I don't think I got to the deep games. They're going to come out with their own analysis similar to mine soon.

NLH, Short handed, 3-6 players, $0.50/$1, 100-250 bb.

Nov-Jan: 8.5785 avg bb/100 rake, 21.1031 avg pot, 2.4600 Rake Ratio
Feb-Mar: 8.3163 avg bb/100 rake, 21.7087 avg pot, 2.6104 Rake Ratio

2.6104 - 2.4600 = 0.1504

0.1504 Increase to Rake Ratio / 2.4600 Old Rake Ratio = 6.1% effective decrease in rake.

I like the idea of identifying overraked games by using the WTL metric.
However there are several problems attached to this metric, as has been pointed out.
A better idea might be to look at desposit-to-rake conversion rates.
According to Dominik Kofert (CEO of PokerStrategy), many poker rooms claim that their overall desposit-to-rake conversion rate is between 25% and 45% (the rest going into cash outs). http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...9&postcount=50
I imagine it wouldn't be too easy to break that rate down into different games.
You'd probably have to trace every cent of every deposit and see how often it is wagered in which games before it ultimately gets cashed out or raked away by the house. But if I'm not mistaken, that would show which games are responsible for which desposit-to-rake conversion rates, the highest being the most overraked games.

Deposit to rake is a tricky stat because there are different types of players with regards to volume and perception of themselves in the game.

A player can deposit an amount of X that can be a couple bucks or a couple Ks or whatever and be cool with losing it without thinking of cashing out. He can lose it in a day or in 6 months. whatever.

A reg can be withdrawing different %s of BR and/or profit/rakeback. Some can keep 90% of their net worth online while others will be withdrawing regularly. Also it does not take into account whether the game is beatable pre rakeback or not which is the main point of WTL and why I think that even tho it needs to be addressed "right" it's still a much more superior stat.

Don't see how that is a problem, could you please elaborate?
All the money on the site will ultimately be consumed by rake or get cashed out.
You only have to measure how often every deposited cent has been wagered in which games before that happens.
I hope that would show something like
"If amount A is used B times as a MTT buy-in, on average x% of A will be converted to rake."
"If amount A is wagered B times in a NL 100 SH game, on average y% of A will be converted to rake."
And so on for every game.
It's completely irrelevant who the depositor was (or how he perceives himself), how big the deposit was, who wagered it or who cashed it out.
I think that approach has potential. Maybe I'm wrong, don't know.

In the long term you may be right. If we ran pokerstars for X years and then cashed all the remaining funds out we could have drawn alot of conclusions.

However, as it is atm, there is alot of money in the accounts which has not yet been raked or will be raked in the future by an unknown amount and it is unknown to whom that money will go to (the player himself cashing out or other players etc).

As this industry is a living organism and has a third element which is money still in play it's uncertain to just look at raked$/Cashed$. We can add a 3rd element of in play$ but that is too volatile imo.

Hey guys, just got back home last night. x-posting this from the uFR regs thread:

"Yeah that's pretty much spot on that it was more of a brainstorming and feedback set of meetings.

In contrast with the January meetings where it was a specific issue with immediate implementation making a report a relatively easy thing to write up while remaining within the specifications of the NDA, it's probably going to be much more difficult for me to report on what was or wasn't talked about and what will or won't be implemented in the future.

I'm reluctant to simply share my opinion because of the reaction the January group got based on their opinion, and would much rather just post facts. But my overall impression is that the meetings were very constructive in generating ideas for Stars and helping the invitees learn and be able to better offer Stars further constructive ideas in the future. There was definitely progress made in a number of areas."


As a secondary note, if you are interested in offering Stars constructive ideas and you end up as a rep or invitee, I definitely recommend that you go. The ability to discuss pros and cons of ideas openly and with immediate response in a round table type meeting is worth the trip.

Sounds positive to me, thanks for stopping by