The following graph shows the effective rakeback percentage for a 6 max ring game NLHE player for each FTP level and the corresponding percentage that a player generating equal rake would receive on Pokerstars.

Assumptions (very important):
-Player has rakeback and, as a result of weighted contributed, receives 80% (21.6% instead of 27%). Obviously this varies by person but if you're over or under 21.6% you can just adjust any number by that much. So if you actually get 23.6% you can just add 2% to any of the FT rakeback numbers. For any game/structure you can adjust to your contributed rakeback %. Compare HEM or PT rake data compared to base FTPs earned in a day over a solid sample to find your average rakeback %.

-Player converts iron man medals to FTPs and uses all FTPs to buy the $5000 bonuses in BC store. This is the best value for non-tournament players. I'm assuming carte blanche hits RB but if it doesn't then that changes things a LOT.
-Players earns Iron every month and opts out of all the freerolls
-Players clears the Iron Man mid/end year bonuses
-Players plays equally every day
-33% of player's volume is put in during happy hours

Obviously, this isn't perfect. The only way to find the exact eff. RB % for you is to observe all of your data and do the calculation yourself. But either way you're going to end up pretty close to these numbers as a 6 max ring game player unless you are drastically far from the assumptions. For example if you average 3000 points a day but you only play 5 days a week, the effective % won't be all that different (like .2% different).



Note: each 500 rolling base FTP average is equivalent to ~100k VPPs on stars. So, someone with a 3000 FTP rolling average would earn approximately 600,000 VPPs per year on Stars.

Tournament and HU players can just add 5.4% to any FTP level since they didn't get screwed by WC. I have no idea what rakeback % are like for full ring cash players or any other game cash players but you can adjust any number by what your rakeback equivalent is.

Also if people could help me by posting their VPIP and corresponding rakeback % with weighted contributed I could make the graph a lot better. 80% (21.6%) is just an estimate from a small sample of my data playing 24/20.

So the X Axis is for average points/day on Full Tilt only, correct?
In other words, if I make 500/points per day on Full Tilt, I'd actually make less points for the same volume on Pokerstars. Or to put it another way, it takes a lot more hands/time to get the same number of points on PS than on FT. Does the chart take this into account already?

Thanks!

can u make one for mtt/sng players? also include iron man etc.

Read the OP. It includes everything. And in the OP I tell you how to easily adjust for tournament players. You just add 5.4% to every FT rakeback percentage.

500 FTPs a day is equal to 100k VPPs in a year. So its the same exact volume (hands, hours, stakes, etc) for the corresponding stars rakeback % directly above it on the graph. 1000 ftp daily for a year = 200k vpps, etc.

Thanks OP! Very informative graph. I like how you adjusted for the way FT calculates rakeback. Now if there was only a way to adjust for the fishiness of FT games...

Is FT really that much easier? If it is, I have a hard time understanding why a breakeven PS player wouldn't just make the switch to FT to become a winning player.

nice post

I can only tell you from my 25 NL 6 max experience on both that FT is much softer in that game. From what I've heard, FT is softer for small stakes overall.

One question is a VPP and base FTpoint the same?

Very cool, thanks man!

y-axis is FTPs per day? aka your rolling average?

Thanks a lot for this man, this is really helpful.

I am barely going to scrape by at 500pt average, but it looks like by my fourth year, i will be way ahead on ftp over stars, plus the games are way softer and I can even take short breaks and not worry about grinding out to hit 100k every year + 7500vpp every month. I think for players under 100NL it makes sense to play on ftp at least for the 250pt average and get iron man every month.

I'm sorry if I'm making a silly question.

Shouldn't the graph climb at 500 points to reflect the first BC multiplier?

It's not a silly question. There are two types of rewards FT gives out. There are the variable bonuses - that is rakeback and FTPs. Then there's static bonuses - that's the entire iron man program.

You see, someone who earns 250 FTPs a day gets the same amount of iron man medals and mid/end year bonuses as someone earning 500. Yet, the person earning 500 is generating more rake. Therefore, as a percentage of rake the iron man bonuses are less significant and therefore the person earning 500 FTPs a day is getting less rakeback % than someone earning 250. The additional 182500 FTPs someone with tier 1 blackcard gets does not make up for the fact that they generate 2x the rake as someone getting 250FTPs a day.

There are some systems in place such as IM+ and tiers of black card. However, as you can see, these systems do not proportionally increase the rakeback percentage.

As you can see, for the most part, people who generate less rake on FTP get more rakeback as a percentage of rake. The new blackcard tiers helped, but they did not solve the problem.

thanks for making this.

250FPP is the best but then you have to play 25 days at least every month for Iron Man and 500FPP is less in rakeback, but you only have to get 20 days of those for Iron Man.

The 500FPP gives you a break sometimes which with the 250FPP is a bit more difficult. And the diference is 10% rakeback appr.

Surely you are missing out on the fact that @ a rolling average of 500 you get to buy cash bonuses with points.... (and convert IM medals ->points->cash bonus) whereas with just 250 you dont.... does this make a difference?

If you read the assumptions again and look closer at the graph you'll see he takes this into account and the charts start at 250.

Thanks for this chart, OP. Confirms my plans to play 750 pts for 20 days a month at FT, and as much as possible thereafter on Stars.

The super high rakeback percentages at 250 points per day don't match your assumptions. A 250 points per day player wouldn't have black card status and couldn't buy black card bonuses with their points.

lol, I love how with 1000~ rolling average on ftp I'm in the position where increasing my volume leads from one of the worst to the nut worst value spots

so as an FTP player, it's best to play 500 points a day?

Sorry to be nitpicky as OP has done really well... but his assumptions include the line:

-Player converts iron man medals to FTPs and uses all FTPs to buy the $5000 bonuses in BC store. This is the best value for non-tournament players. I'm assuming carte blanche hits RB but if it doesn't then that changes things a LOT.

Obv this is unobtainable at 250 points. IDK if he has taken this into account for the graphing purposes of 250ftps but really it doesnt matter as most of us will be looking at 500+ points anyway.

As for the RB hit of the carte balnche. lolz.

Sure, but they still do get FTPs which still are worth ~$3.3/1000 after MGR. So yeah its not perfect for the 250 level but assuming they use their FTPs on anything like tournament tickets or TVs it will be pretty close.

It looks to me that even for a moderately high volume player it would be best to play some volume on FTP. The FTP rakeback at the very left of the graph is higher.

Would it be possible to 'zoom in' on this part of the graph?

I would guess that it is optimal to just barely make Iron on FTP and then do the rest of your volume on Stars (assuming your combined volume is enough that your Stars play beats playing even more on FTP).