the vpip is 10% you plonker because there's no fish on those tables.
JFC.
do you even play in those games? NO, you ****ing don't. I do, and I'll tell you there's a ton of regs playing FR with 6max stats. ****ing 21/18, 24/20 and the like. There are MORE of those kinds of regs than there are regs playing 11/10, 10/9 or what have you.

stop posting drivel


do you have data that shows FTP and Stars got more rec players when they changed their rb system? do you have data that shows games got softer? No, you don't. b/c none of that happened, you are just making assumptions based off of thin air and wishful thinking.

Here's what it looks like when it's actually not 100% reg time (and keep in mind it's still far from peak time)

Could LAG regs look up 6max contributed rake on Revolution in their tracking soft and give real numbers to see to what extent dealt is better?

On the one hand, I see that in my small IPN & Microgaming sample dealt rake is 1.3-1.5 times higher than weighted contributed. On the other hand, games on these 'Euro' networks are obv much looser and I'm actually nittier than the field (I play 6-max PLO50, 27/18 pre, quite aggro post), while I guess at this Lock nitfest I'd be looser than the field and have dealt slightly lower than WC or around it.

As an example, consider the following kinds of 6-max tables. A good but not rare Microgaming table, besides me contributing 15bb/100 in rake, features a 12bb/100 TAG, a 18bb/100 LAG and three fishes. I obv have no direct info on how much the fish rakes, but given that my dealt rake would be 22.5bb/100, it can be estimated that the fishes contribute 30bb/100 each.

Now if I sit at a Revolution table with a 30bb/100 fish, a 12bb/100 TAG and three 6bb/100 ubernits (I've never played on Revolution - are my estimates realistic?), my dealt rake is 13.5bb/100, 10% less than WC. Leave aside winrate considerations. Maybe I underestimated nits' rake but I've seen in a SSPLO thread today that such low rake/100 is quite possible at Zoom PLO.

Nits def kill poker ecology because microlimit fish wants action at a few randomly chosen tables at a limit, regardless of how many tables are running in total.

After all, although WC is evidently more profitable for the room than dealt (more rake is allocated to fish who aren't RB-savvy), nobody prohibits Lock from returning this profit by making the rake lower after the switch to WC. It would be good for everyone if they made it 4% for the micros and advertised extensively that it's lower than on Stars.

Two huge details are wrong about your post

1) You assume dealt rb means the site is nitty, and if it went to WC, games would be looser. Wrong.

2) You assume fish care about rake AND the way rb is calculated, and how this effects games. Wrong.

Re 1). Nits will quit after switching to WC, and if nothing is done to save liquidity, no one will replace them and games just won't be running, that's probably what you meant. However, as an intermediate step, a site can hire props (edit: they'll hardly ever be good regs, in case you're afraid that your winrate will drop) as d3 fact0 said, giving them incentives to bloat pots, such as WC RB>100% or more complicated schemes that pay more to players that pay more WC rake in bb/100. (Lock is now giving BlackVIP Elites RB>100%, but it's dealt, which stimulates quite the opposite to bloating pots.) As a side note, these props shouldn't be incentivised to play a lot of tables because it's contradictory to politeness in chat and making moves fast (slowrolling bores fish), 2-4 tables are optimal. Then the site should invest into recruiting fish. After this is done, the investments will return because the site will pay less RB on WC.

Re 2). That's true because I'm a fish I don't know where in my post you found that fish cares about RB, while I was claiming quite the opposite. With the WC method, a bigger share of rake is allocated to fish that don't have good RB, which means that a bigger share of rake avoids being 'taxed' by RB, which is a profit for the room just like tax optimisation.

I tried to guesstimate how much rake fish contributes solely because that was needed to assess how much rake would be allocated to me with the dealt method. What was wrong is that I assumed my and fishes' rake contribution would be the same, which is wrong because we'd have fewer opps with whom we'd play big pots (the average pot would be smaller). So I need your figures: how much rake you contribute and what your rake share (dealt rake) is.

Few questions:

1) Are you a winning player?

2) If yes, say over the last 200K hands what % of your bottom line comes from actual $ won at the tables, and what % comes from RB and other promotions?

I am sincerely interested in the above ratio and the sample size from which it was derived! Feel free to break it up by limits.

To answer your question, no, I do not have access to PS' or FTP's internal data. Also, please keep in mind that adjustments within a the IP ecosystem by various segments and representatives of the IP playing populace to new 'incentive structures' do not occur over night. Lastly, do keep in mind that a term 'reg' is not synonymous with with the type of player who is a net drain on the IP economy.

Your obsession with whether or not someone makes a majority of their winnings from rb is completely irrelevant to this topic. Further, people who rely on rb for winnings... That means theyre breakeven at best overall at the tables, aka theyre great for the game.

It was a striking finding for me today that, although Merge's central promos are based on weighted contributed, revenue share affiliate commissions of Poker Host (a Merge skin) are based on dealt!!!

So, while Microgaming bases central promos on WC but uses True Value (resembling Ongame Essence allocating more rake to fish than WC) for affiliate commissions, thus incentivising them to bring recreational players, Merge does the opposite encouraging them to recruit regs, and these regs tend to be fairly loose because RB-obsessed nits tend to neglect Merge and go to networks that officially use dealt! Wp, Poker Host! Is it the same for other Merge skins, I wonder?

I think it's a good idea for Lock to adopt this Merge's business model and multitabling restrictions like IPN's maximum of 5 tables if they want more non-nitty non-stalling regs. I know Americans that don't have access to Everest - another significant site using dealt - won't like that but it will be good for poker ecology.

^^ didn't you get the memo? Revolution with their archaically brilliant business model based on the dealt-hand RB method is about to soul crush PS/FTP and leave the former market leaders in the dust!... B/c obv those guys running things at PS are morons, as clearly proven by visiting pokerscout. In other words, EVERYONE, including Revolution owners, including the parasites, the FPP wannabe-pros, even the FISH, will have their cake and eat it too; there will be a chicken in every comrades pot!

The Revolution is dead. Long live the Revolution.