lol, nice one

yeah, "winning" over a million bucks, what a loser. wonder how he sleeps at night

that graph is really ****ing weird.

Profit excluding rake (blue line) is good
but profit is like, he has lost 700k$

With rakeback he is probably a small winner relative to the amount of time it would take to play all those games.

Btw people also neglecting to state that most huge winners pre rakeback are bum hunters on reg tables n scripting, hard to have a huge wr when majority of the player pools in zoom are regs and fish play less hands.

No, you're not.


No, you don't.

RB never is 100% (except for pros), so unless you have some magic RB-deal you need to be a pre-rake-winner to be profitable with RB.

Do you understand why you don't just get to make statements like these without backing them up?

No, you don't.

Have seen that in a few threads lately. What % of the people who talk against rakeback even know what it is beyond a superficial level ie actually play poker?

If the US govt decided to start taxing all businesses 90% but promised to give 30% back as long as you filed your taxes would you consider a business a loser if they were in the red after the outrageous taxes but got back in the black after the kickback? That's what the "rakeback pro is loser" comments are saying.

eta - in response to a few posts up and others obv

Uhh, these are 6max hypers. if it takes him 10 years (not possible it takes this long) he's making 100k/year

+1.

Not sure what's going on at midstakes but I suspect many of those "games are dead" opinion supporters are just spoiled and lazy, or just lack the work ethics it takes to beat the games in 2015.

Poker simply evolves like any other field, and is also affected by socioeconomical conditions, just like most sectors. Those who work harder than others will have an edge. Some were fortunate enough to live the boom, the rest of us can work their a$$ off or find sthg else to do.

Sent from my GT-I8190 using 2+2 Forums

It seems we have different definitions of what a losing player is. If someone loses pre-RB, then they are a losing player. They don't beat the game. Their rakeback might push them into profit, but they're not actually beating the game, hence they are a losing player.

Are you reading the red line = 'profit' and the blue line = 'profit excluding rake'



This is why i say the graph is weird, it shows over 2 milly in rake.

^ seems like ur lost dude

Perhaps you can share your special definition of "winning player" then.

Then so am I.

The legend provided says the blue line is "Profit Excluding Rake". Is it actually meant to be "Profit Including Rakeback"?

so to clarify, the guy from the graph who has made $1M playing 6max hypers is a losing player and does not beat the game by your definition?

bobo and fishnoob, I think it's profit excluding rake, not profit after rakeback. So he's paid 2.5M in rake, gets 60% rakeback or whatever SNE is, and so has made ~$1.5M in rakeback and thus profited ~$1M.

I don't get it...

profit: -500k
rake: 2.5mm

so breakeven with 20% rakeback. 50c/match profits with 27% rakeback (that's about what SN is worth right?). $1/match with 34% rakeback (SNE?).

uh.. yeah.. SNE's don't get 34% rakeback on pokerstars.....

2mil in winnings without rake.

500k loss with rake.

Rake = 2.5 mil

SNE at least 50% rakeback, so he is making 1.25 mil with rakeback or 725k total earnings at minimum.

I am pretty sure he has way higher than 50% rb though.

^^ You realize the rake is apart of your winnings right?, if you lose 10bb/100 no matter what rb% you get back you stil llose $, i don't see why you can't get it.

so about $2/sng. how many SNG per hour can someone like that play?

the whole pre/post-rkeback argument is pretty dumb. all that matters is how much money you make, in particular your hourly rate. winrate mostly only helps for dick measuring contests

I've always had difficulty with using that as a definition of a winning/losing player. If you take rake out of the picture, they are clearly winning. I think the vast majority of people (especially non-poker players, and recreational players) who hear someone is a losing player would take that to mean they are worse than the players they are up against - that they lost to the other players.

Sometimes, a player might choose to play somewhere with higher rake because overall, they have a better deal. For example, let's say someone normally plays at a site with rake of 5 bb/100, but gets no rakeback, and ends up making 3 bb/100. They decide to go play at another site with rake of 10 bb/100, but get 60% rakeback. Let's assume the player's winrate, exclusive of rake, is the same at each site. Therefore, not including RB, the player now shows a loss of 2 bb/100 (but now actually makes 4 bb/100). Has the player really gone from being a winning player to a losing player when they beat the other players at exactly the same rate and end up with an even higher profit?

Ah yes, I was missing that the RB % was a known quantity. Thanks.

Finally.. someone gets the definition right.

im sure a lot of people only profit through RB at 500z but the top regs in that specific pool will obviously be considerable winners just like any other zoom pool.

Another example is: Playing on a site with 10bb/100 rake a player loses 3bb/100 (no rakeback). the site now lowers the rake to 5bb/100 (still no rakeback), making the player earn 2bb/100.

Can you really say the player has gone from being a loser to a winner? Without changing his game at all?
That doesn't make any sense imo; If a player is a winner with rakeback, it means he is a winner pre-rake. That means the only deciding factor about him being a winner is an arbitrarily decided (by the poker site) figure.

Thus, imo, a winner after rakeback (excluding +100% rb) is a winning player.


PS: No, I'm not a rakeback grinder.

Some numbers for 200NL Zoom (taken from this thread).



Cliffs:
* The 100 players with the most volume at 200NLz last year had an average winrate of about 1.7bb/100 after Supernova "rakeback".
* Some of them were still losing money even if they achieved Supernova Elite.
* A few achieved winrates of >5bb/100 even before rakeback.

Edges are getting smaller all the time, however, and 500NLz likely has fewer winners, especially pre-rakeback.