POKERSTARS: Time to treat PLO and NLHE as different games! - Page 13 - Small Stakes Pot Limit Omaha

It shows that PLO200 is not rakedead (or at least not as much as PLO50).

Pokerstars rep or some meeting member posted that at certain stake(s) are no winners in longterm (pre RB). But those players are earning more after RB than most skilled NLHE players at same stakes. I am nearly sure that is case of PLO50.

Quote

02-07-2013 , 05:16 PM

#302

urubu111

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 6,778

btw, other day i went flip at plo10 w friend, $10 buy in. after 3 hands, $1,50 left the table. 15bbs after 3 hands.

Last edited by urubu111; 02-07-2013 at 05:21 PM.

Quote

02-07-2013 , 06:28 PM

#303

Loctus

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 11,157

Quote:

Originally Posted by urubu111

one friend who plays 1/2 on stars.... at 1/2 rake still HUUUUGE in bb/100... his winrate is good and he paid in rake, almost 100% of his winnings...this rake is killing one guy winning 7bb/100...and what about most people who is winning 2-5bb/100?

its so sick !!!!

[imgttp://img560.imageshack.us/img560/8243/rakemachine.jpg[/img]

btw, other day i went flip at plo10 w friend, $10 buy in. after 3 hands, $1,50 left the table. 15bbs after 3 hands.

If you get it in as a constant 52/48 favorite at plo10 you actually lose money. If villain has a $5 stack (so total pot is $10), your EV in the hand is $5.20, but the rake is $0.50

Quote

02-07-2013 , 06:33 PM

#304

krmont22

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,078

My 2012/2013 numbers are 2,011,922 hands, $1,264,769 in rake at 6.84bb/100.

Quote

02-08-2013 , 12:18 AM

#305

jackpot13

enthusiast

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 70

Google: pokerstars rake

"PokerStars Poker Table Rake
www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/rake/Poker Stars has the lowest poker rake on the Internet. Play poker at Poker Stars for the lowest rake online."

Effing liars. LiarStars.

Quote

02-08-2013 , 12:20 AM

#306

jackpot13

enthusiast

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 70

We need to spread awaraness, shall it be at the forums, at the online tables, live or wherever, this kind of robbery and killing of games cant be tolerated without people knowing about it.

And sick rake numbers.

Quote

02-08-2013 , 09:54 AM

#307

SEABEAST

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 5,676

stars do have the lowest rake on the internet though don't they? the issue is with PLO rake across the board, we are just directing this at stars because by and large, pokerstars controls online poker.

Quote

02-08-2013 , 10:00 AM

#308

termod

journeyman

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 205

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loctus

If you get it in as a constant 52/48 favorite at plo10 you actually lose money. If villain has a $5 stack (so total pot is $10), your EV in the hand is $5.20, but the rake is $0.50

That's sick! Never thought about it that way

Quote

02-08-2013 , 10:04 AM

#309

termod

journeyman

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 205

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEABEAST

Yeah I think so. But you get way better rakeback deals automaticly on other sites. So the gross rake might be the lowest but effective rake at Pokerstars is way bigger for almost 100% of players at ssplo. Don't know that many supernova or supernova elites at that level.

Quote

02-08-2013 , 10:14 AM

#310

Johan5390

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,890

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmont22

My 2012/2013 numbers are 2,011,922 hands, $1,264,769 in rake at 6.84bb/100.

damn, thats sick

also jealous about volume

Quote

02-08-2013 , 10:31 AM

#311

mecantplay

temp-banned

Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 1,524

Quote:

Originally Posted by urubu111

btw, other day i went flip at plo10 w friend, $10 buy in. after 3 hands, $1,50 left the table. 15bbs after 3 hands.

As u can see if u play PLO10 and at the table there are 2 player max rake is 0.5$ but if u play at PLO10 with 5+players rake will be 20*0.045=0.9$ rake.

At PLO25$ tables the rake when 100bb vs 100b go AI is 50*0.045=2.25 but PS has max rake at 25$ tables which is 2$ so rake will be 2$.

Rake at micos is too high and if u see Supernova player at PLO25 it will be very rarely.

Quote

02-08-2013 , 10:44 AM

#312

krmont22

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,078

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johan5390

damn, thats sick

also jealous about volume

That is everyone in my database, so that is not how many hands I played or rake I paid personally. That is everyone at the tables.

