Okay, well once things got going, it didn't wind up taking so long - the high school algebra actually wound up taking longer than typing in the data

Do these look right to everybody?


EG1.



Rakeback estimates the OP used:

Bronze to Gold - 19%
Bronze to Platinum - 24%
Bronze to Supernova - 27%

So for this person, where w is the winrate, and R is the rake:

1) w + 0.19R = 9.52 (Bronze to Gold)
2) w + 0.24R = 10.01 (Bronze to Platinum)
3) w + 0.27R = 10.36 (Bronze to Supernova)

Rewriting (1) gives: w = 9.52 - 0.19R
And substituting (1) into (2) gives: (9.52 - 0.19R) + 0.24R = 10.01

0.05R = 0.49
therefore R = 9.8bb/100
and w = 9.52 – 0.19(9.8) = 7.66bb/100

Check using (3):

w + 0.27R = 10.36
w = 10.36 – 0.27R
w = 10.36 – 0.27(9.8) = 7.7bb/100 <- guess this is roundoff error?

EG2.



Rakeback estimates the OP used:

Platinum to Supernova - 43%
Supernova to Supernova 500k - 45%
Supernova to Supernova Elite - 55%

Checked the spreadsheet calculations found using the 'PN-SN' and 'SN-500K' columns, using the data for this person from the 'SNE' column:

w + 0.55R = -0.37
w = -0.37 – 0.55(8.06)
w = -4.80 <- roundoff error?


Hopefully 1:1 will come back later today, and double-check everything to make sure it's okay. But for now, here's what the spreadsheet churned out - if anybody spots any typos, etc. please let me know:














So nice to have this data, not just for Zoom but for the other games too - thanks again to 1:1 and blopp for sharing! Hope the formula I used is okay!! eek!!

OMG WTF, this post confuses me.

I play vs. you on a daily basis, you are my hero, I always praid for the the day when you move up, so you leave the money for us mortals.

Playing 10+ tables with a stellar WR, being a hard grinder, how can you not be financially safe?

Looks like you still make 6 digits in 2014, I mean wtf?

I know it's not relevant for the thread, but I don't get it. Bare with me for distracting. Wish you all the best Charly...

PS: my best guess is, it is all about a biatch

It depends on how you're perceiving it and what you're concerned with now. Imo it was intended to tell mainly about the difference between NLHE and PLO, though the Zoom PLO vs non-Zoom PLO comparison (that indeed makes sense only for periods following the advent of Zoom in 2012) is the most shocking.

PLO addicts can do well without Zoom, but some of them won't play with twice fewer hole cards (it would require learning a totally new game at a competent level). Thankfully, non-Zoom PLO tables still allow for winrates that are only a bit smaller than at their 2-card counterparts (1 limit above).

That would indeed be interesting. I'll see if I can get my hands on some old hands sometime.

Thank you too for the work Sam
I should have included normal winrates & rake bb/100 for every player.
I think your calculations are pretty close, tho a bit off (maybe because I gave unexact rb values).
Anyways I'm currently re-importing the PLO Zoom hands and will be posting the results once finished (PLO50 Zoom will be done in ~22h fwiw ).

If anyone wants me to do some specific analysis let me know.
The more ideas the better .

Also thanks to blopp for his continued fight for fairer rake.
We need more HS players raising their voices like you!

Obv i am reading it. I just did not know there is a difference between normal and zoom tables.(rakewise)
Just thought zoom tables are raked the same the problem is the speed of the game and therefore higher rake.
Correct me if i am wrong.

It was somehow just totally confusing to me.

Hey 1:1!

When I made the offer to type in the numbers, it didn't occur to me at the time how important it'd be for the output to be accurate - so thanks so much for coming back to say that everything looks okay Open Office (my free word processor) makes it easy to make it look like I put in a lot of work, but it actually only wound up taking about an hour to type everything in and set everything up It would have taken even less time, but I was eating a peach with my left hand.

So it didn't take too long - probably this was the best way to do things, so you have time to do more downloads of PLO info. Those PLO Zoom numbers are like, wow ... yikes!


It's been really cool to have the chance to see all this data for all the games, so thanks again for sharing all this info with all of us. So much to absorb, am still mulling things over - lots to ponder!

