Math isnt really my strong point so idk how to calculate which is a better deal. I play in a lot of private games/undergrounds, mainly 2/5-5/5 games. I'm essentially a house player, I help keep the games running. The rake in these games are super high, usually 10% up to $30 but they're still actually beatable. So pretty much the guys who run this offered me a deal, either I can get $100 for sitting a minimum of 4 hours and they'll take 25% of my action or they'll cover 40% of my losses and take just 25% of my profits... mathematically idk how to calculate how good the latter deal is. Also since it matter my average session ia about 7 hours...Which one makes most sense for you to take?

What's your winrate?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Not sure I understand the offer. Is there a difference between 25% of your action and 25% of your profits?

I don't know my true wr as my sample in these games isn't big enough but I filtered for similar 2/5-5/5 games and after 245 hours its 30bb/100. Probably half those hours I sold 50% action and this only accounts for my profits so possibly closer to 40bb/100 though I don't think thats sustainable in such a high rake environment but given I'm pretty confident that I'm the best player in any of these games (except for this one ukranian dude who doesn't speak english) I think its safe to assume a 20bb/100 wr at least.

The 25% is a flat out action buy so they get 25% of profits and cover 25% of losses +$100 bonus for sitting a minimum of 4 hours. The other offer covers 40% of my losses but only takes 25% of my profits.

Edit - updated description changes things. 40% is still probably better if you play deep and long sessions. $100 is like 1 hr of earnings, but once you hit the bonus the incentive stops.

If I understand the proposition right then it will depend on how high variance you play. The lower the variance the better off you are just taking $100. I'm guessing if you are a winning player you would be better to take the $100.

Better than knowing just raw win rates in this case is knowing what % of sessions you book a win and if you win big and lose big often. If your graph has some large and frequent enough losses then the extra 15% of losses covered may turn out to be more than an average of $100 per session. But if you rarely lose big and win 2/3 of your sessions the $100 per session may be better. Just a gut feel, didn't really run numbers. If your win rate is as high as you say then I'd guess the $100 per session is more valuable than an extra 15% of losses as you aren't losing much or often.

ETA: For example, if your average loss is 1k and you win 66% of sessions then the $100 is better. If your average loss is 2k and you win 66% of sessions the 40% coverage is better.

This is what I was typing..lol

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Your average per session loss (AVG loss size * %of times you lose) needs to be larger than $667 for the extra 15% to be better.

So if you lose every session with an average loss of $667 the options are break even.
If you lose every other session your average loss needs to be $1334 for the choices to be even.
If you lose every 3rd session your average loss needs to be $2000 for the choices to be even.

Thanks for the replies

I went ahead and checked, Im winning 60% of my sessions over 900 hours and filtered for 2/5-5/5 (included some 2/5 in a casino environment as well) and winning 59% over 347 hours so I think 60% winning session is about right. For those 347 hours I added together my losses devided by losing sessions (*.30 to roughly account for the action I sold within those sessions) and it came to about -700. So if my average losing session is -700 40% of the time the 40/60-75/25 deal would be better?

both deals are terrible. But deal #1 would be the best for Tight player. I would play long enough to get a few phone # and start my own game.

Why do you think both deals are bad?

Another quick eyeball test. Let's extrapolate out 10 sessions.
Average loss = -700
Total losses per 10 sessions (4) = -2800
Additional 15% loss coverage over 10 sessions = $420
So in this case the $100 x 10 sessions ($1k) would be more than the $420 additional loss coverage assuming you lasted 4 hours at least 5 of the sessions.

Thanks very useful way you put it. I think I'll take that deal then.

It is a predatory game. Run illegaly (I am no saint). Although they are offering you a better deal. The rake is still absurd and has to be tough to over come

The rake is horrible but what's wrong with the deals? To continue with the 10 session sample:
At 20BB/100 with a $5 BB and 7 hr avg sessions Hero is booking $2,100 per 10 sessions. The deal is taking $525 of that profit (25%).
But the deal is also paying Hero $1k to sit there and an additional $700 in loss coverage based on losing 4 sessions for an average of 700 each.

So why shouldn't hero give up $525 in profits for $1,700 in deal incentives again? He's literally being paid to win.

Obviously if the win rate doesn't hold up then bail but if you can beat this insane rake for that rate then why not?

I used to think the same thing, that these games are unbeatable, but in my experience (and to my surprise) they seem like they actually are. Myself and a couple other guys I know seem to be winning over hundreds of hours in these games, you get some guys doing insane stuff like 4bet jamming 34o for 300bbs vs a utg limp re-raise (true story). Though there are definetely a lot of times I think the game falls into -ev. Almost everyone is bad but if there arent at least 1 or 2 huge whales on the table the other guys aren't nearly bad enough to overcome the insane rake, as a paid player, or one receiving deals/bonuses, you're sorta forced to suck it in and just ride it out during those off-points.

These undergrounds definetely are a lot more predatory than most casino games though. Lots of politics/player-swapping/sheet-keeping/house players/stealing players etc. Like half the table is usually in one way or another on the "payroll". Then you get the recreational players who usually don't realise whats going on or don't care that just get ripped to bits.

If you can sleep at night knowing your helping people cheat people out of money. Fine play and win. I wouldn't ever want to be your friend though.....so it a win win for you. lots of stolen $$$ plus you don't have to socialize with me

Lol whats the difference between this and what winning players/casinos do? Its the same thing just smaller-scale. You wouldn't want to be my friend because I like money? I'm not cheating anyone out of anything, they play poker for entertainment and I play for money. Granted many of them are sick degenerates but its not like me not being there will keep them from punting off their money elsewhere, so better in my pockets than the casinos.

The decks aren't rigged, they know what they're getting themselves into for the most part. Questioning someones moral standards for playing in underground/private games as opposed to casinos is pretty dumb.

one difference is you can be charged with a crime

Just for playing? And even if you're caught running a game its usually a slap on the wrist and a fine.

If your on the payroll. you can easily be considered liable and have to pay restitution. If any of these whales decide to cause a rukus. Considering this seems like fairly large game. There is always that risk.

If you are making to much $$$. The game operator will quickly change the deal to his favor anyway.

Where I live playing in illegal poker games is not illegal. Playing in underground games is the only option for a lot of players so criticizing them is pretty much criticizing them for playing poker.

If you live in Dallas like your location says, then playing poker in an illegal game IS illegal. However, its the same classification as a traffic ticket. Its a Class C Misdemeanor. You can receive a ticket and you can get whatever money you have on the table confiscated, but you arent going to jail or anything.

Being a paid prop is not as the same as playing. You could easily be found liable and likely would have to pay restitution and fines. but I really don't care.

its more of morality thing for me. I wouldn't want a reputation of being associated with that game. If you can play and beat it. Then play and beat it.