Are you gay?

If this is insanely skillful. What do you call the people who 30 table $500 SNG's for 10 hours a day and have a positive ROI? Do you realize you're essentially saying that these games are unbeatable because it takes skill to just break even?

the lack of logic shown by your post is mind boggling

didn't realise skill was a completely binary attribute.

One thing: You guys realize that anybody down in winnings, yet up with SNE rewards is beating the games right? He's not beating the games for enough to overcome the rake without rakeback, but he is beating the games. If someone were a loser in a rakeless game, he'd lose money over the year despite SNE Rewards.

Not true. If you're beating the games, you're making money AT the table. You can still "profit" from poker by getting rakeback, but that doesn't mean you're beating the games.

What constitutes a game? The other players you play against. You beat them.

Either way, I'm out of this one. Just think about it though and your view might change a bit, it's arbitrary to call some who beats the opposition by an 8% Edge (for regular SNGs) a loser just because the rake is 9%.

A game is the profit you make at the table and it's really simple to calculate. Take the sum of all the money you CASHED OUT in all your tournaments and cash games, then subtract all the money you've put at risk (your buy-in) from those tournaments and cash games. If that is a POSITIVE number, you are beating the games. If it's exactly zero, you are breaking even. If it's negative, you are losing. There's no gray area. As I said, you can still PROFIT, from conditional rakeback and bonuses, but that doesn't mean you are beating the games.

There are no regular games without rake, so rake is part of the game. Stating that you are beating the game but not beating the rake just doesn't make sense.

I'll give you a little example just to put things into perspective. I'll use 1/2 PLO because I know rake is around 10bb/100.

Player A is a good recreational player who enjoys the occasional PLO table. He is a 4bb/100 winner in those games and plays 10K hands a year, getting back around 15% from the VIP program.

Player B is a seasoned SNE, who masstables on a daily basis. He is a -1bb/100 loser in the same games and plays 1 000 000 hands a year, getting back around 70% back from the VIP program for his SNE status.

Player A profit: 4bb + 1.5bb(VIP) = 5.5bb/100
Player B profit: -1bb + 7bb(VIP) = 6bb/100

So, according to your logic, Player B "is beating" the games better than Player A, despite having a 5bb/100 smaller winrate? LOL

Player B is not beating the games, he is being rewarded for his loyalty which allows him to make a nice profit. But he's not beating the games.

IMO, you have to adjust relative skill levels to account for the increased number of tables/hands. Could Player B beat the games for more than 4bb/100 if he was 4-tabling instead of 12 tabling? Meh, it depends.

I contend that this argument is mostly pointless. (Other than internetz gonna internetz, LDO.)

Not a big fan of the 30bb minimum; all those shortstacks are terrible, would be great to get more BBs when they push their crap.

So stars does the right thing and gets rid of the shortstack PLO games, but CAP NL is taking over high stakes NLH. Stars should at least make it 30bb cap nlh, 20bb cap nlh is just utterly ******ed. I would prefer removing cap all together though. Screw the 20bb players, 20bb poker isnt poker in my book.

The rake at the cap low NL tables need to be decreased, its way too high right now

so many games running at PLO50 and the games are pretty good

<3 changes

actually it does. if there was no rake he would be positive at the table. since he pays rake it takes him from positive to negative...getting a portion of that rake BACK making him a winner proves he is beating the game.

Actually player B IS beating the game better than player A. they both play by the same rules and he bonused better.

Example. In college during summers I sold cars. As a part time (part of the year) I had much fewer repeat customers than the long-timers. But, I was very good with people and a math genius. I used leasing and used cars to make the most money on EACH car. The last summer I did it I sold 12 and 16 cars the last 2 months. I actually had more GROSS PROFIT on those cars than the top salesman who had around 30 sales per month. But the dealership used a unit bonus formula that went on top of commissions. I made about $19k for those 2 months and he made about $32k (about half of which was bonus). I made more per car...but who was the better salesman? He was, he made more money. This debate is over.

and humble too

If my Aunt had balls, she'd be my Uncle. Any player who loses money at the table isn't beating the game by definition. They may 'profit' from poker because of rakeback, but that doesn't mean they are beating the games, it means they are beating the rakeback system through volume.

For players who enjoy that, good for them, but don't expect any of us to feed your delusions that you're 'good' at poker. No one with any sense looks up to massive rakeback grinders who lose money at the tables. In fact, most of those are frowned upon and generally think are bad for the games. The only ones players DO look up to like that are players like Nanonoko because he massively grinds AND wins. Winning money at the table is ALWAYS a prerequisite for respect from your poker peers.

Beating the game implies beating both the rake and the players for a profit.

I disagree. The people who are winners now are simply kids who have no responsibility in life, and therefore devalue money (either won or lost). Those people who have responsibilies, kids, and have made a living by other means have a different outlook on money and are at a disadvantage with the way you supposed online skill players play now. So, by finding any advantage to make a living means we are GOOD POKER PLAYERS. Nanonoko is great, but he has no life responsibilities. Same with Durrrr, Galfond, etc. WizardofAhhs did something more incredible than them. DannyOhBoy did something more incredible than them. They found a way to make money while not taking the huge risks. It is why I have made my money by grinding SNGs and a few mtt's. I am now doing the SSS grinding to make SN and SNE next year. Live with it. If we make it harder on you, that is BETTER for the game.

When I play Modern Warfare or Black Ops, little kids like you send me messages complaining how I play. I use claymores, grenades, and camp. I don't have the ability to run around and shoot as quickly as they do...so I found a better strategy...and I usually have the best kill/death ratio. You sound just like those kids. You can't stand that someone has a different strategy that is harder for you to exploit so you complain it isn't poker. Waaaaaa

Thank you, you proved my point. They made a profit, ergo they are beating the game.

Oh, internet.

I take a break for a few months and when I return, the same old arguments are still right here waiting for me.

Some people just feel they are superior and try to belittle others. That's the strategy of folks with very low self-esteem. They need to leave their mom's basement and get a life.

No, that is not what I said. Making a profit does not mean you are beating the game.

If you walk away from the table down $100, then you lost. You did not beat the game (the rake and the players). Getting $101 in bonus and/or rakeback does not change this fact.

There are plenty of players who make significant amounts of money every year playing poker online, but are actually losing and/or breakeven players. You could lose $95,000 in the process of getting 1 million VPPs this year and still come out with $5k+ profit. That doesn't mean you beat the rake and the competition for $5k+...

Not that any of this matters...a pound of rakeback $s is worth the same as a pound of donkIstackedatthetable $s