Quote

02-08-2013 , 01:42 PM

#313

urubu111

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 6,778

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmont22

My 2012/2013 numbers are 2,011,922 hands, $1,264,769 in rake at 6.84bb/100.

if i had 6.8bb/100 over 2m hands id also post here !

but im rakeback pro, so let you ballers post how much you pay in rake. =/

oddsen, how much you pay in rake at 50/100 w 7bb/100 ?

Quote

02-08-2013 , 08:11 PM

#314

napsus

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 9,540

he meant that the rake is -6.84 bb/100

Quote

02-09-2013 , 04:35 AM

#315

antchev

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,768

There's a serious lack of reading comprehension itt lately. Get your **** together, guys, this thread is really important.

Quote

02-09-2013 , 10:51 AM

#316

krmont22

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,078

I would be a very rich man if I could play 2 million hands at 6.8bb/100 in a year. Oh wait...I'd be a freckle on pokerstar's arm.

Quote

02-09-2013 , 12:24 PM

#317

napsus

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 9,540

I happened to get my hands on the Ring games email sent to all Supernovas+, I'll take the liberty to spread the word.

Cliffs:
-no mentions of rake
-ratholing measures to become effective June 30th
-HU lobby to be "cleaned" on the second half of the year
-Tablestarted will become effective
-read the whole thing

Quote:

Hello Supernova+ VIP,
Today’s email covers ring games. There’s quite a lot to write about, so I’ll get right to it.

RATHOLING
Ratholing has been the number one issue at our NL/PL ring games for several years. We do already have effective limits that prevent players from leaving a table and then returning to the same table with fewer chips within 2 hours. In this email, however, ‘ratholing’ will refer to leaving a table and then buying into a *similar* table with fewer chips.
An individual instance of ratholing, taken in isolation, is not a problem for our poker room. Players may change tables for a variety of reasons. Perhaps they are playing with their whole bankroll, have won a large pot, and would like to split their stack to play two tables. Perhaps a player they do not like playing against has just sat down. When sitting at a new table, perhaps they like to start with a smaller stack to risk less against unknown opponents. Whatever the reason, we do not want to restrict such activity within our Poker Room.

On the other hand, systematic ratholing as a predominant strategy is a problem. This strategy is well known and practiced by many multi-tabling regulars, some of whom learned the strategy from poker education websites or poker forum discussions. It’s hard to play for very long at our ring game tables without noticing at least that many players leave after winning pots, though perhaps not everyone understands why.
The constant leaving and joining of tables adds up to having a negative impact on the playing experience of opponents. Regular ring game tables are meant to offer more stable line-ups of opponents, as opposed to Zoom where opponents change more regularly. The constant resetting of stacks to 40bb keeps effective stacks pegged at the low end of the 40-100bb buy-in range at our standard tables, sometimes to the extreme of turning tables into effectively 40bb CAP tables, contrary to the intention and labelling. Recreational players would prefer to be able to have the opportunity to win their money back after losing a pot, but instead they see it leave the table immediately, time after time.
We are going to take action to limit ratholing activity at our ring games. Our current plan is to address this issue during the first half of the year and it is a top priority to act within this timeframe. I do not anticipate delay.

It is a great challenge to define a solution that allows acceptable limited instances of ratholing but stops systematic ratholing. A seemingly simple problem becomes more complex when details like table type and buy-in are considered. We have spent quite a lot of time considering ideas that have been put forth by our players and staff. The more intuitive and simple solutions that have been suggested have all been found to have fatal flaws due to complexity, loopholes that would render them ineffective, or overzealous mechanisms that would inappropriately restrict recreational players.
Because we are determined to take action in this area, we are considering a solution that is not quite as simple or easily communicated as we would like. This solution, based on a brief suggestion from a player, is still being developed. When it is ready, we will share it with players for feedback. Assuming there are no serious issues encountered, we hope to finalize the details within a month in order to meet our timeline for deployment by June 30th.

BUMHUNTING, GRIMMING, AND TABLE STARTING
These terms may not be familiar to everyone, so let’s start with definitions. “Bumhunting” could otherwise be described as aggressive table selection to play only against the least-skilled opponents while in the best possible relative position. “Grimming” is defined as playing a single hand heads-up as the button, then sitting out and leaving, not taking one’s turn as the big blind. “Table Starting”, as it sounds, refers to sitting at a new table in an attempt to build a game there. The problem is not the table starting itself, but the way players behave while doing it.

