My database would confirm that 7 bb/100 is what QTip is paying... Far less than the average player. Maybe half as much. So if this sort of math is how he's estimating the cost of the beast to other players, his spreadsheet is absurdly optimistic.

does your screen name start with the letter f, champ

The cap is the same at 25nl as 100nl, I believe. That alone would make a huge difference. And the beat drop represents a full bb instead of .25bb. It would not be surprising to me if the difference was pronounced.

Rake is 5% for everything up to 400nl, capped at $3. Big pots at 100nl hit the cap and end up with less than 5% taken. This never occurs at 25nl...

correct

so in order for rake to be capped the pot will have to be $60 (240 BB at 25 NL, 60 BB at 100 NL) after the beast. there are 7 tables of 25 NL 6 max currently running, there is only 1 table where there are 2 stacks that combine for > $60. every one of those tables have 4 or more players who buy in for less than full, meaning that probably greater than 99% of all hands played at 25 NL will never reach the capped rake. so you have 1 BB taken out of every pot + 5% (the highest consistent % at any level) taken out of every pot and the highest concentration of "nitty" players at any stake level. honestly, i'm surprised the disproportion of rake/100 between 25 NL and 100 NL wasn't greater

negative

This thread is so bad that I have to believe it's a level for the sake of my sanity.

SFthis. It seems that everyone else contributing this thread is disputing MamaCoolJ's projections, based on their own stats and experience. Though I'm not a huge grinder and only sometimes play cash/beast (though I've been in the top 100 probably 6 times in the last year, only once in the top 20), I can add my hat in the ring too.

ALL of these projections are based on HIS, self-admitted nitty stats. I will, however, also acknowledge when I go after the beast I play a very loose style with the express purpose of gaining as many points possible, within reason, so I'm definitely not the best example. Most everyone else falls in between -- including those 20-100 who according to him "only" lose a supposed extra .005bb/100. But in fact, they likely lose significantly more than what shows on that list he posted. So as bad as that was -- showing that 20-100 were losing money -- the truth is even worse. How much worse I don't know, but it looks like some of you are getting close.

I primarily play mtt's (where I do very well) and omaha (which actually accounts for some of my beast points), and don't use software. I am definitely NOT a cash grinder. But I know some of you that are can surely dispute the absurd number that everything here is based on: 4% winning hands with flops seen. Really? We are to accept this as a UNIVERSAL average? LOL? I can guarantee I am atleast 3x that. Probably significantly more when you consider omaha + shorthanded (4 player) tables. The omaha contribution may seem miniscule in the big picture but I have seen even some top beast grinders add in omaha tables -- which, needless to say, would see them winning a lot more than 4% of their hands (where there was a flop). In fact the number of total winning hands would be pretty close to the wins that got beasted. So there's that.

So, we've established that the typical player is paying about twice the rake than QTip on a bb/100 basis. Based on that we can safely assume that most other players are also contributing more per beast point earned.

I went ahead and took a look at how the rest of the field would fare if we assumed they were contributing 1.25x (super conservative), 1.5x and 1.75x as much. And I ignored the MTT ticket, because the value it adds is debatable for reasons we've gone over in this thread.

We can see that it wildly impacts the results.



Even a player contributing just 1.25x what QTip does will be losing on the promotion by placing anything less than 18th. And the losses build quickly from there. Literally nobody below that will be making any money from the promotion. Many of the players in the top 50 would have lost more money than the prize they were awarded.

For players contributing 1.5x or more, it gets ugly fast.

I am not sure what it would actually look like for the typical player, who ends up paying twice the rake in bb/100 than QTip... But I think this range is more realistic than treating everyone as if they're producing the same stats as the #1 player.

Thanks for putting that together.

Pretty gross.

Nozzle:

Thanks for creating that. It's unclear how well it correlates to the "true" numbers but it at least shows the cascade based on hypothetical ranges.


I took a look at my data and:
[total Hands that saw a flop AND I won (paying the Beast using "winner pays" method)]
divided by
[total Beast eligible hands (i.e. that is 4 or more were dealt into the hand)]

Is 5.2%

That is to say, 5.2% of my total hands had the Beast rake. I think QTips number was around 4% (i'm being too lazy to go back and look). That would be a 30% increase (1.2/4 x 100).

I don't know that there are any grounds to say my number (5.2%) is any more representative of the leaderboard than QTips. I'm basically just posting one data set and observing that it is different from one other data set.


There's probably little more that can be done with speculative numbers at this point. October 16th I'll post data for the full 2-week period. I'm guessing QTip will post his data as well. Maybe a couple others would post theirs and perhaps we can begin to define a range and get a clearer picture.

@ people that are raking higher than 10bb/100 are you guys limping in or something.

I'm getting around 9.b/100 playing a 22/19 style.

He mean with 4% of his hands dealt he saw the flop and won = contributed for The Beast.

I agree that his numbers cannot used to calculate the rentability for all the other players. Alot of players will play more hands = looser to collect beast points quicker.

We have also to consider how much money a player will likely lose because he plays alot of unprofitable tables against other grinders to reach the top 5 or top 10.

What is the advantage to win $2000 for the 5th place while you lost e.g. $2000 in 100s of hands you have played at unprofitable tables?

damnit, I couldn't resist one more calculation...

if I use my 5.2% number (that is, 5.2% of hands dealt are won with a flop seen and therefore count as the winner paying $.25 in each instance)...

position points hands payin payout diff BB/100(100nl) BB/100(25nl)
5 27109 90363 1175 2525 1350 1.49 5.98
10 19100 63667 828 1515 687 1.08 4.32
20 15002 50007 650 631 -19 -0.04 -0.15
30 10503 35010 455 218 -237 -0.68 -2.71
40 7865 26217 341 184 -157 -0.60 -2.39
50 6151 20503 267 164 -103 -0.50 -2.00
60 5320 17733 231 150 -81 -0.45 -1.82
70 5002 16673 217 139 -78 -0.47 -1.87
80 4307 14357 187 131 -56 -0.39 -1.55
90 4333 14443 188 124 -64 -0.44 -1.77
100 4029 13430 175 118 -57 -0.42 -1.69
125 3386 11287 147 108 -39 -0.34 -1.37
150 2888 9627 125 100 -25 -0.26 -1.04
175 2405 8017 104 94 -10 -0.13 -0.51
200 2176 7253 94 89 -5 -0.07 -0.29

* Assumptions: 0.3 Beast points per hand dealt. 5.2% of the hands dealt will be won with a flop seen by the winner and counted as a $.25 contribution to the Beast
**this does NOT include the tourney entry. we can all mentally add whatever amount we think that is worth.
*** I added what the difference amounts to in BB/100 for a 100nl player and for a 25nl player. I ran out of room for another column but basically just divide the 100nl player by 2 to get what it means for the 200nl player and by another 2 for the 400nl player


EDIT: omg i need to learn how to just turn a spreadsheet into a pic and post that - sorry the chart is difficult to read

It gets a little more complicated considering the multiplier for stakes above 25nl...

[QUOTE={{{Mirage}}};

Is 5.2%
[/QUOTE]

To be consistent with nozzle's chart, this would be seen as 1.3x the rake paid as Qtip (5.2/4). It's the same thing as saying a 30% increase (1.2/4), but that's not really workable as tonhownthe data is being presented.

I know, it's what I meant as well -- it just isn't necessarily clear written down. Perhaps we can just use the term "beasted" for it. 4% beasted hands is still staggeringly low.

You mean that he won 4% of the hands he saw a flop, which would be really too low:
But he mean that he won 4% of all the hands he got dealt, which includes as well those hands he folded preflop.

I'd like to see us get some real data. We can have estimates and such, but we need to get in touch with these players in this danger zone, i.e. like 26-60. Here is the list of names from September.

Does anyone know of these guys or can find their 2+2 name and PM them or whatever? If they would be so kind as to give us their Beast contribution, we can simply look at September's results and see how things went.

bebenwong
Yuckys
hellarockets
Nuck-E-Thomps
IHaveFailed
ST4CK1NGH03S
OMGpuffin
In_Tha_Face
BandzAMakeHerDance
alexthegreat
pingtennis
scroogemcDUCK
GetsStackedAlot
Memphis Dry Rub
Badplayer
D00M00
bigrich7
Catattafish
OnlineLivePro
dima2240
Akisha
Garzvorgh
sicilyspizza
FinnAJake
ZEKE2685
noamchomsky
LostFan815
bkr18720433
Finchley
Schleprock
Luckbags
LadyStack
flimpy
Ra1syDa1sy
NiagaraBalls

No, actually, that's not what I meant. I meant "total Hands that saw a flop AND he won (paying the Beast using "winner pays" method)" -- I just said so in less words with the same obvious implied meaning. I am not the one confused here.

What data do you need and why. We all know the beast is taking money from us if we're not one of the 20 tablers. To be honest it's completely ridiculous that ur gonna make 20 grand from this even though you're a break even 25-50nler.

Why do you find it ridiculous? He has found a way to make the most out of a situation that presented itself. Hate the game, not the player. For sure the beast should be tweaked but that is the sites responsibility so don't come down on someone who has worked hard to finish first.

Why not try and do something constructive and come up with some ideas for improvement rather than just sit there and bitch.

It's definitely ridiculous.

That doesn't mean QTip is doing anything wrong. Although it is almost comical what he is trying to do here with this thread. Even without trying to use unrealistic numbers to support his case.

ya attacking qtip on this is absolutely out of line. he has a skill that seemingly nobody playing that site is capable of beating him in. that the promotion is broken isn't his fault (but yes, everything he has posted ITT thus far has been at best naive and comical)