Using this site, https://smarthand.pro/top, I cant find literally any high-volume players at any stakes with w/r over 4bb/100. Using that site and sorting by hands at any stake, the results are shocking. Meanwhile, at other sites there are loads of substantial winners, even on sites that offer a higher RB%. Is this the confirmation that people have been suspecting for a long time, that GG is simply banning any player above a certain winrate and using "bum hunting" as a justification? IT makes a lot of business sense to do this. Only allow small winners, break-even, or losing Rakeback grinders on your platform.

Here is GG poker top volume players for 100-200nl, last 2 years (all stakes are similar):



Ps:



Ipoker (more rakeback here than GG)



WPN (again, MUCh more RB without GG bait and switch PVI system)

No, you just can't beat the rake at 100 or 200 NL. Even at 1k it's impossible imo.

But, you obviously can. The games are clearly very fishy. I mean you can but you will get banned for "bum hunting" if you try. Unless you play a quota of -Ev tables to reduce your W/R into the GG acceptable range that is.

just hit the bbj 4head

LOL.

Do I have to stream a BR challenge on twitch to achieve this dream.

its called unbeatable rake at those stakes. you would need an absurd winrate to beat it without rb at small stakes

It's the same at all stakes...

500+1k:



Plus if you ever played at GG and other sites you would realize GG is wayyyy fishier than any other site. Despite the rake, with a modicum of reasonable game selection, a decent winrate should be possible...

The rake structure is way more fair at the lower midstakes. Rake is the same at 200 and 1k.

GG is the greatest honey pot of all time, siphoning money from regs who are too dumb to realize you should not play below 25/50 on there.

500 is the same bruh. Almost no players with a >3 bb/100 winrate at any stake 50 to 1k, despite the site being a fishtank. Pretty obv to me they are just banning based on w/r. If they really had a "bumhunt" detection system you should be able to find at least a few exceptions.

I think you're underestimating the rake.

At 5/10 it's around 7 bb/100, which means you need a whale losing 42 bb/100 for the table to break even.

Isn’t this just evidence the rake is unbeatable not that people are getting banned? What is the difference in rake in bb per 100 on each site at these stakes.

5/10
Stars: ~2 bb/100 - $0.195 / hand
GG: ~7bb/100 - $0.68 / hand

Yeah, I get that, but if it was just "rake too high" we wouldn't also have so many players also conspicuously banned for "bumhunting", when they do no different from any other reg. Every single reg is a bumhunter by GG's definition, but the rake machines don't get banned.

There was only ONE player I found, from 50nl to 1k, in the top 50 players in volume with a w/r of over 4bb/100 on this site. There is no way this site is actually that unbeatable. It's an actual fish tank at small stakes, despite the rake. I think it's obvious they are just doing what literally every bookmaker does-- banning players who are bad for their bottom line.

Most serious players get 50+% rakeback tho (I grinded Rush&Cash hard for a month or two and get 50% for a year now. During that time, winning the leaderboard every day I played, I averaged over 80%). It's not all that bad. Especially if you switch to tournaments after that, where rakeback doesn't get cut for winning players. Just don't expect to win in cashgames pre rakeback.

I love how people here really think all those regs playing there just are too dumb to figure out rake is high. If all the smartest people do something you think is dumb - maybe you're dumb.

Don't strawman me. I know people are making money here, and I wasn't talking about RnC anyway. There is no way you got 80% RB there either, even with LB, given the PVI rakeback. The fact is you get higher RB at other sites where people are actually winning, and you don't get arbitrarily banned either.

I mean I wouldn't put it past them to ban huge winning outliers so in this case 4/bb + would be for them but I'm just saying looking strictly at the data it seems each data set is a normal distribution more centered around a certain WR (4.5ish for PS 2ish for other two and -1.5ish for GG). If they were banning over 4 winrate you would get a lot of players @ 1-4BB/hr winners because of how that would skew the distributions.

Even with softer competition 3.5x rake is pretty bad I doubt any 10+ tabler is just blindly loading up every table they can on gg probably picks a couple good ones on gg and fills with rest on ipoker. Maybe why they're getting banned for bumhunting or not doing enough volume to make leaderboards idk.

na if you're topping LB's you can make a ton, same with party when it used to run," table b/e" 100nl players were making 5figures a month.

i dislike party for close to a dozen reasons, but they had an infinitely better structure.

gg is straight robbery unless youre playing hs like rahm stated, the streamer program was worked wonders for them tho

Interesting post. Would be cool if someone who knows about this sorta stuff could look at the data and see if anything funny looks like it's going on. Wouldnt simply banning anyone not fitting the alias of break-even to losing Rakeback grinder create this kinda distribution? By the time they would reach the top 50 volume players they would all likely be banned by then. Interestingly, the outliers with >3BB were all at the bottom of the volume amount.

The rake is only 3.5x comparing 1k GG to PS, which is an extreme outlier.



As you can see the diff at smaller stakes is much less and, IMO, the games are easily soft enough to make up the difference.

Well, back then on PLO100 you used to get $700 for first place, which I always got when I played. Plus 50% rakeback (-PVI) plus usually ~$60 - I got lucky there and final tabled two - from the bad beat flip tourney averaged to, I believe, 82.x% rb, I don't have the records anymore.

I don't get higher rakeback elsewhere and I don't get arbitrarily banned. But ofcourse you can choose to play elsewhere.

How much RB are you really getting, even topping reg table LB's. 15% PVI and what, 25% from LB if you are lucky, and if you finish first? Actually, way less as reg tables LB's at 200nl is half RnC. And for that, you gotta grind how long? With a, on average,-2bb w/r.

I mean they could be banning everyone >1bb/100 and the dataset would probably look like that from what you'd posted. If it was +4bb there would be a lot in 1-4BB range id imagine. Now that you mention it they do have a lot of players between -1bb to +1bb but datasets are so small cant really give definitive answer.

If there's a lot of 3bb winners outside top 100 but inside top 1000 they prob have a different cutoff for each tier. I mean it's not hard to program this type of stuff but it's pretty easy to tell if you look at mass data sets (each tier will have a lot of players in the bound right outside the cutoff)

Now you get 400, and most regs got .3 PVI, meaning 15% not 50%... Besides, we were not talking at all about RNC, and reg tables LB are even worse.

you can't just look at rake on ggpoker. you also pay for the bbj and cashdrops which are both not included in the rake.

factoring in cashdrops is somewhat reasonable, but adding bbj ev to your bottom line is kinda rtarded

this