We realize that these issues are important to our high and medium stakes players. We are starting to hear more comments and complaints from low stakes players as well. In principle, we do want to improve the player experience by eliminating or minimizing problems in these areas. Finding solutions with minimal or no downside can be challenging. Recreational players often have a different perspective and user experience path. We do not want to negatively affect them in the process of making improvements for regular players. Keeping recreational players happy should be as big a priority for regulars as it is for us.

We have already taken steps to curtail these behaviors in high stakes games. We implemented two new ring game rules regarding sitting out, and have been monitoring high stakes games and reacting to player reports of rule violations. As a result of meetings with players late last year, we increased the severity of our punishments for repeat offenders. While not perfect, these measures are helping.

We have also designed, developed, and implemented new proactive measures to detect repeated blind abuse. Our poker specialists are reviewing automated reports and taking action against players who are benefitting from systematic avoidance of blinds.
The next step is the implementation of our ‘Table Starters’ feature. Table Starters act much like interest lists in live poker rooms. They allow players to commit to playing in a more full game without sitting down to play shorthanded. We expect that Table Starters will help multi-tablers start additional tables when waitlists are long, without forcing them to play short-handed in the process.

We do expect that those using Table Starters do so with the intent to play when the new table is started. Abandoning a game quickly after it forms will result in the loss of ability to use Table Starters for 30 minutes, so please don’t use them unless you intend to play. Players who are regularly using this feature in this way will lose the ability to use Table Starters altogether.

Table Starters are already becoming the only way to start new tables for some high stakes games where seating behavior has been particularly problematic. This will ensure that seats in desirable games are filled by those who are trying to start games and create action. We are already testing out Table Starters for high stakes NLHE games. We have found a few bugs, one of which remains outstanding, but feedback from players has been cautiously positive.

Table Starters may also help games start at less popular game types where games may not always be running. Players will be able to express interest in playing a full game without having to open a table or play short-handed.

Table Starters will become even more important in the future when ‘Group Tables’ view becomes the default for new players. ‘Group Tables’ shows one line in the lobby for each table type. Players join games by clicking a ‘Play Now’ button, then letting our software find them a seat. When there are no seats available, players can be added to the Table Starter for that table type.

We plan other improvements as well. We intend to implement technical changes that will prevent players from ‘sitting out’ at tables to wait for desirable opponents to come along. We will also be limiting the number of non-dealing tables in the lobby for each table type. I expect these improvements to be deployed in the coming months.

While these measures are a start, they do not address the challenges of extreme bumhunting or table seating scripts. Because these issues are impacting players mostly at our higher stakes tables, we are going to address the problem there first.

Our first attempt will be to deploy Zoom for high stakes games. Development will soon be complete to modify Zoom to make it suitable for this purpose. Improvements include the ability to list Zoom pools in the ring games lobby and the ability to make Zoom pools observable. Don’t worry, only a subset of hands will be observable, so effective datamining won’t be possible. And hands will only be shown to observers as replays after all action is complete. We’ve also restricted use of the time bank in certain situations to avoid inappropriate stalling for purposes of manipulating seating algorithms. The lobby display of players in each pool can now be altered to not display or count those who are sitting out, to be more accurate for small pools.

Zoom’s seating mechanisms naturally solve many of the problems of seating gamesmanship that we see at high stakes tables. I am uncertain as to whether recreational high stakes players will embrace the Zoom alternative. The answer to this question will likely determine whether this is an effective solution.

The plans above do not represent firm solutions to every identified problem. We continue to review other ways to keep players primarily focused on playing poker rather than on getting the prime seat.

GAME STRUCTURE CHANGES
We have recently implemented changes to our stud ante/bring-in structures after extensive consultation with our players. Feedback has overall been positive.
There are no longer ‘fast’ and ‘normal’ game speeds for ring game tables. All tables for each table type now have the same rules covering time to act, which now vary based on the game situation. Players will have less time to act on the initial street if they are not facing a raise, compared to other actions at the same table. Overall, the new universal speed is somewhere between the two old table speeds.

The goal of this change is to improve the recreational player’s experience by creating a simpler lobby. This is especially true when viewing the lobby in ‘Group Tables’ mode, as there are now far fewer table types in the list. More liquidity per game type is a nice additional benefit.

After initially thinking we would deploy different timing for PLO than for NLHE, we reversed course and ended up keeping them the same. We reviewed average time taken per action for PLO and NLHE grinders and found that there was only a very small difference. PLO regulars play far fewer concurrent tables on average than NLHE regulars, already adjusting for the additional time it takes on average to make PLO decisions. Additionally, a higher percentage of PLO decisions are made post-flop, which is already receiving extra time under the new system.