I'd stopped looking at rake this year as part of a concerted effort to try and just focus on playing well and winning but this thread, and the fact that I have been reevaluating the point of playing poker, led me to look.



I find it vaguely depressing that I have earned more for Stars at 10NL than I have for myself.



2NL less so because its so insanely value heavy but even still, paying almost $100 to play at 2NL, you have to beat that level for a nice win rate to escape.

Guess I should have checked what forum I was posting on when I posted this thread.......**** it, rake is depressing anyway.

Unfortunately I don't see Stars making rake changes until a competitor emerges who can compete with them on other parts of their product. There are always going to be people with extremely low expenses who are fine grinding rakeback.

should we start a petition on internet poker subforum to take this issue one step further?
if so, what would be the best solution to address to low winrates?
shoot some ideas

I think the best way to deal with this is to create awareness amongst regulars. All regs should know winrates are really low on plo zoom. If they choose to still direct their action there for other reasons, thats fine, but at least it's a concious descision then. And if some people decide to redirect their action, than that's a clear sign to stars that they should change the zoom raking model. Also if some regs move away, winrates will increase in zoom pools and a new and more balanced equilibrium will be created.

Creating awareness about this can be done by showing these results/conclusions on other parts of this forum and by posting these on local poker forums in other languages.

Big problem with this approach is that it is in neither our nor Stars interest to have any focus on rake at all by the recreational players.

Here are the pre rb winrates for PLO50 Zoom:




This sums up to 80 losers and 20 winners (aiev adjusted).

PLO25 Zoom is still importing for another 68 hours so I'll post
that list on the weekend.

confirmed toughest limit.

if you can beat zoom 50 you're set for plo1k .

congrats to stars on a great ecosystem, almost no money is moving up because of this bs.

Some collective bargaining could work. If you have a group of players who rake $1m a month or $10m a month (the more the better) you could approach sites and the group would play at the site that gave them the best deal. Once the group got big enough and committed to action you would have some real bargaining power.

Another option is put together a site of our own. It's obv a huge job but if there are enough people willing to contribute $$ initially, play on the new site when it starts and well as spread the word among other poker players once launched you could dislodge Start from their perch. The new site / company would operate under as a non profit entity, it would need to take some rake, but anything in excess of operating expenses are returned to players at the end of every quarter / year.

With either of those options getting all the high stakes guys committed would be worth a lot i think. Not because of the rake they pay but if you have every regular who plays 10/20 or higher committed to your cause you will get a lot of the railbirds who help feed the small stakes economy following them around from site to site to watch them play.

A new site would take a lot of resources but if people are committed to it I'd be willing to lead the project. I am long time 2p2 member with reputable standing, using a gimmick account so I don't piss off Stars and get banned. If the new site is an option that people want I'd be willing to put up 100k of my own money initially.

keep on dreaming.

I don't see another solution. Stars aren't going to do anything about it, they've made it very clear. They'll do something about it when a bunch of people stop playing, but by that time it's too late and the changes they do make won't be enough.

Putting together a new site isn't impossible, a lot of work yes, but nowhere near impossible.

I think biggest problem is how u gonna make players feel safe on a site like this

And attract rec players who couldn't care less about rake

What about some collective bargaining then?

As a 500 zoom grinder I rake about 15-20k a month playing 70-80k hands. If we can get people who together rake $1m a month I'll go around contacting sites and asking for better deals. Don't have to stop at $1m either, the more the group rakes collectively the more bargaining power we have.

To grinders who play lower as well, your rake $$ is just as valuable as the next persons, it doesn't matter if you only rake $10 a month, every bit will help.

what's the most compelling reason (from Stars' perspective) that they should care about declining win-rates of high volume SSPLO players?

Rakegimmick I'm a 500plo reg and I'm interested in your suggestion if others are in as well I would try smth like this.

Great. Do you mind sharing how much you rake (roughly) each month so we can keep a running total of how much rake / business we have to bargain with? If there is enough interest I'll set up a site dedicated to this stuff.

Probably negative amount if you're winning players. Winning players only take away from the pool, unlike net depositors.

Stars on take from the "pool" when rake is paid, until then that $$ is not theirs. Someone has to pay rake for it to become Pokerstars money.

As long as the money stays on site, it will eventually become stars revenue.

Deposits - Costs - Withdrawls = Profit (eventually)