|
|
 |
The rake back in pokerstars is good? |
 |
1
 |
0x64 Finland. Jan 14 2007 21:17. Posts 352 | | |
Out of curiosity I've gone through a lot of calculation around FPP, VPP and FPP store items.
First of all, I play Pot limit 50$.
Until recently I also played pl25.
Rake payed / hand
pl25: 1.9 cent
pl50: 2.2 cent
I pay around 15% more rake. How does that reflect within the earning of fpp.
Simple. In pl25 I played a lot of pot where the limit of getting a VPP was almost reached.
How big is the difference then?
While in pl25 you will get around 0.2 VPP / hand, you will get 0.4 vpp / hand in pl50.
Now comes the big surprise for me. those numbers were hard to believe for me.
I had in my current database 4400 hands of pl50, and I had payed 100$ of rake. I am platinumstar -> I get 1 FPP / hand.
Items in the store are prized with an approximated price of 60 FPP for 1 $.
4400 FPP / 60 = 73$
I say hello hello  !
73% of rakeback for me.
Now I must say I have my doubt and this sounds seriously too good to be true. Maybe pokertracker doesnt count the rakeback correctly.
Or Because I play very tight (tighest player in my database with significant amount of hands)
Yes omaha 8 is about hand selection.
I end up getting FPP from the rake payed by other players, and paying much less rake because I play less pots and win on those a lot.
Now lets get an item in the FPP store. (this is for europeans).
The good thing about the value of that item, is that usually the price of an item in the USA in $ is the price of that item in € here in europe. That means... 20-30% more resell value. Is that because of 20% taxes here or something, doesnt matter.
Now there is another game for supernovae I have found out.
Take 9 supernovae, take a low limit table.
Play by making 8 $ pots.
9*3.5 fpp = 31.5 fpp for the table, payed rake = 0.40$
78.75 fpp / $ when you can get items for 60 fpp/ $
130% rakeback?
I suggest not doing this because you risk to get banned but the possibility exist and basicly you will get 100% rake back as a supernova without optimisation.
The question I'd like to ask to pokerstars is the following.
Since serious poker player play trying to reach optimal play. When the optimal play for the table is to make 8$ pots why wouldnt they do that?
Anyway, I guess they still trust that supernovae are playing higher limits and they dont have that concern.
But this year, the amount of supernovae will be much higher?
Should we predict a change in the policy or do you think proportionally supernova will be always a small core of the players who will be in a way sponsored by casual players
 robin
|
| |
|
| 1
|
0x64 Finland. Jan 15 2007 09:25. Posts 352 | | |
A supernova friend of mine calculated that he was getting a rakeback of 33% at 1/2 NL, but he is playing short handed which means, winning/losing more pots thus paying more rake.
So omaha8 full ring is really the game  |
| |
|
| 1 | |
if this is true this is really sick
i'll add my own numbers:
Since january 1st, i've played
8344 hand of NL50 (6-max)--> $296.90 of rake
18 259 hands of NL100 (6-max) --> $970.95
733 hands of NL100 FR --> $22.20
total rake = 1289.05$
9765 VPPS at platinum ---> 24413 FPPs
24413 FPPs = 407$ (according to you)
407$/1289.05$ = 31.06% of rakeback
not to bad
|
|
| I sometimes fold AA preflop to balance my range | |
|
| |
|
|
 Poker Streams | |
|
Contact Users: 935 Active, 1 Logged in - Time: 23:23
