lol I love how you say this as if you're contributing some groundbreaking ideas

you are delusional pal

I'm assuming you mean is the rake charged to a game based off a conceivable win rate and should it be adjusted to keep formats relatively equal? Or something along those lines.

If so it is a valid point and worthy of discussion.

But not in every single thread.

TOTAL AGREEMENT.

It is a valid point, bj is a moron, and 2p2 has been deleting the subject for a year. Posting in every thread is the only way to get it to the players attention.

A new problem has been outlined. And by outlining the problem we create a solution. The decline of the western pro (wtf is "western), is really about the hidden leak that value has been leaving the game through since black friday.

It is the most important subject in the world, it will be discussed. And we will continue to note, only the intelligent and well grounded peoples here (like sect) will recognizes this.

The Aj's Dark Els', and bj's are simply a product of a sick game.

The solution was implied in my last post, I guess I should have spelled it out so here it goes:

Sites will lower their rake only if their business starts hurting.
So your task is to convince enough amount of players to withdraw funds and boycot online poker with a clear message to sites that their return depends on rake decrease AND you need to find and convince enough new players that is not worth depositing atm...

A full blown 'rake revolution" if you will.
Good luck with that.

And...if your task wasn't hard enough, the site that has the huge majority of the player pool locked (stars) changed owner which means the only thing on the new owner's mind is to find a way to squeeze more money out of their customers in order to accelerate the ROI which is 5 BILLION DOLLARS (as you would expect from any new owner of any company), hence the rake increase idea that was shelved (for now).

Post the formula to calculate effective rate or GTFO.

I can think of two things I think would help NLHE.

Antes
Without antes you get a table full of 24 tabling nits. If antes were introduced into all the games people would be forced to play looser which would give the players with better hand reading ability a leg up.

Table Size
Who decided that poker had to be either 9 handed or 6 handed. Why can't we have a 3 or 4 handed game? HU play has been dying for years but if they just added a third seat to those games I think they'd more often run. With three handed games you get a lot of the benefits of HU without feeling like you have to play every hand. I remember back in the days of Minted Poker they had 4 handed tables that were constantly full and those games were incredibly soft. And again these tables won't be full of 24 tabling nits as it'd be impossible to play anywhere near that many 3 handed games. 3 handed poker is defiantly my favorite kind of poker and the version of poker where I have the highest winrate. I regularly start tables just waiting for it to get 3 or 4 handed.

3 handed tables would encourage regs to start tables together hoping that they 3rd seat would fill up with some fish. And fish would sit at these tables for multiple reasons. Fish like to look in the lobby and just sit where there's an open seat right now. They don't want to get on a wait list. Also fish seem to like to play on tables where all the seats are taken. It's some kind of psychological thing where they want to play where all the seats at the table are taken. So instead of tons of unplayed HU tables we have regs actually playing each other on 3 handed tables waiting for fish to join.

But I don't see either of these things happening as the sites want to cater to the 24 tabling rake bot nits.

I think lots of people are being unrealistic saying beating even micros is impossible now. There are still so many bad regs around that it's easy to beat the rake at micros. Not sure about small stakes since everyone gets better and the rake is still really high there.

One thing, however, is very clear. Making a good living from poker isn't something anyone can do anymore. 10 or so years ago just knowing some basic math and strategy you could crush even the high stakes online games. Now, you really have to be one of the elite players to have a chance, which means hours of studying off the tables and having a good grasp of GTO and advanced theory.

I don't see anything wrong with having poker as a hobby which yields a bit of profit. Just don't expect to crush unless you're in the top 1% of regs at your limit and are one step ahead of everyone else's game.

4 handed is usualy the best format for the games

1) its actually not a mistake for a fish to play super loose, a lot of fish with half a brain that are loose can actually breakeven in those games
2) its tilting as **** for regs
3) fish love it
4) shortstacking regs have no edge
5) weak regs get abused by good ones
6) most regs cant play many tables on them, so it turns the site a bit like bodog where you are maxed at 4tables which helps the quality of the games immensely


One site i played on had more 4 max running than 6-9max 3 years ago. Fish were happy and regs as well. The player pool was max 800~ players(now its 2k and the games are terrible because no 4max) and we had good games up to 2k nl. Even at 800 you could 12 table 50 or 100 and maybe 8 table 200 with great games.

4max sounds like it would be fun, wish more sites offered it

poker is dead. if you want something to invest in to make money, party shirts are gonna be all the rage soon enough, get in on it early to make some $$$

lets say there are 2 games running..one (x) has a 4% rake and the other (y) a 1% rake...the player pool from game x is missing all the weaker "regs" (like the unhappy ones itt) because they decided that game x is to tuff to beat because of the rake...in game y the regs decide to play (according to the notion of the op)...so which player pool is tuffer then?

is this logic wrong? does a higher rake make games softer? does that matter?
not a rhetorical question or meant in an offensive way to posters itt...not sure about it

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=214
This, especially the bold reminds me of a lecture from a year or two back especially and notably this part:

The below seems re-levant:

One wonders what the optimal rake strategy for sites might be in regards to rake as a %, and/or "effective rake".

