I agree with this completely.

What's silly is if someone wins some huge jackpot, way higher than the ev of years of paying a bbj drop and including that in their win rate. might as well include a winning lotto ticket you find in the street.

I'm convinced, at least about the more basic HH jackpots.

As I play more, and win more jackpots, I'll add them in.

Guys getting aces is not a reflection of skill so we should exclude those earnings from our winrate also.

how about add them in until the point of approx break-even i.e. approx amount of jackpot drop = HH/BBJ winnings. After that consider it a winfall and don't calc it into your winrate.

Wrong thread. Absurd thinking is over there --->

Shut the thread down. Ryan's solved the question.

Nothing more to see here, folks. Move along...

Still a great thread .. I'm hanging onto my profit v performance points.

BBJ/HH are profit but I don't think they would truly indicate a player's performance. There are some fuzzy issues when it comes to HH winnings since a player may need to play a hand differently in order to reap the profit, which may cost them some 'regular' profit.

Not a perfect example but here goes ...

When my company bids a job we estimate the number of hours it's going to take, let's say 100 hours. Once we complete the job we take a look at our logs and find out it really took us 130 hours. This is a poor performance (either by the bidding team or the actual workers).

(This will never happen .. but) After we deliver our product the customer loves it so much that they decide to pay double the price. Do we now have a good performance? I say no .. even though we received this unexpected bonus from the customer it didn't change our performance as a company. We just made more profit.

Once again fun thread, but I just don't see how counting 'chips' we get from the house should factor into our evaluation as a poker player trying to get chips from the other players. GL

Well, then instead of coming up with an analogy that isn't anywhere close to being on point, address the issue I noted in my earlier post in this thread, a portion of which I'll C&P here:

I have already indicated that HH profit is cloudy. I agree we can't be expected to track the number of hands won and put the rake associated with them into the same tracking column as the HH profits.

For me, I'm just saying rake is rake and I'm willing to put the $2 into my 'cost of doing business' expense when evaluating my poker performance. I certainly agree that we are blurring costs here. The inability to easily track this cost creates an accounting issue. I'm choosing to bury it in one account even though it will have an adverse effect on my performance evaluation. I'm choosing to make myself look worse by leaving these HH profits out of this calculation even though they are funded by the extra rake taken.

Are you suggesting that online players include any 'rake back' they get into their hourly rates? So a high volume medium skill player can make up some ground on a winning nit just by playing more hands?

Are you suggesting that players play better poker in rooms with lower rake? They might be more profitable, but that doesn't mean they are playing better. This goes to my golf example .. you need to rate the rooms somehow in your analysis .. and rake is one of those factors.

You are making valid points as to why HH funds could be mixed in here. I'm saying that I will do this when I evaluate the profitability of 'the room', but I'm not willing to do it to evaluate how well I'm playing poker.

When evaluating my performance as a poker player I will consider the results based on the rake in each room for sure but why would I want to give myself a false sense of security by including a factor that doesn't exist 'everywhere' I go to play. I'm trying to separate the room from the player. Certainly the true definition of 'playing poker' is part of this discussion.

I'm not trying to win you over. There is no right or wrong here. My evaluations can be different than yours. I respect your position .. It's just not mine. GL

Not to throw a wrench into things, but rakeback should definitely be calculated in your hourly. If the rake were never taken in the first place, your hourly would reflect that. Rakeback is a consistent and guaranteed payout that brings you back to where you would be if it were never taken out in the first place. It's the same as not paying it.

Should you include it if your primary goal is to compare yourself to those who don't receive rakeback? Probably not. But then we shouldn't be relying on our live hourlies for comparing our abilities to other players due to the differences in rake structure from room to room.

My personal spreadsheet is far from advanced, but it is still filterable in a hundred ways. There's no reason not to include BBJ, HH, rakeback, etc. in their own categories so you have insight to reports of all types.

This thread shows that people use their winrates for more than one type of insight, and the method of calculating it can change depending on the insight desired. Just record everything and let your spreadsheet shift contexts for you.

If you are really a winning player then of course you dont include it. If not then why not include it to make up for the fact you are a losing player.

Right ... so always record them, and calculate winrate with and without for different purposes.

I honestly can't see any argument *not* to document them. Include them, don't include them, whatever. But make that decision in post processing and analysis instead.

Getting them is luck/random...but what you do with them and how is skill. so you strawman isn't so applicable.