I assume He's saying this, In the first example you play x hands and pay $100 rake and get $80 rb etc etc...

In the 2nd example you've played the same number of hands but paid 20% less rake and gotten 20% less rakeback.... he's wondering where you have accounted for the $20 saved on rake during that hand sample. (since we paid 80 and not 100 this time).

so for this...

Now, if the value of each VPP was reduced by 20% but the rake was also reduced by 20%; over that same sample you will now pay only $80 in rake. This will give you 64 VPPs (80% of $80), each worth $0.80. This results in a total cost to the player of (64*$0.80 - $80) $28.80. You are 44% worse off!


I think he's wondering if the answer is actually $28.80 - $20 saved = $8.80, which would be an improvement.

Its 2am here and i have not read it all thoroughly enough to know if this is what dgmt meant. If i've got it wrong i apologise. see you in the morning.

if rake and rakeback are reduced by the same % then (in my hazy state, i think) it is impossible to be worse off.

^this

example A, you play 100 hands, pay $100 rake, get 80% back = $20 paid.

now example B, they reduce rake and rakeback by 20% and you play 100 hands again.

you pay $80 rake, you get (80*0.64) = $51.2 back... so you've paid $28.80 however, it doesn't account for the $20 saved in rake in the first place.... so over 100 hands in the 2nd example we pay $28.80 - $20 (savings) = $8.80 = 56% better off than in example A

Would you rather pay $100 for a Swedish penis pump and be given $80 back, or would you rather pay $80 for it and be given $51.20 back?

**** i'm too tired, sorry if i'm messing it up i can't think clearly. be back in the morning.

$80 obv

Lets assume that you pay $100 rake in 1000 hands. If PS decreases the rake by 20% (5->4%), youre not gonna pay $80 rake in 1000 hands. It mostly depends on your limit, but youre gonna pay ~$85-90.

Nevertheless your statment still true. In some cases you can lose money when PS lower the rake.

deppends on rb %, weird

Is it really that simple? Does the lower rake not add to your winrate therefore you are earning less rakeback but earning more profits from poker?

Has anyone gone thru a large database and seen what % of pots fall under the $66.70 threshold vs pots that are over and calculated the extra bb/100 from the lower rake vs the loss of rakeback?

This probably would apply more to 200 and under as 400+ would hit that threshold really quickly

You're right.

The rake cap would have to be reduced proportional too, for those numbers to be precise, but the point still holds.

smb i m disappoint

Ow man, 3rd page Gl this year everyone

I'd rather buy a used one on here for 30 bucks, they take returns too if it doesn't work...

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from...All-Categories

Sitting out. Hurricane was at the tables telling everyone he likes the new changes. I asked him if he knew that all regs lose regardless of style. He replied "ya i dont mind a hit, at least this is more fair"

Page 1, your doing it wrong..

apart from some 3/6 i fail to see mass sitout ?

is it me or is everyone playing right now instead of sitting out?

I'm disappointed to see some regs are still playing. not to call out any names. uh HUM JOEINGRAM1

I was sitting out until I got kicked by the admin

Was just starting to open the tables and see all this 1 table max ****, and their just pushing out sitting out players so... too bad this failed, its amazing stars did not just post what they planed to do because now everybody is even more angry...

U cant blame him, I played 10 minutes in to the strike and they where the best tables I ever played (still lost 5BI though).

I played 1,500 hands earlier at 100NL and saw a 28% reduction in VPPs.

i see very good tables as well now, though not gonna play