rake: Ok, so our two players play the $60 pot. It goes to the winner. The site calculates the rake and charges only the winner so they go and take $3 from his account. Everything ends up exactly as it does right now. The winner ends up with a net profit of $27 and the loser only loses $30.

2. Both players split the rake: Again they play the $60 pot. Now the site goes and removes $1.50 from each player's account. Uh oh! We have a problem. This isn't what happens right now. Suddenly the loser actually lost $31.50.


==================================================

B..b..b..ut that scenario is EXACTLY like a $27+$3 SNG and it's obvious both players are paying the rake. The winner wins $27 and the loser loses $30 and it's clear both players pay rake. Another reasonable suggestion, but also incorrect. How much does the winner gross, not net? $27 + $27 = $54. In the ring game example it is $27 + $30 = $57. That example has twice as high effective rake as the ring game example. It's not the same at all.

The problem here is that weighted contributed 'simulates' scenario 2, which I hope this clarifies is absolutely positively not what is actually happening. Sure under dealt nits got more than their fair share of rakeback. Now under weighted contributed every time you win a pot you get [at most 50% of the credit for the rake you actually paid. It's not fair, not even close.

[Raventhon]

Originally Posted by Do it Right

The rake comes from the pot. Who does the pot belong to?

Here's a simple way to understand this. Imagine the site doesn't rake at all during the hand, but after it finished. And let's look at two different scenarios:

1. Winner pays all the rake: Ok, so our two players play the $60 pot. It goes to the winner. The site calculates the rake and charges only the winner so they go and take $3 from his account. Everything ends up exactly as it does right now. The winner ends up with a net profit of $27 and the loser only loses $30.

2. Both players split the rake: Again they play the $60 pot. Now the site goes and removes $1.50 from each player's account. Uh oh! We have a problem. This isn't what happens right now. Suddenly the loser actually lost $31.50.


==================================================

B..b..b..ut that scenario is EXACTLY like a $27+$3 SNG and it's obvious both players are paying the rake. The winner wins $27 and the loser loses $30 and it's clear both players pay rake. Another reasonable suggestion, but also incorrect. How much does the winner gross, not net? $27 + $27 = $54. In the ring game example it is $27 + $30 = $57. That example has twice as high effective rake as the ring game example. It's not the same at all.

The problem here is that weighted contributed 'simulates' scenario 2, which I hope this clarifies is absolutely positively not what is actually happening. Sure under dealt nits got more than their fair share of rakeback. Now under weighted contributed every time you win a pot you get [at most 50% of the credit for the rake you actually paid. It's not fair, not even close.

... Right, but every time you lose a pot you get (at most) 50% of the credit for the rake the other guy actually paid, which makes it reasonably fair. Obviously it's worse for people with higher W$WSF, but not to the degree that you seem to be implying. Every time you contribute $x to the pot, you get credit for $y of rake paid. It doesn't seem like as huge a gyp as you seem to think it is.

I'm a SNG donk and I don't really care either way, it just doesn't seem as clearcut from my perspective.

[blueodum]

Here's a simple way to understand this. Imagine the site doesn't rake at all during the hand, but after it finished.

When you start with a supposition that isn't true, it destroys your subsequent argument.

[Do it Right]

Originally Posted by Raventhon

... Right, but every time you lose a pot you get (at most) 50% of the credit for the rake the other guy actually paid, which makes it reasonably fair. Obviously it's worse for people with higher W$WSF, but not to the degree that you seem to be implying. Every time you contribute $x to the pot, you get credit for $y of rake paid. It doesn't seem like as huge a gyp as you seem to think it is.

I'm a SNG donk and I don't really care either way, it just doesn't seem as clearcut from my perspective.

It's a massive difference. It's not about W$WSF, it's about W$WSF contrasted against the pot (and thus rake) size. The one thing all winning players have in common is that in big pots they tend to show up with big hands way more often than not. Their W$WSF increases proportionally with the size of the pot. So does the rake.

This results in them being really damaged by weighted contributed. The better the player they are, the more unfair weighted contributed becomes.

[_dave_]

do "contributions" continue to be counted once the rake hits cap? if so, that's very unfair and should be corrected.

[blueodum]

This results in them being really damaged by weighted contributed. The better the player they are, the more unfair weighted contributed becomes.

You are assuming that WTA is fairer than WC, but since rake is taken throughout the hand and not at the end, this is not the case.

[ESKiMO-SiCKNE5S]

[Do it Right]

Originally Posted by blueodum

You are assuming that WTA is fairer than WC, but since rake is taken throughout the hand and not at the end, this is not the case.

When the rake is taken out has nothing to do with anything. Your statement that it's taken out as the hand progresses is also incorrect, the next time you play an all-in pre pot on Stars try to see when they take it out. I say try because they go to some lengths to disguise their raking. Hint: it's not when the money goes in. The reason I suggested the visualization of the site not raking at all was to simplify the scenario.

The "They take rake as we bet so if we each bet $30 and they raked $3 we must have both paid $1.50." argument is more easily broken since it is purely an assumption with no grounding. Here let me use your same 'argument': They rake as we bet so if we each bet $30 and they raked $3 it's clear I paid $2 in rake and you paid $1 in rake. Same exact logic, resulting in another silly unfounded conclusion. I hope it's clear when exactly they rake has absolutely no bearing at all on who pays what ratio of rake.

You need to look at the net impact of the rake. In a raked game you both go all in for $30. The winner wins $60, the loser loses $30. In a raked game you both go all in for $30. The winner wins $57, the loser loses $30. It's not rocket science who ended up $3 shorter than they would have normally and who ended up exactly the same.

[lennois]

Originally Posted by Do it Right

In a raked game you both go all in for $30. The winner wins $57, the loser loses $30. It's not rocket science who ended up $3 shorter than they would have normally and who ended up exactly the same.

or u can think of it as players telling stars, hey we wanna go all in for 30 each. Stars then says ok we'll take 1.50 off each of u for that privilege and send your remaining 28.50 in the middle. Winner wins 57 yes, doesn't mean he paid 3. Both can be fair depending on how u view it.

[lennois]

hehe that was a quick ninja delete do it right

[Raventhon]

Originally Posted by JayC170

hah nice

you grind sngs right? what buyins/formats?

18mans at abi ~45