Any chance of heads up cash ever?

Uncheck 'hide heads-up' at the top of the main lobby.

lol

I hear all the fish are at the 2/4 HU tables

I can assure you that they know exactly how much money players are withdrawing off of their site.

There is really no debate as to who gets bonuses. Over the last couple of years a clear pattern has been established. This pattern has been recognized and accepted by the overwhelming majority of regs in this thread. If you are a consistent withdrawing active poker player that never deposits and doesnt play casino games or bet on sports and you receive bonuses consider yourself lucky because you are the aberration.

Btw, just to add, in regards to your rake theory, even throwing out all of the evidence we have gathered that supports the above statement which I made, to think that Bovada is sending winning players custom bonuses to encourage them to hit the tables more would be quite a stretch to say the very least.

Absolutely not true. Tons of ppl still win at the micros. I usually play small stakes and mid stakes but when tables start to dwindle in non peak hrs ill play some 50NL, micros. No bumhunting even, not even on Lolvada which is the easiest site in the world, and my WR over the last 100k hands @ micros is 11bb/100 hands. U dont even really have to think if u dont want to at micros. If u literally just play TAG, bet fold for value everytime w/out the nuts u still can be a marginal winner.I think ppl just make it more complicated than it is at those limits.

I don't know man, my sample size is too small right now to know for sure but obviously i wouldn't be playing if i didn't think you were wrong. I don't use pt or hm; i wrote my own hand tracking code cuz i was too cheap to upgrade past pt2. And i didn't write in code to keep track of the rake separately so i don't know what i'm paying in bb/100. So i'll just have to see where my results are once i have a larger sample.

You sound way too sure of your assertion though. I have no idea where this confidence would be coming from unless you had tried it yourself over a large sample and did not win.

My only somewhat relevant data on myself are from pre-bf where i had a solid winrate over 100k hands, but i was playing bigger then (50-200nl) and it wasn't anonymous so i'd admit its relevance is questionable.

Anyways, i was just mouthing off and didn't really expect someone to come along and attempt to put me in my place, but whatev.

I can probably beat micros with my eyes closed=). Come on seriously, how bad are you to think that?

i dont play micros. never have.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...raked-1315665/

realize the stars rake is much lower and there is rakeback there.

i played 1500 hands of 3/6 lhe and payed $252 in rake. thats 42BB! and they take that from all players at the table. its obv much worse at the micros where they max out at a full BB per pot.

now, i will admit i dont play nl but i would suspect its raped similarly.

if you want to win, you better be damn good and playing mid stakes.

ill play some 50nl right now to see how many open limpers and idiots i see. i kinda doubt its enough to make it profitable.

ok that is enough watching paint dry. nl may be profitable. it may not be. i have no desire to continue this torture. gd what a terribad boring game.

I don't know where your math is coming from, but I think your program is broken.

http://www.pokertableratings.com/pok...imit-hold%27em
http://www.rakeatpoker.com/data.php?...e=1&img=nl25sh

Rake sucks, but it's not enough to stop a decent player. That said I don't know anything about LHE except that much like you find NL boring, I can't imagine staying awake playing LHE.

its clearly enough to stop all players at plo as evidenced by that link. id guess that it stops all lhe players lower than 36 as well.

and i would love to see a huge database of micro nl. i would guess that the bigger the sample, the more chance the player is losing or breakeven. anyone can run good for 100k or 200k, but i want to see ppl beating it over a million or so. that link has bodog taking 9bb/100 off the table.

Ah, you measure it as a total, not as /100.

So the rake is actually 3bb/100. As we measure winrate in bb/100, we should also measure rake as such. Anyway, that just means that your data agree with those sites and the rake is the amount you've described. I honestly don't know enough about LHE to speak on this.

I can talk about NL though, and with a rake at say 7bb/100 at 100nl, the games get crushed for 10bb/100 (after rake). The highest rake is down at the micros, where the rake is upwards to 12bb, and with the games being easier I'd assume that win rate would be even larger, even with the higher rake.

edit - Just caught your second post. Once again you can simply do math to tell that the micros are beatable (just -4bb from any 100nl winrate, which is the rake difference), or you could go to pokertableratings.com , then go to the leaderboards and look up winning players, you can filter for the micros and look at people with huge samples beating the games. You could also just spend some time in the poker goals and challenges thread and read some of those threads where people win. Don't forget, any winrate you see there is likely much higher due to rakeback. If you search on PTR for the winners at say 10nl on Ipoker, with 60% RB they're actually pulling in a winrate of +7.5bb/100 more than you see there. (rake is 13bb/100 there, so rb accounts for 7.5bb/100)

I should also note you can use poker-edge.com along side the top winners leaderboard on PTR to look over the players who you see with large samples at low limits, since that seems to interest you.

first time i ever heard a limit player say NL is watching paint dry compared to a limit game lol

you have databases showing this? guess i was wrong.

bc it pretty clear that plo and lhe are unbeatable at the micros.

Not a large one, but specifically my Bovada DB for the past month or so (40k hands). Either way using PTR and all that jazz you can find some pretty large samples of winners at the micros. Here's one.

http://www.poker-edge.com/poker-player-stats/tolotfc/

As said, I can't really speak to LHE or PLO.

He would have been more accurate to say that playing LHE is like watching paint dry, and playing NLHE is like watching dry paint stay dry.

Glad I woke up to this guy still posting lmao.

Hello everyone. Has anybody else had trouble converting points using bovada's points to tickets feature. I have an absurd amount and would like to play some tourneys but when I click the convert button nothing happens...really it doesn't even click at all. Any help would be great thanks.

FWIW, I've kept private records on the homegame I've been running for several years. I've had 90 unique players play at least once in my game of the 63 times to date I've had one. 38 people have played only once. 17 have played 10 times or more. From this sample size, 33 players have made a profit while 57 haven't. That's a 36.67% of players with a profit. Profit is defined as the sum of cashouts minus the sum of buyins being greater than 0. However, I do NOT take a rake, so I assume if I applied a casino rated rake, the percent would likely drop another 5% to 15%

I've tried betting more sports (at lower stakes than I play), hoping that'd prompt a bonus... but no luck there either.

Can anybody else not open page 958 on this thread? So bizarre.

You realize this has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion about how many players are winning in online poker right? 90 players (or 83 that played more than 1 time) playing 63 times tells you nothing.