Your welcome.

I re-read your post and my response is the same. Time bank needs to be tailored to all of the games for all of the streets. I think we all agree no one needs 30 seconds pre-flop in NLH.

I crushed everybody in 50NL Zone and now they are gone , that's too bad

What is a ZPG Cashout credit?

50NL Zone Just fired!..... and then died lol

<-----------fish

a cashout?

did you request a payout?

These DC problems are really starting to get annoying.

I'm getting a little of tired of hearing this tbh. It's no question that they make more off of the sportsbook and casino, but as far as profit per customer is concerned there has to be a lot of poker players that are up there at the top.

The old 80/20 rule in business- 80% of your revenue comes from the top 20% of customers.

I average around $550/rake a week- I know there are plenty of others way above that but it's not pennies. Call it $500.

Assuming standard 11/10 odds, bovada pulls in .045% on each sports bet.

If I wagered $11,000 this Sunday, bovada ev would be $495.

Talking pure revenue, am I missing something here in my math?

Anyone make a deep run in the 200k on Sunday?

Did the $5+.50 10k guaranteed on Sundays bite the dust?

No it was a credit. I think it's for a friend referral.

I'm not going to make any claims regarding how much of their revenue they get from what, because honestly I have no idea (but I suspect poker is the lowest.)

But yeah you are missing stuff. First of all a winning reg takes money off the tables in the long run, which in turn means there is less overall bets in play, and less revenue total. Think of it like this - if everyone played SNGs at the same skill level until they busted, Bovada would have all the money eventually. If one person per table is winning at an ROI of like 10% they lose out on that revenue.

On top of that, I believe their vig for sports is higher than 11/10, but I don't actually know much about that stuff.

You have a point that they should take their poker players seriously, because poker clearly generates good revenue, but the problem with being too supportive is that winning poker players who rake a lot also cause there to be less money in the economy overall to circulate. Losing poker players, on the other hand, generally don't generate as much rake.

Sportsbetting is the lowest. Every casino CEO hates the books, because they are so volatile

They might lose 10 million on one sunday in NFL, but would never lose 10 million on a sunday in rake etc

With the same logic, though, winning bettors take money from the site.

Bovada has been offering poker for years, so I don't think they would offer it if it hurt their bottom line. And unless you put the rake ridiculously high, it is inevitable that there will be winning poker players.

They run a $20+2 mtt with 100 runners, make $200 with no true risk that isn't already inherently there from an operating stand point.

100 humans make a $20 bet, they make $90 with more volatility.

Not to mention, I would say there are a good amount of winning poker players who have lost some money in the casino or sports betting.

Regardless, my point is that while casino/sportsbook make up more of their total revenue than poker, there are plenty of poker players who bring in a significant amount of revenue.

In a $50+ $2.50 6 man Hyper, $315 ends up being paid in and $300 is paid out. I don't think it matters what long term ROI each player has but I could be wrong.

Likewise, in sports betting, there are long term winners and long term losers, but in the long run the sports book makes money.

Not trying to get into a war- the more I think about this the more I am intrigued and I want to hear what others have on it.

Every site before BF offered incentives for players to rake more- regardless of if they are winners or losers long term. Carbon/Bovada don't now because they know they don't have to to increase revenue. Pokerstars wouldn't have SNE if players who rake more (vast majority of which are winners) took money off of the tables long term.

Over this past year I've grinded my way up from 5nl, and I'm currently playing 25nl. With any luck, my br will be able to support 50nl pretty soon. I haven't had much of a problem adjusting to the increase in stakes so far. It actually seems like the average skill level at 5nl is not that much worse than the average at 25nl. What about 50nl or 100nl? At what level is there the biggest increase in skill level?
Thanks.

From my personal experience, nl200 -> nl400 and nl1k ->nl2k. But everyone has a different experience.

mtndewrules is making a few very solid points.

Awesome.

Sums it up quite nicely.

Been playing 100nl for about a month and i'd say that it is easier than 50nl. Could be that I am just running like dog **** at 50nl but it seems like there are more fish at 100nl just cause fish would rather play at 100nl than 50nl regardless if they have 100 dollars to spend or 30.

Most fun players don't use bankroll management because they are playing for fun. Fun players generally play at the casino as well. What's the lowest game you can play at the majority of casinos? $200NL.

When I first started playing online a few years ago I came from playing mostly live and never even considered that $500 online was 10x harder than $500 live that I was beating easily, expensive lesson.

Got a substantial chunk in a "ZPG" cashout as well. anyone figured out what its for?

Edit: nevermind I figured it out.