Quote:
Originally Posted by KurtSF
Missed this the first time around. Would love to see more data added.
Methodologically I question leaving out your single biggest sample as an outlier.
Am I reading it correctly... the "rake" column in HEM is actually MGR????
Will check HEM tonight for some more FTP data hopefully.
I use PT3 and don't know the details of what HEM stats really mean. Nobody I asked to tell me which HEM stat was "actual rake paid" and which was "MGR".
Some folks only reported one number and they didn't know whether HEM was giving them rake paid or MGR so I guessed MGR. When folks only reported 1 number I put that number (assumed to be MGR) in both the actual rake paid and MGR columns. I.e. I am using one as an estimate for the other when that other stat is missing.
The evidence is pretty clear though: you shouldn't be chosing to play 5NL and 2NL at FTP rather than PS because "FTP has rakeback and PS does not". If you like FTP better for other reasons, fine, but PS is either equivalent or better than FTP in terms of effective rake at the lowest microstakes.
For the low stakes a lot of this effort will become obsolete as PokerStars is apparently changing their rewards/VPP system.
I hear you on the outlier ... the data is there for you to look at yourself though. The best solution is to get more data. right now the sample sizes (in terms of players) is excrutiatingly small.