Rakeback at PokerStars Calculated Out

Posted by icemonkey9 on May 19, 2009 in moving | 2 comments

So the tables are going pretty well, although I have put in an anemic amount of hands in.  I was chatting with Custo via emails and he said he's going SNG pro, which is cool.  He said that 5-8% is the ROI all had by the "big shots" so I decided to have some fun and 4-table $5 9-man SNGs.  OMG it was the most frustrating experience ever.  I bubbled in 4th in 3 of them and won the 4th one.  $22 in buy-ins and ended up taking home $22.50 for a +$0.50 effort.

I would have made more ITMs but there was a cataclysmic collapse as chip leader at one table.  It was seriously the weirdest thing I have ever seen.  As the big time chip leader at like 7,000 a guy with 1,500 goes all in preflop and I call with QQ, and he shows KK and it holds up.  Then I am playing and back up to like 6,000 and get it all in with AA against the 2nd in chips who had like 4,500 who shows ... KJ offsuit.  Flop comes JJ4 and I am down to 1,500.  Then I get it in with KK and the villain shows ... GET THIS ... f'ing 36 offsuit ... and he hits an f'ing straight.  So that was that particular SNG and I think anyone that plays them professionally (Custo you better read this) had better expect a lot more gray hair on their head (or for it to fall out completely).

There's been some talk about hidden rakeback deals and affiliate deals, etc etc going around.  People are basically tired of PokerStars if they are not SuperNova and I am definitely amongst them.  So I did some calculations of my own to figure out what my amount of volume gets me.  I play roughly 20,000 hands at 100nl which unfortunately is enough to be GoldStar but not PlatinumStar.  So....

20,000 Hands @ 100nl on PokerStars (grants GoldStar Access)

= ~$1,200 amount in rake paid

= 12,400 FPPs earned (0.31 VPPs/hand * 2 @ Goldstar)

= 49.6% FPPs earned towards the $285 25k FPP bonus
->> Approximately $142.50 Paid in Rakeback per month

GoldStar @ PokerStars = ~12% rakeback

Bleh.  12% kinda sucks, although in May (and rumored for June) were the instant cash bonuses at the conceirge rate which was awesome.  That definitely bumps it up, but I didn't calculate how much.

To put it in perspective, at Absolute Poker, the rake rate looks about the same (at least for non-jackpot tables) as it's $0.05 for every $1 in the pot up to a max of $3 at a 6+ player table.

With Rakeback ...  35% @ Absolute = $420

Also keep in mind that Absolute runs reload deposit bonuses regularly and has a $500 first timer deposit.  If promotions like the current $500 reload bonus were a regular thing (it is btw), I might be looking at ~$900 a month just in "rakeback+bonuses" plus there's a points-for-cash system at Absolute as well.  Meaning that if I played breakeven I could take in a grand a month ... AND the competition is wholeheartedly softer than Stars (confirmed with multiple sources who have played 100nl+ games).

I think I just gave myself a damn fine argument to move sites.  However let's think of the things that PokerStars does better than a site like Absolute Poker...

• Solid History of fine customer service (however AP now has 24/7 live chat customer service)
• Solid History of not having multi-accounts or huge scandals (although that's in the past and from what I hear from a source in Costa Rica, AP is *extremely* dedicated to security now)
• Best site software in the business
• Best site add-ons for customizing tables and decks, as well as neat features like table highlighting/betpot

So I guess I am asking myself, after I burn my current cache of FPPs, is what incentive do I have to stay at PokerStars.  Are the positives worth more than the positives of another site?  That's the big question I'm pondering, and I feel myself leaning in one definite direction.

Switching Formats: The Numbers Just Don’t Lie

Posted by icemonkey9 on Jan 14, 2009 in 100nl, 6max, moving, stakes | 3 comments

I think it was about six weeks ago I took a shot at 100nl and had break-even results but felt overwhelmed and bored with the full ring game. I had such a great time at 25nl 6max that I felt a return to the game would improve my post flop play, and ideally, improve my winrate. I spent quite a bit of time and hands at 50nl 6max and approached almost the volume I had when playing fullring. I'm going to post my winrates ... somewhat sensitive data but I think for this purpose it's fine.

As you can tell at 50nl I am more than doubly successful at full ring than I am at 6max. Maybe I'm a bad 6max player, or perhaps I went through a tough 30k hand stretch ... both are conceivable. I didn't see myself moving to 100nl as a 6max player and thought that it might be prudent to do what I did before - move from 25nl 6max to 50nl fullring - but in this case move to 100nl full ring.

The results for 100nl above are a total between my "original breakeven shot" at the level and the 3500 hands I have played this month which have been very profitable so far. I feel comfortable at the tables and I am adjusting back to dealing with super-uber-nits and those darn shortstackers that always have the nuts. But overall the play at the level is pretty predictable, and I'm hoping to do some research to find out who the handful of awesome regs are so I can just avoid them at this point.

So the numbers don't lie ... I win more and apparently play better at fullring. The sample sizes of 30k hands are basically what I consider to be the starting point of where you can start making some decisions. Although many would consider 100k to be the actual mark ... however being rolled properly for 100nl and my current poker state definitely point to me playing at 100nl Fullring, and like I said earlier the short-term end results are good, but MOST importantly I feel like I can handle the regs and exploit the fish profitably.