We have changed the minimum buy-in from 30bb to 40bb for our standard PLO and PLO/8 tables. This change comes after consulting with PLO players and independently reviewing the current state of the games. While some players did want an even higher minimum buy-in, we believe that the 40bb minimum combined with the upcoming ratholing restrictions will result in a much improved playing environment that will meet the needs of most players.

The minimum buy-in amount is a hot topic for all NL and PL games.
We do receive many requests to increase the minimum buy-in on standard tables above 40bb. Some suggest that we could then deploy 40bb CAP tables, but we do not want to split liquidity further by introducing yet another game type.

We do not plan to remove the ability to buy in for 40bb. Wanting everyone to play with deeper stacks is a different desire than not wanting players to rathole. Stopping ratholing will result in deeper stacks on average, so it will please some of the people who want to play with deeper average stacks. But forcing non-ratholing players who want to buy in for 40bb to play deeper is not under consideration.

I understand that there are a lot of people who prefer playing with 100bb. I happen to be one of them. However, I recognize that this is not because 100bb is objectively a perfect amount to play poker with. In fact, it was most likely chosen as the max buy-in on some online poker sites 10 years ago simply because it is a round number and because there was a desire to limit how much could be lost on a single hand so that players didn't go completely broke too quickly.

The deeper the stack, the more complex the set of possible decision trees, and the more strategic depth there is to the game. But this doesn't stop at 100bb, it's true for 200bb and then 300bb and then 400bb. It's true of 40bb compared to 20bb.

The truth is that the maximum buy-in was set to 100bb several years ago. Common understanding at that time was that the way to maximize your profit was to buy in for the maximum in order to extract the maximum value from your good hands. Given the skill level of the average player at that point, maybe this was good advice.

So everyone got used to 100bb stacks. It's what many people are simply used to playing, and it's what they think of when they think of online ring game play. But perhaps the game has now evolved such that a different stack size is considered a viable alternative or even optimal. Current stack size preferences may be out of date in a few years as strategies evolve. These things change over time.

The people who are buying in for 40bb at the games now may be doing so because they think it provides the best opportunity to win, much the same reason that many people learned to buy in for 100bb years ago. These players have been building a preference for this stack size, much like 100bb players built a preference for theirs, and much like 20bb players built a preference for 20bb.

If you take ratholing out of the equation, it's hard to make an objective case for one over another from our perspective. It doesn't make sense to force one set of customers who are used to 40bb stack sizes to adjust to please another set of customers who are used to 100bb stack sizes. There is no justification for playing favorites here.

That many players are used to a stack size is not a bad reason to offer games that suit them. It makes sense to serve our customers! We do actually offer games in which players who want to play for 100bb can do so: deep tables. Some players do indeed enjoy these games. If stack size is most important to you, I suggest you check them out.

For most regulars, it turns out that stack size isn't most important. It's more important that they win. We are not going to stack the rules to line up your preferred opponents and force them to play by your preferred rules. You can pick your pool of opponents or you can pick your stack size (unless you like 21-39 bb!), but you can't force your preferred opponent pool to play your game and neither should we.

Over time it will always be necessary for a winning player to adapt. Opponents change, play styles evolve, software changes. A player who is successful one year who remains static will very likely be far less successful three years later. Not all winning players who work on adapting will always continue to win, but pretty much all winning players who keep winning over a long period of time will have adapted to some degree. This is the nature of poker; it always has been and probably always will be that way.

OTHER SOFTWARE FEATURES
‘Run it Twice’ is now fully implemented for all NL/PL games at 0.10/0.25 stakes and higher. In order to participate, you must opt in. The settings are found at Options -> Run It Twice (Ring Games).
We will soon deploy 5-Card PLO, 5-Card PLO Hi/Lo, and Courchevel for both play money and real money. We are happy to provide these game varieties for the players who have requested them.

HEADS-UP LOBBY
We will make changes to the ring games heads-up lobby later this year. The lobby is currently complicated by dozens of tables occupied by players who are unwilling to play most opponents who sit down to challenge them.
We have reviewed many options in detail, but I do not yet know what changes we will make. We will consult further with players before making a final decision. I can say that I expect that after the changes, there will be far fewer heads-up cash tables in the main lobby.

