Quote:
Originally Posted by SantaCruz
I don't think that these numbers tell the whole picture. There's more to consider in evaluating the overall effects of the Beast on a player's profits.
The Beast forces players to play more tables and longer sessions than they normally would. Playing like that really degrades a player's game. The money lost through play degradation needs to be figured into the equation to determine the true value of the Beast.
QTip, for example, is undeniably a good player. But from what I understand, he isn't actually winning any money at the tables. But how much money would he be making if he was playing a small number of tables? That amount needs to be compared to the Beast payout inorder to get the real value of this promotion. In QTip's case the Beast payout is probably compensating him pretty well. But how many ranks down do otherwise good players stop benefitting from the Beast? I don't know those numbers but I have a feeling that we don't have to look to far down the list before this promotion becomes a Beast of Burden.
It's a fair point that I've wondered about too.
In QTip's case, as long as his lossrate is < the total rakes, then even with what passes as subpar play for him, he's winning from players (just not winning as much as the house is taking). Put another way, if rake were subtracted out he is still a +BB/100 player which means he's still beating the players, 40 tables at a time, and then is being refunded some of the regular rake (VIP) and making a large profit on the Beast rake.
Beating the rake at low stakes has always been an issue in poker. That isn't a new problem. But having to beat an
additional rake (to fund a rake-race promotion) is...a bad situation for the players driving that volume but don't hit the top 3% of the leaderboard.
I do wonder, however, how many (if any) leaderboarders are actually losing to other players due to multi-tabling beyond their ability for the purpose of the Beast. Which would make them producers. Which would be a good thing for the games. But these players couldn't last very long...pay the rake, pay the Beast and pay the players...I can't imagine a bankroll withstanding that for very long.
In my case, I have a positive winrate and I'll be increasing my volume in order to at least break even from the Beast after the bimonthly payout. If, however, my winrate drops due to increased volume I will have to calculate if the drop in winrate is > or < the Beast payout. If < the Beast payout, I plug on. If > the Beast payout, I'll have to reduce the volume, regain my winrate, and I guess pay the Beast tax.
Last edited by {{{Mirage}}}; 10-16-2013 at 11:31 PM.