Thanks for pointing that out. You made me go check my stats for $50 on Party.

Party:
Rake: 8.945bb/100
Flops: 1 flop per 7.8 hands

Full Tilt:
Rake: 7.21bb/100
Flops: 1 flop per 7.49 hands

My personal stats are more or less identical for each site.

So it seems Party is actually playing quite a bit nittier than Full Tilt was but is still manage to rake rake much more. I guess it really just is when the rake is collected. On FTP it was $0.05 per $1. On Party its $0.01 per $0.20.

I've already decided I have to change sites once I clear my bonus even though I loved playing on Party, but was having a really tough time deciding between iPoker and Stars. iPoker does the $0.01 per $0.20, Stars does $0.05 per $1. It seems the difference is around 2bb/100 so that's not much of a choice anymore.

Also, re: above - I don't play the jackpot tables so that's not where the extra rake is coming from.

Was looking to make party my main site or at least keep it as my secondary, they can seriously pound sand

Stars just seems to be running away with the industry and although i've dislike their top heavy rewards, which meant i didn't play there this year as i couldn't commit to putting in the volume to get decent rewards..

However i will be back on stars as my primary site from next year.

Only down side is due to FTP going down and Party doing everything it can to lose its players, there is little to no reason for Stars to improve their rewards program though it is still great for high volume players, which i will be next year.

Look at what stars do and copy it party, how is that so hard?

Also the problem is how they size the rake cap, and determine the conditions for it being hit (no. of players). Party:



Stars:



e.g a 5 player pot on stars can't ever be raked higher than $2, on party it can

PLO HU!!!!!!!!!11

God I hope they dont do that. Plz dont kill the sparse 6max action at 2/4+!!!

I dont play much 6 max so I dont know the standard rake, but assuming its way off at the lower stakes like it is heads up. The 6 max were $50 + $5 were epicly soft, but am assuming still not even beatable long term with that type of rake?

Stars is now roughly 6 times as large as iPoker/Party. If they just copy Stars and the choice is Stars or microStars where are you going to play?

I believe Party has decided to strongly push the philosophy Calvin Ayre / Bodog routinely expound: http://calvinayre.com/2010/01/18/pok...-poker-player/ The gist of their view is simple: winning players are worthless. Where there are depositing players, high volume/raking winning players will come so there's 0 reason to intentionally cater to winning players.

The problem with that theory completely ignores all the consequences it has on the poker ecology. One big one that I keep mentioning is the skill level differential it forces. When its impossible for less winning regulars to survive in a poker ecology due to high rake, low rewards, etc you end up splitting the player pool into two halves: very highly skilled regulars and depositing players. The regulars will tend to avoid each other since they're well aware with the effective rake as high as it will be under this theory of operation, that there is little to no benefit for them to play each other - their edges will almost never be large enough to overcome the rake. This leads to a very hostile environment for the other players - the depositing players. The winning players are all forced to implicitly collude against them. Every single player at the table is going to be going out of their way to take advantage of the depositing player - any limp he makes will undoubtedly face a raise, any raise will often face a 3-bet. When the depositing player sits out, it is already happening that the rest of the table then frequently sits out. When he busts, the table immediately breaks. Is it a wonder new players don't stick around for long anymore? How long do you think you would have stuck around if the tables were like this when you first started playing online poker? This was actually reflected in Party's latest financial report - their new signups are up, yet the players are sticking around for shorter periods of time and naturally generating less revenue/rake.

And to be results oriented for a minute, who in the world is Bodog to be giving advice? They've been in operation since the hey day of online poker yet have something like 1% of the marketshare of Stars who, on the other hand, clearly operates on the policy of highly valuing high rake/high volume players.

Whats up with party cashouts? In the past its normally instant- few hrs tops, its been 24hrs so far for me lol

Perhaps they are receiving a higher than average volume of cash out requests for some reason.

^Lol

Always enjoy reading your posts Do It Right

@Party, please add 5% rakeback to all bonuses so people think "wow, up to 55% rakeback, that's more than Ipoker" and come play. Maybe even 10%? Works out the same as before you screwed us with contributed rake anyway, and makes you look like a hero. K thx bye

This has been set since day 1.

Taking HEM notes.

then it is not working for you. try unchecking it - apply - check it back on

it shouldnt steal the focus. i dont have any focus steal when i play or do hem notes and i would know since it tilts the **** out of me (left ipoker for their focus steal bs)

this plz.

Is legal to datamine in Party ? If yes

Anyone know how to datamine sits in a automated way ?

If it's rakeback I'm not playing. Why play there when there are decent rakefree rooms. It's actually surprising how much you can save on rake...

Did party stopped paying affiliates? Pretty harsh measures taken for clearing out regs. Another 10% cut

Weighted contributed is designed to take money from winning players. Naturally affiliates who have winning players as a decent percentage of their 'customers' will also lose money with the change. I'm sure Party thanks you for your gift since that money you lose is now going more or less directly to them.

what? when did this come about?

My personal experience. So everything ok elsewhere ?

ok with me

Were you offering "under the table" rakeback?

Juk

I had the pleasure to be on receiving end.

Didnt care about the rake change, but this one is too huge.

Well it does at least make the game fairer for the rest of us The SNG situation is quite ridiculous atm:

• If I play a SNG I need to make over about -3% ROI to break even. Somebody receiving "under the table" rakeback needs about -5% ROI to break even.
  
• If enough receiving players are playing then it's not worth playing for the rest of us; effectively excluding us from the games.
  
• Receiving players can make (sometimes significantly) wider +EV calls against us and still profit, whereas if we made the same calls we would be losing money to rake. This means non-receiving players have even less opportunity to make their -3% ROI than the receiving players their -5% ROI...
  
• Finally, the vast proportion of the "massive grinding slight losers" (thanks to Sharkscope) are from the poorer countries of Eastern-Europe and alike. These players can make a reasonable living off say -2% ROI + points + rakeback, whereas non-receiving western pros would need about 5-10 percentage points more ROI to do the same (depending on the levels played).

I'm not sure if the problem is specific to SNGs or if cash games have a similar problem with shortstackers.

Juk

Tbh, I have no idea why you are complaining about this. What is wrong with getting the best deal possible, especially in times where the games don't get easier but the rake still remains high? On other networks there are people playing on the same table, one has 30% rakeback, the other has 60%. Do they complain? No, the others were just smart and looked for the best deal possible. The sites and the high rake are to blame, not the players.