HEADS-UP ZOOM
We plan to deploy heads-up Zoom pools within the next few months, as soon as development is complete to ensure that players are not able to abuse blinds by repeatedly sitting out and then rejoining. I do understand that heads-up Zoom may not be the game for everyone, but there is no downside to deploying this additional option for those who are interested. There are no liquidity issues for heads-up games and adding one additional line in the lobby per stakes will not cause any clogging.
Heads-up Zoom will be in addition to, not a replacement for, our current heads-up ring game offering.

GAMES OTHER THAN NLHE
We do not prefer that players play any one game over another. We are proud of offering a comprehensive selection of game types. We do this in the hopes that players will find and choose the game that is most pleasing to them. Happy customers are good for our business.

It is true that NLHE does get more attention for certain types of promotions, particularly tournament promotions. Tournaments are more attractive with larger prize pools, so players are kept together in the same tournament to maximize promotional effectiveness. As NLHE is by far our most popular game, both for ring games and especially tournaments, this is the game we use for our flagship events.

This is not reflective of a bias for NLHE. In fact, when our site first opened for real money in 2001, all real money games were limit! NL and PL games were added at PokerStars, like at other poker rooms worldwide, only because of player demand.
Our largest ring games promotions, our milestone hands celebrations, impact all game types equally.

Player demand, not PokerStars preference, continues to drive game type popularity. Change in player preference always has and always will occur over time. Additionally, when our player pool shrunk due to the loss of Americans, fixed limit games in particular were impacted more than most due to the relative popularity of those games in the USA.
While we do not plan to try to push players to any one particular game type, we would like to maintain liquidity in as many game types as possible in order to maximize choice. With that goal, we plan promotions this year to promote individual game types. Each game will eventually have its own time to shine. This will encourage players to try new games, perhaps finding a new favorite.

CLOSING
If you have read this far, you must have a very strong interest in the future of ring games at PokerStars! I hope you now feel that you have an idea of our plans going forward and the reasons for the changes that are being made.
I understand this email might read like a long list of problems. Since it is our intention to remain the largest and best poker room in the world, we feel that these challenges should instead be viewed as opportunities for improvement.
It’s nice to look back at yesterday’s successes, but it’s important that we stay primarily focused on tomorrow’s improvements. We believe that our past success is in great part due to our willingness to work together with players to address the tough issues that pop up as the game of poker evolves from month to month and year to year. I hope that you feel this way as well. Even better, I hope you'll work with us to help make our poker room more enjoyable for recreational players in 2013 and beyond, as doing so will be to our mutual benefit.
If you have thoughts to share, you can contribute them to one of the forum threads created for that purpose on the forums of some of our poker schools:
ENGLISH: http://www.pokerschoolonline.com/for...l-4-Ring-Games

GERMAN: http://www.intellipoker.de/forum/sho...l-4-Ring-Games

RUSSIAN: http://www.pokerstarter.org/forum/sh...B3%D1%80%D1%8B

SPANISH: http://www.intellipoker.es/forum/sho...8Ring-Games%29

Cheers,

Steve Day
Manager of VIP, Team Online, Ring Games and Sit & Go Tournaments

Quote

02-09-2013 , 05:48 PM

#318

Pg9

old hand

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,605

This is a very, very sad thread.

In the last few years i was something like a semi reg, grinding out a nice side income at low stakes PLO. Now that i can't grind much any more because of work i play just for fun just like any good fish.
PS is awesome, great software, lots of games but seriously, when i think about the rake we pay, and how little they respond to this problem, it just feels like they are spitting in my face.
I dont care about NL, tournaments or Nadal so I've decided to withdraw everything i have there and just leave 10 BIs somewhere else in case i need my fix.

Thank you Napsus, Blopp and others for trying to fight for the good cause, i will keep an eye on the thread and will join any action 2+2 decides to take...

Quote

02-10-2013 , 08:37 AM

#319

pastoral

adept

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 856

Playing LAG style 43/31/15 at 25plo deep ante tables paid the following amount of rake:

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

34bb/100 is pretty grim. Also, pretty hard to beat despite a good amount of saturday mouth breathers

Quote

02-10-2013 , 06:10 PM

#320

coon74

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 10,684

I see two common misconceptions here that exaggerate the influence of rake. It's good to be aware of the problem and seek solutions to it (fwiw I prefer pushing 2p2ers who're creating new poker sites like Bitpoker and PocketRockets to experiment with lower PLO rake, I've posted links to the PLO petitions in their threads

), but it's bad to tilt because of it and manipulate facts to make others tilt.

