Jul. 3rd, 2009

Pondersosa

Jul. 3rd, 2009 02:44 pm
peterbirks: (Default)
Cooler today, TF.

Party have shifted over to nine-max. Not sure of the rationale, exceopt that it copies FTP and Stars.

Thinking about the rakeback situation, I was wondering whether it might not actually be in my interest to seek out contributory rake. The paradox is that, at contributory rake tables, you say to yourself "ahh, if only this table was non-contributory rake". But that is to misunderstand the rapid dynamics of online poker. Non-contributory rake works for you (or for me) only if you play fewer hands on average than the weighted average of all your opponents combined. In the days of lots of loose-passive players, this was fine. But in the days of shortstacked rakeback pros, it obviously is not fine. Contributory rake is worse for them than it is for you. Therefore contributory rake is better for you.

+++++

With 20 days holiday left this year, 15 of which I have to take before Dec 31, I really ought to start thinking about booking something. And I need to get my accounts done too. Sigh, always something, isn't there....

___________

August 2023

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13 14151617 1819
20 212223242526
27282930 31  

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 22nd, 2025 02:09 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios