nah blaabar is way cooler and bangs sweidsh chix

blaabar need to make checklist to get to be like him i think

ya lets hceik list hta ****

who is blaabar

ryanmack comes across as a very coherent person

Genuine question im not sure of. Doesnt affect the validity of the model.

If rake was reduced by 10% as Stars were planning to then we all know that will improve your WR. Im interested in how it would improve your WR. In games where pots hit the cap the effective real rake reduction will be less than 10%, Im going to say it'll be ~9% at 100NL.

Imagine a 100NL player with a WR of 2BB/100, and that 100NL is raked at ~2.5BB/100, then will his new WR be:

a) 2.23BB because he gets ~9% of the 2.5BB/100 rake he would have paid on top of his WR.

b) 2.5BB because the rake reduction leaves money on the table which can be won subject to skill. Since our guy in the example is better than the 24 tabling 0.2BB/100 chinese SSers, he can expect to make more than his fair share of the money left on the table.

c) Some other way

He seems to be speaking a language consisting of English and 3 or 4 others at the same time, or he could just be drunk as ****....

ryan lagkinson = future viffer in live games?

discuss.

kiwikaki itt <3

I agree with you in that tread vini.


Up the the point where you suggest an NVG thread to generate some coherent discussion.



Seriously though posting again here so more people see this, as I think the fact that Tri's essentially marketing the abilty to scam people with coaching and successfully dismissing criticism by basically saying its trolling is disgusting.


As a fan of MDMA's posting I'm also annoyed he would use that as an example to try to show it can be done. He hasnt been around for awhile, and most people who see that will just think "oo look someone did it at high stakes, and no one saw anything wrong with it" w/o realising what acctually happened.


Huge difference between:

-posting tons of free content, that many respected poker minds deem to be of high quality.
-talk poker with respected highstakes players who vouch for the fact that you improved thier game.
-Begin coaching other established high stakes winners, who would easily be able to detect bs.
-Eventually end up playing and have success starting at the highest stakes.

and

-you can coach poker even if you're not a winning player
-learn poker theory, hustle ignorant microstakes players.

Yeah. Good post. I think "b" at first glance, but not sure without further thought. "havenofear" corrected the original model with this post (#32)

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.

The current model includes a foot note:

2. Rake Paid has been reduced by 15% in this example. This is not the same as a 15% reduction in Rake %age. This is because the rake cap is not reduced by the same percentage, so many pots that were raked at $3 previously would still now be raked at $3. (To see a 15% reduction in Rake Paid, the Rake %age would have to decrease by significantly more than 15%.)

It would appear that at 25NL(?) and below, a reduction in Rake of x% would actually result in a reduction of Rake Paid of [very close to] x%, as very few pots would reach the cap.

I'm assuming it's possible to use historical data with HEM/PT for all higher SS/MS stakes to give an accurate indication of the true reduction in rake paid for a particular reduction in rake %age?

Once a little more work has been done on the model, I was hoping to include that data with some more specific examples for different stakes/different rake reduction %ages.

Vini is going f crazy in that thread about coaching coaching books, fun to read as I always enjoy reading his posts

I thought b too.

The rake reduction thing is definitely correct. Im guessing the effective rake reduction at 100NL would be ~9% and would be ~8% at 200NL. Not sure about 400/600 but by the time you get to 5/10 its basically 0.5% (a min raise and bb call makes the pot $45 which is almost at the $66 cap already). You could get a good idea by filtering your HEM DB for the % of pots that are > $66.

Played 37k hands so far this year. HEM says 10.7k VPPs, Stars gave me 7.7K. Even though Ive been admittedly a bit nitty lately because I didnt want to start the year on a d/s, SNE looks impossible at 100NL.

joey, can you confirm or deny that tri has contacted you about a prop betting series?

i can just imagine

Don't need to be a big winner!
Let yourself fall behind pace to make it seem like the odds you got were fair
Becoming a bbv legend
Looking good on webcam
3 easy!!! payments of 33,333. pays for itself after 2 prop bets. 1 if you're joeingram1.

Need some testimonials before I'll buy it.

odds that Tri is several levels ahead of us all on "strategy strategy" and is sacrificing his credibility in order to create a breed of terrible coaches who will ultimately create terrible players and help the games? unselfishness IMO

^^^^

Is anybody willing/able to do this? (Bolded above)

Basically, with a large enough sample of hands, I'm assuming it's quite simple and quick for someone to do using HEM/PT.

Either take $100 as a benchmark for rake paid over a particular sample, and complete the grid below. Or just state as a percentage decrease.

1126 out of my 28949 hands at 100NL FR this year have been > 66BB which is 3.89%

Thus 3.89% of the hands experience no reduction and 96.11% of hands get a 10% reduction. So an estimate might be that rake at 100NL will reduce by 9.611%. I have no data for 200NL+ so someone else will have to run that filter in HEM (though bear in mind we are interested in pot size of $66, so for 200NL it will be > 33BB etc..)

Im also not sure whether that is in fact an estimate or a true figure. It certainly doesnt take into account the rounding, but I think that will be negligible anyway. It doesnt account for pot sizes 66BB+ but I mean they are all getting raked the same so what does it matter? Either way, I think itd give a pretty accurate idea at least.

Nope comes from the word blåbär. It means blueberry.

Great. Thx. Initially I immediately agreed with what you posted, but now I'm having a bit of a "brain freeze" and I'm not sure.

Does HM calculate your rake paid as the total rake from the pots that you won? Or does it calculate it the table average?

Do we only need to look at the pots that we VP$IP? e.g. Imagine we folded all hands when the pot became larger than $60, then our rake paid would be reduced at the same rate as the rake %age was reduced. However, for that same sample, if we looked at the percentage of hands that we played that reached the cap, it would be a non-zero percentage- as other players would continue with the hand and it would become a capped hand.

Regardless, I think it has to be a good estimate (especially for the "average" player, if not the individual.)

Also, why is it >66/33 BB? Max rate is $60, so wouldn't it be >60/30 BB. Am I missing something?

Cheers.

My numbers since Black Friday.

NL100. Hands: 1,231,189. Hands >60BB: 52,433 (4.3%)
NL200. Hands: 569,493. Hands >30BB: 46,451 (8.2%)
NL400. Hands: 38,544. Hands >15BB: 6,293 (16.3%)

think it has to do with the way HEM handles rake. like go ahead and replay a >60bb pot and watch the pot size after each bet goes in. can you find the point where rake is paid? i couldn't but im in mid of sess so maybe it's just me

[ ] he had outs

standard fold? fr is gay