Myth 1: rake affects in-game decisions dramatically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loctus

If you get it in as a constant 52/48 favorite at plo10 you actually lose money. If villain has a $5 stack (so total pot is $10), your EV in the hand is $5.20, but the rake is $0.50

Even if you get no rakeback of any kind, rake is subtracted from your winnings not always, but only if you win the pot, i.e. your expected additional loss from rake is $0.50*52%=$0.26, not $0.50. The correct way to do equity calculations is to subtract the rake from the pot at the very beginning, i.e. in your example $5 is invested to win a $9.5 pot.

Moreover, if e.g. you have 26% RB (Gold Star), $0.50*26%=$0.13 is eventually returned to you regardless of whether you win the pot. Hence you even show a profit: $9.5*52%+$0.13-$5=+$0.07.

It's unfair that the rake cap is $2 always when 5+ players are dealt into the hand - it should depend on the number of players who saw the flop imho (alternatively, who put money into the pot), as that's when rake starts being taken - but mind that all-in decisions are based on money that is already in the pot, so when e.g. SPR~13 (typical of single-raised pots) one needs like ~48% to stack off. Getting it in as a favourite is almost always correct despite rake (I don't mean stupid arranged -EV flips between HS players).

Myth 2: rake at ante tables is way worse than at normal ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pastoral

Playing LAG style 43/31/15 at 25plo deep ante tables paid the following amount of rake:

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

34bb/100 is pretty grim. Also, pretty hard to beat despite a good amount of saturday mouth breathers

Of course drawing winrate conclusions from a 4565-hand sample is laughable, but it's not the main flaw. You should realise that, for stat purposes, ante PLO25 250 bb deep is equivalent to normal PLO42 150 bb deep, as 2.5 bb are posted in a round on average instead of 1.5 bb (because there are 5 players dealt in on average). The difference is that ante tables play looser and (at P*, unlike FTP) 1.5x deeper, so a bit higher rake and winrates in 'bb'/100 ('bb'~$0.42) are expected. Effectively rake is nowhere close to 34 'bb'/100 - in essence it's 34*3/5~20.5 'bb'/100 - an industry standard in wild micro games with a loose style.

Last edited by coon74; 02-10-2013 at 06:31 PM.

Quote

02-10-2013 , 07:10 PM

#321

pastoral

adept

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 856

thanks for clearing that up dude, though I didn't draw any winrate conclusions from that sample. I was merely highlighting the average rake at the stake with a lag style, which ~5k hands should be good enough a sample to give a reasonable approximation.

Quote

02-10-2013 , 08:31 PM

#322

Loctus

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 11,157

****, you're batting for the wrong team. plz stop.

edit: lmfao, c oon is censored. Am I circumventing the profanity filter now? I mean, how to referr to a player whos username is a word that is filtered, if one can't do that? wtf.

Quote

02-10-2013 , 10:57 PM

#323

jackpot13

enthusiast

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 70

c o o on could you please contact propaganda@pokerstars.com. you might get hired.

pastoral wasnt making any winrate assumptions, just showing the effect of crazy rake at lower stakes

PS. GodlikeRoy doesnt need to apply. (anymore)

Last edited by jackpot13; 02-10-2013 at 11:05 PM.

Quote

02-11-2013 , 01:15 AM

#324

EC10

2007 MSNL HU Champion

Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 3,850

just want to mention that one of the 13 "no" votes is mine and I snap voted upon opening the thread, misinterpreting the question at the time and then realized my mistake. it's probably the case for at least a few of the other 12 as well.

Quote

02-11-2013 , 01:22 AM

#325

Tyrannic

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,896

Quote:

Originally Posted by napsus

I happened to get my hands on the Ring games email sent to all Supernovas+, I'll take the liberty to spread the word.

Action item:

Please post in the following PS Poker School Online threads about the rake issue.

"If you have thoughts to share, you can contribute them to one of the forum threads created for that purpose on the forums of some of our poker schools:
ENGLISH: http://www.pokerschoolonline.com/for...l-4-Ring-Games

GERMAN: http://www.intellipoker.de/forum/sho...l-4-Ring-Games

RUSSIAN: http://www.pokerstarter.org/forum/sh...B3%D1%80%D1%8B

SPANISH: http://www.intellipoker.es/forum/sho...8Ring-Games%29"

Quote

Page 13 of 16

First

3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 13 of 16

First

3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Last