The “Trivial Nature” of Effective Rake Targeting: Optimizing Sustainability and Profitability

And so then as we make our argument for the objective analysis of a certain sub-field of the game starting with a simple comparison of the top 20 profit counts of each year of 2013 and 2014, we come to some interesting conclusions.  The beginning of the presentation starts here

As a spreadsheet and then soon calls for the volunteered combination of other regular players stats in order that we might properly analyze the game.

We call this “the grand coalition”.

We make a few observations
and begin to state our objective conclusion

And then after some questions arise:

We might then come to an interesting and not insignificant SUB-thesis:

In other words, or as they say “the cliffs” are that 180’s are not profitable by any significant sense of the meaning of the phrase, and what is seemingly clear (by relating such information to certain average living stnadards) is being a 180 pro is actually a myth.  Extending this further it also seems clear that many related staking contracts are thus clearly -ev and therefore invalid from their inception (NOT the Leo kind)!

What is important to the community then is we then have a logical extension that is interesting in the context of not only all fields but specifically in relation to the recent rake policy (and effective rake policy) that the PS/Amaya train has recently put into effect and then rescinded.  There might be those of the community that are not a fan of such logic, however this is poker isn’t it?  Do we fear fundamental maths? Does it hurt us to have meaningful discussion that involves content?  Our reasoning is as follows:

Recently PS raised rake and effective rake policies for the reasons of both providing a bigger and more significant player pool (ie and specifically breaking into the US), and for keeping the integrity and security of the game (in a moral poker sense).  In other words it was clearly stated the changes were not directly for profits but were expected to bring an overall favorable amount of players into the economy of the game, thus being beneficial for all involved!

As the players protested such changes, many players were even banned from the “skin”, and certainly many illogical dialogues and arguments were formed and thrown about.Soon after PS, even before announcing to the players, rescinded their rake polices, under the explanation that this was some form of a failed experiment and PS realizes and respects the players feedback.

So then it must be that either the players complaints were heard and/or there was a misunderstanding of how the economy of the game works in relation to the overall economy.  Was PS wrong about the % of rake monies the players must incur in order that they may return to join the US player pool?  Or more importantly is it that raising the rake and the effective rake did not have the favorable effects of attracting more growth for each field?

Can it be denied that having a rake and effective rake policy that is too high is not favorable for either and both the site nor the players?

We should further extend this logic in relation to the new 180’s revelations that the collective 180 pool is beginning to have.  Is there an effective rake standard from the perspective of PS/Amaya that sets the rake as a % (and other “regulations”), or does the site management arbitrarily choose rake %’s?

Put another way if the 180’s games are not profitable or very profitable or reasonably profitable, why should we expect any other field in the game to not be targeted with the same effective rake.  And then if they are not targeted with the same effective rake, shouldn’t it be that they are at least more unprofitable or the 180s’ rake % should be adjusted to match the targeted effective rake of some other field.

Obviously this conversation is not very favorable, an so it might make sense only someone with very few posts might bring it to the community’s attention.  There are many supporting facts to be linked to but we should hope for some form of dialogue stabilization first.  And we should know there are many players that are awaiting an answer to this and would like to discuss it that will gather as the dialogue develops.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s