looool remember for how long random regs cried for 11$ reg speed 180s saying how theyd run a ton.

same thing.

I dont think it is, I think there would be a much greater demand

Louis toscano POY?

Any one interresting in prop bets for 2014 at 3+r 180s?
Like most profit, best roy in 10k sample or something like that.
My sn: Gotoca$hier
i really want extra motivation for 2014.

!

pretty accurate theme song considering how much of the show is depressing

word

Hello fellow 180 regs,

I have done some researching on graphs recently and it seems that the roi people can expect to have at the 8s and 15s is reducing worrying fast. I've not included 3R in my research because it's to tough to find out how much everyone is rebuying. This is the graph of the top 20 regs in terms of volume at the 8s and 15s this year.

So over a sample of more than 300K games you see that these regs have been winning way less than at the beginning of the year recently. Actually over the first five months they made like 3 times as much as over the last couple of months. Over the last 4 months they made 40K in more than 110K games! You can see for yourself at the sharkscope leaderboard who is included in this graph.

I also have a graph of the 20 most profitable players at the 8s and 15s 180s this year.

This looks quite a bit better. But also here the roi is getting worse. And this people are all running good obviously.

In both graphs you can see that the beginning of the year was the best. Which seems quite obvious because the trend is that the game is getting harder and harder and not just in the 180s. But I think the pay out change is a factor in this graphs too. In january before the pay out change they did really well. Offcourse some more research on this has to be done to draw a more reliable conclusion about the pay out structure, but I think it has made the game worse for regs.

Intuitive it sounds logical that the pay out change is bad for regs. 19-27 get paid, so fish come in the money more often. This means that it takes more games for the regs to get the money from the fish. And every game you pay rake again. So you pay more to stars before you have the money from the fish. Only stars gains by this. So that's why this pay out structure is bad and the numbers seem to support this. Any thoughts on this?

yup, as predicted

your just stating the obvious. but its not due to fish playing more games^^
its simply because regs dont gain a significant edge @ the money & FT bubble anymore (and poker gets tougher obv)
would be intersting to know how it effected the traffic, since the change was made for a "better poker ecology" (at least that's what they told us)

Bring back the old structure

I highly doubt recreational players grinding 50c 180s would be happy running 19th for 52cents or 10th for 76cents.

It's all relative, but although it was claimed to increase traffic at first, I'm sure some players have been deterred by the new payout structure.

The new structure is fine. The reason the volume players graph looks so bad is because those players suck and cannot adjust, they are losing more because the games are getting more reg infested and harder overall.

No Erik it's because I started playing them ! Muahaha .. Not Rly

But srs, I believe the payout change is negative in the short term. It probably lowers ROI a bit (but pbb also variance). On the other hand bad players like myself are making more cashes, so we just keep playing ..

I also believe Ismelltoast is right .. 180s aren't hard to beat so more and more people start playing them. More and more people start stables @ 180's so there are more regs .. and not a lot of high volume players play good poker .. not at all, they just click buttons.

Poker isn't dead. I'm playing a year and a month now and I'm probably doing fine @ $8s & $15s even though I don't have a sample yet. I believe it proves we should not worry. The only guys who should worry are the 'button-click-regs'. Times are changing, won't be long before they are rakebackgrinders.

And many things aren't discovered yet in poker. I still have many stuff I want to investigate wish will surely give me edge if I master them.

But anyway I'm going offtopic. In the longrun I believe the payout structure will keep them fishes coming

tl:dr: Less cashes a day keep the fishes away !

i think games are getting way tougher everyday , best way to win now, is reduce tables and try to focus as much as possible

shhhhhhh

no, you need to increase tables to get better $/h.

I just see misconceptions all over this so I'll try to add some thoughts that may start some seemingly much needed dialog. I feel like we are misunderstanding the data, and all tho its not rock solid proof its all players really have to go on at this time (I have some ideas for the advance of this but I cannot develop them on my own at this point).


Yes its extremely reasonable and important to ask for this info.


Well the best evidence we have suggests that its shrunk drastically from the start of the year. So the worry is the ones who argue, are basing their arguments on feel, or run good over small samples and we know most poker players have ego issues.

Suggesting we can adjust our way through such a change is really just a leak imo.

As the game progresses the trend, assuming the average play is better and better, is that strategies will converge more and more towards equilibrium or gto play. So although there are many factors to this, we should admit there is a part of the game growing that eats at our available edge.

For example if a final table has all players that play 98% nash shoving strategies, you can't magically adjust your way to 20% roi.

One might argue one is progressing their own strategy beyond the average players growing ability to play closer and closer to gto...but one does not have empirical evidence to suggest that.


The worry is, and i dont' know if its true, that the money that used to go to the winningest player, goes back to you and gets re raked before going back into the game where is used to reside anyways. I myself, really really want to clear that thought up.

This is a myth, although there is still room to out play these players, they are not morons. I'd suggest those that play 20 tables on average crush those that play less in roi.
The fact that you call a bad sample size evidence shows me that your observation are just a guess. We want contributions from players that aren't guessing.


Most of the regs that have responded have an roi that correlates to the change in the game. Although yours is a little small sample, i would suspect you have some of the most variance free play. But regardless it leaves you with no evidence to argue that you can double your roi over the next 10k games (which is prob still too small in this game)

In a super saturated game this isn't so true. All that happens is 180 regs open another table and burn the money coming from fishes up in rake. Perhaps the game is not their yet but the real solution would be for all regs to drop 5 or so tables and exchange them out for an easier game. It has its own issues of course, but at some point adding another table has an extremely diminishing return.

We really want some bright minds to look at this. We don't want to rake the 180 economy into the ground and find out a year later that the only ones making money was stars and the rest of the regs were just deluding themselves with ego.

If the game really has gone to 10% being the upper limits of roi, then for example @ 2k games a month the top player stands to make 3k a month. If your a horse thats 1500. If youre greek for instance, and pay 30% tax thats 2100.

This is looking to be like the UPPER LIMITS, and if the game is harder then variance is bigger and we need closer to 30k games as a decent sample, an amount thats barely achievable in a year.

I haven't fact checked or double checked these numbers, I just threw them out, but before you brush it all aside and say "Naw I'm awesome" take a moment to look at your results objectively or at least post a few players with decent sample that show the game is quite beatable.

If 10% is the upper limit, very few 'regs' are beating this game at all, even fewer for any reasonable amount that can be lived on. If they are chopping there profits, then they are probably beating their brains out.

You cant develop your own ideas?

more tables, guys. Doesnt matter how many tables you have when ur facing a shove. Pretty cut n dry. This is a numbers game. vamooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Okay so how do you explain this, this is the same volume players you used in your example except that it is filtered for jan 2011 untill jan 2013 (note there was no changes made to the payout structure during this time)

[img]http://s27.************/kwx3k148j/volume_regs.png[/img]

Oh look downward trend what a surprise this supports what I am saying that the games are just getting tougher, and the payout structure being altered has little do do with it. And the bolded part is just stupid of course you can adjust your game to 27 paid instead of 18 if you cant then you deserve to lose anyways.

I'm not sure what argument you think I was trying to make, but I wasn't making one.

Seems as trivial and limiting as reviewing ones on hh.


I don't mean to emphasize the payout structure as the cause. I mean to point out that adjusting to better players increasingly means moving towards equilibrium play. So I am agreeing the game is getting harder, and am curious about how hard.

As for the payouts its not clear to me that it doesn't just take more money out of the economy. And yes adjusting to payouts is quite simple (to some degree) for most of the field, I'm just wondering if paying more to fish results in that monies being re raked into the game. That would have a large and unfavorable effect on the economy of the game. But to be clear I'm not sure that is true, I just haven't seen anyone discuss it in that context.

Also we would want to filter out the 3rs from that graph and compare them. I don't know what players you would have used. But its really to all of our benefits to know, understand, and analyze the overall economy of the mttsng game. For instance for these graphs it might be possible that early year is when people spend the most losing dollars on the game, but we would want to observe this trend over time to monitor sustainability from the winning players perspective.

The better players collectively get at this kinda of analysis, the more tools they have to sustain and secure their hourly in the terms of rake and payout structures and other variables that sites control.

Well perhaps you agree or disagree that 10% is more of the likely average attainable roi? I guess it would be your indifference that struck me as odd. Or maybe you feel its a ridiculous thought, and can give insight as to why?

My indifference is largely due to not being a 180 reg anymore, tbh. That's probably very ignorant and short-sighted, but it is what it is.

If I had to guess (no, i don't have any empirical evidence), it seems more likely to me that that it's a result of tougher games than the structure change.

Well I took your contribution to mean that you were interested enough to participate. But regardless, the reason for the change isn't so important at this point. But if roi% has cut by half or something, many players would be quite interested to know I think.

Common answers in the past suggest 20% roi is achievable long term for top regs. But no one with any decent sample seems to be pulling anywhere near that. If true it means the average reg is likely near 5% or less. And if for example 12% is the top sustainable roi, fewer and fewer players will achieve the up-most limits.

Actually its a little over my head to suggest that but its important to prove one way or the other because a horse chopping a 5% roi is simultaneously ruining their time and bleeding the game dry.