wow that one guy at 100PLO monstering everyone

must be boss reg at ante tables? time to move up!

Love this stuff because it proves alot.
So many people allways say: Yeah, you suck at this and there but the good ones make money but as it seems like. Knowbody is making a dime.(yeah, stars does.)

For clarification, no deep, cap, full ring or euro currency hands are in the reports.

Bumbum goes charly. Sick man!

Thanks fir this! Sickening how much they rake

I'd refrain from posting SN's in analysis, since you can easily block them out. Personally I don't think it adds any value to show them.

Does anyone think Stars will EVER do anything about the rake? I used to have hope but not anymore.

If someone could get comments from guys like Daniel Negreanu, Joe Hachem and other top Pokerstars pros that would be great. I seriously doubt they would support this kind of rake structure and would be a great way to put pressure on stars if their top pros were against it, but then again it is this rake structure that is free rolling their lives at the moment.

They might when no one makes money after rakeback/bonuses.

Do you think they will ever lower the rake for reasons other than trying to increase / maintain profits?

If no one wins, soon enough their profits will start lowering too since the games will slowly die...not everyone is gambling out there. But I do get your point.

Anyway I don't **** with Stars unless I have to, much more money to be made elsewhere.

At 200plo or below I agree, not really much point in playing at pokerstars until you get past those stakes.

So basicly it is not possible to move up the stakes ..

it is, but it doesnt have much to do winning at the tables as a high volume grinder, if you look at this sample.

Isnt high volume grinding the way to go to win?
Basicly high volume says: You are beating the game longterm and not because of some run good in a short period of time.

I remember razluca who run 25 bi over Ev on 230 hands if i remember myself right ..

Hey, 1:1, thanks so much for spending all that time doing the downloads, and then sharing all the info with us. And thanks blopp for posting a link to this thread in the other thread that got started in NVG - have really enjoyed looking over the data.

I don't mind typing in the data and figuring out the winrates pre-rakeback, and rake in terms of bb/100, if op gives me the actual formulas used - am on break, and type pretty fast, so once one chart gets set up, it shouldn't take too long to do the rest.

ZOOM IS TERRIBLE FOR THE PLO ECONOMY

The most surprising thing is that regs most commonly found playing 500zoom for the most part fit into the category of regs that would benefit the most from stringent game selection. Zoom would never start even start if it wasn't for a handful of barely breakeven regs that love playing it for some unexplainable reason. Do you think 5 fish with one entry each are ever going to be able to start it on their own? lolnope. I don't think there is any subset of players at midstakes that could put in the same amount of volume (measured either by time played or number of hands) at regular tables with a +1bb/100 winrate WITHOUT SNE and not outperform playing at 0bb/100 WITH SNE, thats not even talking about the players with negative table profit playing just to make SNE...

----

I used to play party 1/2 - 5/10 with him 3 years ago, hes not exactly a "100PLO player" as he has a ton of experience playing midstakes. IIRC he mentioned somewhere in the SSPLO forums that hes playing 100 because of some irl issues.

Pretty sure its me. I am Charlybumbum. And yes I played a lot of 1/2 - 3/6 with Seaking at party.

I suck at real life unfortunately. No joke, I am pretty close to going busto. Despite never having losing months and being up 7 figures lifetime from poker

And no, this is not a "woe is me" post, nor is it a brag, nor is it a cry for help or cry for a stake. Just clarifying for the few guys who might be wondering why any idiot would play +600k hands making +10bb and not move up

Lets end the derail here, as the issue in OP is way too important. Zoom is cancer and Stars need to do something about it!

Edit: That said its nice for my ego, that I have apparently made more money at PLO100 over that period than any PLO200 reg has at PLO200

I don't think Stars should get rid of zoom but I think they should lower the rake for zoom.

Good post.

Zoom is a cool product, and very expensive. For now, vast majority of regs are willing to pay the price that Stars sets for it and traffic shows no signs of slowing down. Until this changes, why would Stars reduce Zoom rake?

It's a supply and demand world out there

I think what would be interesting to compare is the numbers in the OP compared to the same set of numbers but from 5 years ago. I think they will show a significant drop off in the winnings of regulars while the whole time the rake has stayed the same.

The proportion of rake taken now compared to 5 years ago has increased drastically. Zoom makes it even worse yet again.

Really?
how much was the rake 5 years ago and how big is the difference between normal and zoom tables?

benni wtf do you not read the threads you post in at all? the whole thread is about the difference between normal and zoom tables

Benni might mean the difference in rake between the two options 5 years ago.

Benni might also be an endgame boss in 6 months and be making videos for RIO.

Its safe the assume the rake taken 5 years ago was exactly the same in bb/100 terms as it is now, I think there was a small reduction at some stakes recently, but negligible.

Winrates however are down significantly from 5 years ago. I don't have any numbers but at a guess I'd say winrates are today probably half of what they were 5 years ago at best.

Stars don't need to cut the rake in half. But if people we're winning 5bb/100 5 years ago and are winning 2bb/100 now that a 60% drop. Considering stars rake is 10bb/100+ PER PLAYER at most limits if they cut the rake by 2bb/100 PER PLAYER across the board regs winrates would go back to 4bb/100, only a 20% drop from 5 years ago. A 2bb/100 reduction in rake would be a 10-20% cut at most limits. They could probably leave the rake the way it is at 2/4+ or cut it by a smaller amount.

Under the scenario above both the rake and regs winrates would be down 20% from 5 years ago. Seems like a fair trade off between regs winrates and the rake both decreasing. As it is now regs winrates have dropped by probably more than 50% yet the rake hasn't moved.

Does anyone know anyone at PTR? If we could get the same stats in the OP but for 5 years ago it would really help the discussion.