![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Bonus Whoring, Levels
Jul. 22nd, 2008 07:37 pmI've been falling back into my bad old bonus-whoring ways, partly because the competitive marketplace seems to have brought some good deals onto the table, and partly because I seem to be doing okay at the tables as well.
Party Poker now has a bonus system so hideously complex that every point that I score works for me in four ways. First there's the weekly target (the achieving of which generates points based on your previous 10 weeks' play), then there's the "next level" target (reaching which multiplies your all points in hand by an additional 20 basis points). Then there's the deposit bonus, and then there's the "get 1000 points this month" bonus.
I've vaguely tried to work out how much this is worth to me per hand, but it seems better than NOIQ rakeback (although slightly worse than the Betfred bonuses). Probably about three to four cents a hand. Since the Party $100NL is less nitty than Betfred in the early evening, Party has been the site of choice at that time.
PokerStars have also thrown in a deposit bonus, but the last one was little more than a partial rakeback award -- two cents a hand at most I think. You might get three cents a hand out of it at $100NL, but the games are tougher there, and I don't have the high VIP level that you really need to make any play there really worthwhile. That said, Stars does send out dollar cheques without deduction to me now (in excess of the Neteller deposit, though -- a restriction not imposed by Party).
Added to the mix is a 0.5% "rakeback" from Neteller on all cash movements over $2050 for me this month. I bashed $2050 into Party on the first of the month and have been taking every "genuine" deposit opportunity available.
I did some half-hearted comparisons of $50NL and $100NL, and the results were quite frightening. Despite a significantly higher win rate at $50NL, I was slightly worse off when the lower bonus/rakeback was taken into account. $50NL generates less than half the money generated than $100NL, and it makes it very hard to work off some of the bonuses.
The ideal combination of course is to win at the same rate at $100 NL (or only fractionally less) than at $50NL. I'm working on that.
Still, at least I'm now "in front" at all levels for table play, albeit only fractionally at $100NL ($200NL and $50NL are much better).
+++++++++
I still have a major difficulty staying at a higher level through a bad run. And the sad thing about this is that, for me, at the moment, dropping down works. But I don't know that staying at the same level wouldn't have worked either. It might be just a case of regression to the mean that would have happened annyway.
The question is, how long |(either in hands or in time) should I remain at a level where I am only breaking even, before I decide that I can't beat the game? My money isn't going down (apart from the fact that I'm spending $800 a month of it) but I feel that I am foregoing profit that I would be making at a lower level.
Gamblers have it slightly easier. They play at a level until they go broke, and then build up again from lower levels. But when you look at it in a more rational manner of opportunity cost, the decision is harder. Thus far I've tended to work on "feel", but I suspect that this means I am shifting back down in levels too soon.
___________________
Party Poker now has a bonus system so hideously complex that every point that I score works for me in four ways. First there's the weekly target (the achieving of which generates points based on your previous 10 weeks' play), then there's the "next level" target (reaching which multiplies your all points in hand by an additional 20 basis points). Then there's the deposit bonus, and then there's the "get 1000 points this month" bonus.
I've vaguely tried to work out how much this is worth to me per hand, but it seems better than NOIQ rakeback (although slightly worse than the Betfred bonuses). Probably about three to four cents a hand. Since the Party $100NL is less nitty than Betfred in the early evening, Party has been the site of choice at that time.
PokerStars have also thrown in a deposit bonus, but the last one was little more than a partial rakeback award -- two cents a hand at most I think. You might get three cents a hand out of it at $100NL, but the games are tougher there, and I don't have the high VIP level that you really need to make any play there really worthwhile. That said, Stars does send out dollar cheques without deduction to me now (in excess of the Neteller deposit, though -- a restriction not imposed by Party).
Added to the mix is a 0.5% "rakeback" from Neteller on all cash movements over $2050 for me this month. I bashed $2050 into Party on the first of the month and have been taking every "genuine" deposit opportunity available.
I did some half-hearted comparisons of $50NL and $100NL, and the results were quite frightening. Despite a significantly higher win rate at $50NL, I was slightly worse off when the lower bonus/rakeback was taken into account. $50NL generates less than half the money generated than $100NL, and it makes it very hard to work off some of the bonuses.
The ideal combination of course is to win at the same rate at $100 NL (or only fractionally less) than at $50NL. I'm working on that.
Still, at least I'm now "in front" at all levels for table play, albeit only fractionally at $100NL ($200NL and $50NL are much better).
+++++++++
I still have a major difficulty staying at a higher level through a bad run. And the sad thing about this is that, for me, at the moment, dropping down works. But I don't know that staying at the same level wouldn't have worked either. It might be just a case of regression to the mean that would have happened annyway.
The question is, how long |(either in hands or in time) should I remain at a level where I am only breaking even, before I decide that I can't beat the game? My money isn't going down (apart from the fact that I'm spending $800 a month of it) but I feel that I am foregoing profit that I would be making at a lower level.
Gamblers have it slightly easier. They play at a level until they go broke, and then build up again from lower levels. But when you look at it in a more rational manner of opportunity cost, the decision is harder. Thus far I've tended to work on "feel", but I suspect that this means I am shifting back down in levels too soon.
___________________
