Quote:
Originally Posted by ROM Amnesty
I'm confused with what you're asking.
In the example above, the initial amount paid in rake (after rake back) is $20. By then reducing the rake paid %age by 20% as a compensation to switching to WC rake (with a set 20% reduction in VPP for simplicity) it shows that we are worse off.
I assume He's saying this, In the first example you play x hands and pay $100 rake and get $80 rb etc etc...
In the 2nd example you've played the same number of hands but paid 20% less rake and gotten 20% less rakeback.... he's wondering where you have accounted for the $20 saved on rake during that hand sample. (since we paid 80 and not 100 this time).
so for this...
Now, if the value of each VPP was reduced by 20% but the rake was also reduced by 20%; over that same sample you will now pay only $80 in rake. This will give you 64 VPPs (80% of $80), each worth $0.80. This results in a total cost to the player of (64*$0.80 - $80) $28.80. You are 44% worse off!
I think he's wondering if the answer is actually $28.80 - $20 saved = $8.80, which would be an improvement.
Its 2am here and i have not read it all thoroughly enough to know if this is what dgmt meant. If i've got it wrong i apologise. see you in the morning.
if rake and rakeback are reduced by the same % then (in my hazy state, i think) it is impossible to be worse off.
Last edited by pontylad; 01-01-2012 at 12:18 PM.