Atsai just comes in the thread and owns it by pointing out the double counting. That changes things big time for the amount of winners plausible

Then you are not really inheriting the risk of ruin, which was the contention of my point.

I don't mind flipping all day for quarters, but then again, it really isn't worth my time to be flipping for quarters.

Golden Nugget in Vegas has an uncapped 1/2 game. Shreveport has uncapped 1/3. Some casinos allow you to buy 80% of largest stack at the table.

Makes sense. Wasn't looking at the big picture.

Maybe we're not good enough to move up though. Or can't deal with the "swings" at higher levels (which makes calling here kind of nonsensical but I for one don't mind getting $piles in with full confidence that it's correct whereas I get squeamish playing in a big game and making a big decision that may or may not be right)

ATsai is right about this whole thread being pointless, but eh. Studying is work. Who wants to do that?

good to know. i wonder if GN in AC is the same.

I am fully aware that my participation in this thread is not in my best interest other than for entertainment value.

I am pretty sure he is mistaken on that.

Just think logically. If three people at a table are winning $25/hr they don't pay rake after they go home. They are leaving the table with $25/hr and keeping it.

The house is taking its $140/hr no matter what.

That leaves a $215/hr shortfall that must be made up by the other players. If it wasn't, then everyone would be a loser.

DK Barrel,

When you calculate your profit after a winning session, do you just count how much more that you cashed out over your initial buyin + reloads (if any)? Do you calculate how much rake you paid on all the pots that you won? I am pretty sure that you are just calculating your winrate based off how much you cash out at the cage over and above what you bought in for.

When someone comes into this thread and reports a 10bb/hour winrate, they already had the rake taken out of all the pots that they won. If they had instead played in a rake-free game, they would be reporting huge winrates like 15-25bb/hour.

Similarly, a losing player may track his results and see that he is losing 10bb/hour. Now, if he had been playing in a rake-free game, he would only be losing 2bb/hour or something like that.

When people track their stats, they are IMPLICITLY counting the rake as part of their results. So when we are talking about winrates and lossrates, we shouldn't be double-counting the rake separately...because they are already IMPLICITLY counted when we cash out at the cage and record our results.

I am astounded that so many of you guys don't understand basic arithmetic and double-counting.

You're wrong.

The combined loss rates of losing players = the combined win rates of winning players + tips/rake/jackpot.

If not, give me another formula.

I am kind of astound that for someone who cares much about image, you sure are doing a lot to hurt it.

He's not completely wrong.

What he failed to see is that there is some double counting required.

For example, table is taking 35bb/hr no matter what, and if someone is taking in 10bb/hr, he's actually taking more than 10bb/hr off the table because his number is indeed double (well not quite double) counted.

Loss rate actually goes up for each losing player.

I think we're talking about two different things.

Right, they're not counting the rake in their winrates. They are counting the rake in the rake. If the rake was being double-counted, then the winrates and lossrates would both be inflated. Ah, I see where you are coming from.

But we were discussing how much money players had to lose to support the game, not someone's true winrate or poker score or whatever. So the house makes X, the winners make Y, solve for Z. At least I think that's what we were talking about. Maybe we are just talking to ourselves.

Funny how ATsai is throwing insult so quickly when he missed variables as we all did.

Well good job guys, I think we have just discovered that my estimated number is actually lower than it should be.

I'm lost about what you're saying now RP. Think I'm on the same page as DK. It's a pretty basic formula. Money lost must equal money taken by house/dealers plus money won by players. No other way to slice it.

Maybe I should get to it later, lol.

this is an accountants god damn wet dream, but it's not that difficult

credits = debits.

no other way around it.

Ya but I got confused.

I mean 10bb/hr winner is obviously after rake/tip/jackpot and what not, and if we factor those in for the table loss rate calculation, then how are we double counting anything?

ATsai is good, his presence alone makes you doubt yourself.

Nerds

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using 2+2 Forums

If you only lose pots then tips/rake/jackpot have no effect on your win rate..

false:

- flat drop rake
- tips for drinks/food service
- some people tip dealers when they arent winning
- massages which people routinely pay for off their stack, which tends to include a tip also


i know you're joking though

Yeah, but as long as they're still tipping out of their stack then it still doesn't affect win rate. It just means that when they tip $1 out of their $60 stack then when they inevitably go broke it's for $59 instead of $60.

If you always win, losses will have no effect on your win rate.

you're assuming that when someone loses they always go broke which is not always the case. if they ever cash out then that money that they tipped does come out of their win rate

But the premise of Snowball's post that you responded to was "If you only lose pots then tips/rake/jackpot have no effect on your win rate."

As soon as you add in "if they ever cash out" as a condition we're no longer talking about the same thing.