Deposit bonuses
Aug. 29th, 2006 05:58 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksAaron Brown, in his consistently thought-provoking The Poker Face of Wall Street has a lot to say about the economics of Gardena in the 1970s, how the poker economy had parallels with the "soft banks" on the 19th century in the US, and why Gardena (and card clubs) do little to be nice to tourists. Indeed, I may adapt that very chapter for a piece on the poker economies of the Vic and the Gutshot. One day.
For the moment, though, it got me thinking about deposit bonuses and rakeback. I had previously thought of deposit bonuses as something to be won and for rakeback sites to be inherently worse than sites where there wasn't so much rakeback.
But the statistical evidence isn't there to back it up. The worst site to play at (because the opponents are of a generally higher standard) is Pokerstars, which offers no rakeback.
Meanwhile, looking at Ultimate Bet, I see a larger number of players at subsistence or break-even level; the same can be said of Full Tilt Poker, although I do not have as large a database there.
Clearly therefore, the deposit bonus is not just something for me to work off. The deposit bonus also keeps players who would otherwise quit (marginal losers) in the game. It keeps the poker economy functioning and it is, in a very real sense, money deposited into the game. If we take that to be something like $1.50 an hour per player, that means there are twelve dollars for the winners to share out that wouldn't be there otherwise. My own bonus is an added benefit.
Now, what about rakeback? I reckon that a fair proportion of players on Ultimate Bet are on rakeback, although I am not. However, the bonus dollars boost my earnings there by about $$2.50 an hour per table, so I don't mind. But, once again, there is a hidden boost to the economy from the rakeback. It generates a high percentage of players who don't want to win. By which I mean, winning is nice, but they will not take undue risks in marginally positive EV situations. They are mainly there to break even and earn on the rakeback. They can, in other words, be expected to fold inappropriately when they have a marginal positive EV.
Even though I don't enjoy playing there, I suspect that this might be one of the causes of my excellent BB per 100 rate at UB - a larger proportion of people willing to fold to my bets in the "shall I call or shall I fold" situations.
Compare that with Pokerstars, where there is a low rake, but there is no distorting factor (most of the time) such as a deposit bonus or rakeback. I used to put in my deposit and wait a week or so before all the deposit hunters had got their money and left. The games would then become looser.
But, shock, this hasn't worked, and I'm down at Stars this year. Perhaps I should play there while the deposit hunters are sitting down and the VPIPs are 21%, and take advantage of the distortion this brings about in their play.
Most of the time at Stars, calls or folds have to be made on their own merits; nothing pushes you towards an inappropriate fold. For players such as myself, whose main profit comes not from winning showdowns but from winning uncontested pots, this is a disadvantage.
For the moment, though, it got me thinking about deposit bonuses and rakeback. I had previously thought of deposit bonuses as something to be won and for rakeback sites to be inherently worse than sites where there wasn't so much rakeback.
But the statistical evidence isn't there to back it up. The worst site to play at (because the opponents are of a generally higher standard) is Pokerstars, which offers no rakeback.
Meanwhile, looking at Ultimate Bet, I see a larger number of players at subsistence or break-even level; the same can be said of Full Tilt Poker, although I do not have as large a database there.
Clearly therefore, the deposit bonus is not just something for me to work off. The deposit bonus also keeps players who would otherwise quit (marginal losers) in the game. It keeps the poker economy functioning and it is, in a very real sense, money deposited into the game. If we take that to be something like $1.50 an hour per player, that means there are twelve dollars for the winners to share out that wouldn't be there otherwise. My own bonus is an added benefit.
Now, what about rakeback? I reckon that a fair proportion of players on Ultimate Bet are on rakeback, although I am not. However, the bonus dollars boost my earnings there by about $$2.50 an hour per table, so I don't mind. But, once again, there is a hidden boost to the economy from the rakeback. It generates a high percentage of players who don't want to win. By which I mean, winning is nice, but they will not take undue risks in marginally positive EV situations. They are mainly there to break even and earn on the rakeback. They can, in other words, be expected to fold inappropriately when they have a marginal positive EV.
Even though I don't enjoy playing there, I suspect that this might be one of the causes of my excellent BB per 100 rate at UB - a larger proportion of people willing to fold to my bets in the "shall I call or shall I fold" situations.
Compare that with Pokerstars, where there is a low rake, but there is no distorting factor (most of the time) such as a deposit bonus or rakeback. I used to put in my deposit and wait a week or so before all the deposit hunters had got their money and left. The games would then become looser.
But, shock, this hasn't worked, and I'm down at Stars this year. Perhaps I should play there while the deposit hunters are sitting down and the VPIPs are 21%, and take advantage of the distortion this brings about in their play.
Most of the time at Stars, calls or folds have to be made on their own merits; nothing pushes you towards an inappropriate fold. For players such as myself, whose main profit comes not from winning showdowns but from winning uncontested pots, this is a disadvantage.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-08-29 09:32 am (UTC)Funny how one's choices of game can produce such different results, isn't it? I think I've played a total of 22 hands of limit hold'em this year (excluding HORSE) which is 22 more than last year. Hated it, although I've still got to learn the damn game some time, I suppose. It's just that I keep finding games that are so much more +EV at the stakes I want to play. (See my impending post about Party Stud/8, for example).
Because I signed up for most of the main sites before I'd even heard of rakeback, I've never had any. Fortunately there is usually a bonus or two to be worked on, and I tend to view those as rakeback, in the sense that I get money when the pot gets raked, and in proportion too, for some sites at least. It's generally not as much as a proper deal would have given me, but it goes down to experience. I won't be signing up anywhere else without a rakeback deal - provided I find a site where I want to play a significant amount of ring game hands, that is.
I think you're right about bonuses keeping otherwise slightly-below-break-even players in the game, though. Come to think of it, I've been close to being one of them for most of this year.
Even better, in many cases the bonuses may be keeping these players from making the effort to improve, should they be capable of it.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-29 06:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-29 06:27 pm (UTC)With the new Stars VIP program instituted in January, there has been a fundamental shift in the quality of the games. I also waited a bit once reload bonuses had been out before playing there in the past. Unfortunately, the game quality has worsened and this tactic indeed does not work out.
For those players that invest the time at Stars to reach the Gold, Platinum and Supernova levels, there are enough benefits given to reach some decent or better rakeback equivalents. Those players can buy goods, onland tournament entries (WSOP, etc.) and Amazon gift certificates with their FPPs. Stars also offers VIP freeroll tournaments on a weekly and monthly basis that seem to have a flatter payout schedule. This offers up a nice opportunity for extra money and is basically equivalent to a loyalty bonus.
I have been playing there quite a bit in the last month or so and I crunched some numbers to see if trying to shoot for Gold VIP status (4,000 VPPs a month) was worth it. My numbers showed that Gold VIP status would be roughly equivalent to rakeback of a minimum of 11.7% at $3/$6 limit Hold'em. That does not include any potential winnings from the VIP freerolls, just cashing in FPPs for Amazon gift certificates. I cannot confirm this, but I have also heard that making the Supernova tier is worth a minimum of 30% rakeback.
With all of these benefits, a high volume player at Stars is essentially earning rakeback, albeit a bit contrived. The worsening of the games at Stars would seem to follow the worse games at sites with rakeback (UB, Full Tilt, Absolute, Crypto, etc.).
Michael