Also we can wonder these things from the players point of view.

And lastly from the players and the sites cooperative point of view (what is the mutually best "strategy").

And then we compare these answers with the current state of the games in regards to rake as a % and or "effective rake".

Is pareto efficiency relevant here?

How many times are you going to post it and have yourself told that you're a delusional idiot before you stop?

Doesn't Pareto assume a specified initial allocation of specified goods among a set of specified individuals? In the original post, you are considering that the set of individuals will change dependent upon how the "good" is allocated (in this case the good seems to really be money, but what we are concerned with is the rake % which affects the allocation of the good). And all of the benefits received by a subset of the set of individuals (players who keep playing at higher rake) are received due to another subset of the set of individuals (players who stop playing at the higher rake) deciding to leave the set of individuals.

[Second Edit: I supposed we could look at the subset of the set that decides to stop playing as not leaving the set, but just having their "benefit" change to 0, which could be either better off or worse off for each individual in the subset depending upon whether such individual was previously deriving a benefit of less than or more than 0.]

Maybe I am wrong, but I do not think Pareto applies unless you assume a fixed set of individuals (though one could try to modify it perhaps).



EDIT:

Oh man, I wrote more and lost it somehow.

Say we assumed a set of participants as being a company providing online poker and all the players who play it at that company and say we assumed an initial rake of X%.

If we only considered rake, then everything would be a Pareto efficiency. No matter what X is, there is no way to adjust X to benefit at least one participant in the set without harming at least one other participant in the set.

Now, if we considered items such as security, customer service, advertising/size of player pool (although this again seems to be affecting the set of participants which I thought was supposed to be fixed), etc., then maybe Pareto could theoretically be applied with the understanding that with a higher rake comes an improvement in those other items. Seems like figuring out how to exactly quantify it all would be extremely difficult if at all possible though.





Also, hello Nash Guy. I'm not sure what you like to go by. It doesn't seem to make sense to use any of your screen names since you have so many.

omfg im so stupid...i don't understand **** from the last 4 posts...

since i took the time to post, but I'm not sure about it (my claims) at all, i wud appreciate if someone wud at least say "gtfo u imbecile" or "sound logic", or something along these lines...

cheers

E: i don't have 2nd accounts, if someone tried to suggest that (not sure)

Don't worry it's just Nash guy resurfacing and running into a swift banhammer by the look of it.

Not sure, but thought id make a guess and answer your post


Guess we would expect everybody (regs and recs) to move to (y) with the 1% rake, because it'd be cheaper to play? And if no other players joined the pool, then the games would play the same, but people who were losing to the rake before might now be winners?


Although if players are winning again, it would once again make it possible for the site to be able to market poker as a game where you can win money (just by playing, and not by having to put in volume, or with seat/table/time selection, and stuff)? So there'd maybe be more players that would be attracted to that, as opposed to the lower rake per se?


Just guesses, am not sure

Already been said: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=207

But there is also a clue in that the guy includes a hyperlink to the post directly above his own.

His basic point though is that winrate depends on: the difficulty of the games, rake and rakeback, which is pretty uncontroversial.

He dresses this up in a pseudo-academic obscurantist style to make that seem more profound than it is. He also uses the term "effective rake" for this when a more logical meaning of that term would be rake as reduced by rakeback and other VIP stuff.

You've still got a bit on the side of your mouth.

Given an infinite supply of money and the ability to play poker is continuous without substitute, no rake > rake should always remain true.

Trying account for factors such as a limited supply of money, skill, difficulty, substitutes, rewards (affiliates, rakeback, VIP system, bonuses) and taxes into an overall formula is ridiculous when the learning capacity for each person is unique. It's like the game of chess where up to 7 piece tablebases to compute perfect play are already solved with the amount of data required for each extra piece exponential.

Online poker killed itself, with help from the US government. First it was just poker on the internet, which enabled players to play more hands and enjoy a lower rake than at live poker. Then people discovered multi-tabling which meant that if you weren't you had to sit and wait for a player playing 10 tables to act.

Then you had software and sites where you could get hand histories that enabled the online pros to gain a tremendous advantage over the casual player. This was starting to poison the game even before the US government shut down the bigger sites.

So the days when a grinder like Leatherass could win over a million dollars a year playing medium stakes are gone and they ain't coming back.

Even if we are eventually allowed to play here in the US on good sites, there will be so much regulation and expense that it won't be worth the effort.

while some of the things you say are true,I still think the main reason poker died/is dying so fast is because of world governments. take france ,italy,spain and usa,put them back in .com pool and today:

wed still have ftp, no one would have ever heard of amayascumbag, people playing midstakes could still make 200k++ a year, poker would be all over tv like in the golden days and no such thread would be made.

Us as professional poker players ran really bad in the last few years.
while some may say we had it coming, the actual picture could have been way different if it wasnt for a few influent people/corporations ****ing all of us over.

online poker kind of missed the smart phone boom in the usa, with everyone using smartphones nowdays, I really wonder what it could have been if bf never happened.