The Trials of PLO

FYI Database for the last 3 years of casual play.

175k hands:
$1664.00 in profit
$3400.00 in Ev adjusted profit (34 buy-ins at PLO50)
$15,500.00 in rake paid ($44.00 per 500 hands or 9.5pt/bb rake)

It really sucks to know that if rake was reasonable say 2-3pt/bb I'd be a massive winner and working on building a bid mid stakes roll. I'm glad I only play as a hobby because those statistics are just depressing.

lol at 10 buy ins below EV.
Other than that I agree rake is ridiculous and your spot on in your evaluation of stars.

ahaha how did i know this was gonna be rake whining despite innocuous title. i get your point that the pokerstars service "should" cost less because of how little we speculate it costs them to run it compared to how much they rake in, but we also have pretty different pictures of what a customer can reasonably expect from a big business in the western capitalist world. ofcourse they're going to put marketing spins on their product, every big corporation advertises. you say you can't fault stars for doing what they do but in your actions you're doing nothing but. Also I bet the company you're working for is owning you as well by paying you a standardised salary that's much less than the value you bring to that company.

playing =<4 tables is a good idea for minimising plo50 rake impact. Something else you might consider is to shop around. Pokerstars is likely an expensive service as a low tier (<supernova) vip at 0.25/0.50 and you might be much better served on some eurosite skin of a major network with an under-the-table big % rakeback deal and things like rakeraces. imo pokerstars is most competitive for sn/sne at 2/4++.

play enough, get supernova, turn that 10bb/100 rake into 4.8bb/100 while turning 2bb/100 winrate into 7+bb/100

I play on pokerstars.fr, rake is even higher.

Hey!! I think I read somewhere that the rake is at it's finest around 50nl, and it gets almost cut in half at 100nl??

If that's true, just move up to 100nl, and problem solved xD

10bi below in 18k hands? You really need to stop bitching.

I posted a graph on 2+2 where I can 90bi below in 40k hands. I don't think I'll ever believe that most people have any idea what variance really is.

Quit your bitching and grow a pair.

Sorry, I get really sick of people complaining about "running bad". I'm 260bi below since Jan 1. You really have no idea.

You forgot the part where you mention how much bonuses you got to clear/received by paying 15k$ rake. Lowest RB rate should be 20% according to the volume you have so that's about minimum 3k$ you got back with RB.

Also, going from dealt system to weighted contributed can only improve your RB % if you are not the nit masstabling kind of player.

I'm not saying what stars is doing is right or wrong but it's becoming a bit annoying that poker players that now are a little bit more educated about rake always complain and talk about without having the whole picture.

On February 24 2012 02:37 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Sorry, I get really sick of people complaining about "running bad". I'm 260bi below since Jan 1. You really have no idea.

omg the irony.. lolled irl at this post

There is a world of difference in the 2 posts and 1 graph I've made in the last month on the topic and him whining about it in every single hand he posts, and then talking about it in other people's hands. If the line adjusts to the positive, you should be happy.

Learning to not complain about bad variance _all the time_ will be a very, very good thing in the long run. With the way PLO variance goes, you can't really afford to have a negative mindset and operate under the assumption that you're going to lose.

But I suppose you're free to disagree with that. I'm sure having his head explode every time he runs 1000bb below(while still making money) is better. It can get a lot worse. That's just reality. He needs a better mindset.

i wasnt making any serious point or calling u out, just looked funny to read "i get really sick of people complaining about running bad" and then complaining about running bad in the very next sentence.

ur right being able to tolerate variance and keep a good mindset intact is key in plo but its much easier said than done and is only built up slowly over time. you can't really expect an amateur 50plo player to have it

Yeah, you're right. Being hung over has me grumpy. Pokerstars rep took some people out for dinner last night. Eat and drink as much as you want, they said. I evidently tried to make the 260bi back in alcohol.

how often to they do this Dinner thing, I only heard of it recently? once a year now?

Hai lander d didn't realize you were on here

A few times a year

On February 24 2012 00:35 Ket wrote: ahaha how did i know this was gonna be rake whining despite innocuous title. i get your point that the pokerstars service "should" cost less because of how little we speculate it costs them to run it compared to how much they rake in, but we also have pretty different pictures of what a customer can reasonably expect from a big business in the western capitalist world. ofcourse they're going to put marketing spins on their product, every big corporation advertises. you say you can't fault stars for doing what they do but in your actions you're doing nothing but. Also I bet the company you're working for is owning you as well by paying you a standardised salary that's much less than the value you bring to that company. playing =<4 tables is a good idea for minimising plo50 rake impact. Something else you might consider is to shop around. Pokerstars is likely an expensive service as a low tier (<supernova) vip at 0.25/0.50 and you might be much better served on some eurosite skin of a major network with an under-the-table big % rakeback deal and things like rakeraces. imo pokerstars is most competitive for sn/sne at 2/4++.

I don't disagree with any of that. That's just the exploitative reality of a capitalist economy. The people with the most resources stand the best chance of getting more. Although it's not like other economic forms have done much better. My preference is the way Denmark runs things in terms of heavy taxation and many benefits for all citizens, but I don't live there .

On February 24 2012 00:41 player999 wrote: play enough, get supernova, turn that 10bb/100 rake into 4.8bb/100 while turning 2bb/100 winrate into 7+bb/100

It's not bb. It's ptbb. That's two big blinds not one.

On February 24 2012 11:06 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: There is a world of difference in the 2 posts and 1 graph I've made in the last month on the topic and him whining about it in every single hand he posts, and then talking about it in other people's hands. If the line adjusts to the positive, you should be happy. Learning to not complain about bad variance _all the time_ will be a very, very good thing in the long run. With the way PLO variance goes, you can't really afford to have a negative mindset and operate under the assumption that you're going to lose. But I suppose you're free to disagree with that. I'm sure having his head explode every time he runs 1000bb below(while still making money) is better. It can get a lot worse. That's just reality. He needs a better mindset.

I post stuff on my hands and on LP because sometimes when a man runs bad he just needs to yell at the sky and rage. I'm not going to ever be one of those players who pretends that bad luck is fun. I've run bad for 175k hands over 3 years. I don't have to pretend I enjoy it. In addition to this nobody is making you read my hands or my blog. If you don't like it don't read it. Bitching about something you made yourself read is the height of idiocy.

Now to your other points:
It's 34 buy-ins not 10. Not that that many is a lot. My main gripe is with Pokerstars taking 10pt/bb or 20bb/100 out of the earnings players at PLO50 make and saying the games are reasonable. It's awful. Anyone who plays 2/4 or higher should thank their lucky stars. The rake you deal with is considerably lower in terms of bb/100 ratio meaning if you table select well your edge will be much greater than what anyone playing PLO50 can achieve.

Also frankly how you otherwise intelligent poker players blindly accept the flawed metric of all-in EV as a true reflection of your luck baffles me. The reality is if you get in 20-30% of your stack PF and your opponent out-flops you regularly, your EV will be calculated based on the flop. Case in point I played a 300bb pot yesterday where I got 26 of my 75 dollar stack in PF. He flopped 55% equity and my EV gets calculated as 45% of the pot instead of 70% on the first $50 and 45% on the last 100 aka by street. The best indicator of your luck in PLO will be to use your HEM to analyze 3-bet pots and your results. You have to go through them 1 by 1 to see what happened and be able to actually grasp your luck. Not that anybody wants to spend the time doing so. I did it before I stopped playing entirely 2 years ago. So trust me when you say "you don't know what it's like to run bad" you're the one who has no idea. You don't even know how to calculate the math properly if you're looking at All-in EV and actually accepting that flawed metric.