Party slowdown

[peterbirks]

I have registered to play in the PokerStars World Blogger Championship of Online Poker! The WBCOOP is a free online Poker tournament open to all Bloggers, so register on WBCOOP to play.

Registration code: 969944

Has the IPoker exodus begun? Pokersitescout last night showed that Party Poker had edged IPoker out of third place in terms of active cash players.

IPoker, as you may be aware, went from non-contributory rake to contributory rake at the beginning of the year.

I had already noticed an influx of suspected IPoker emigrés, and my numbers are now confirming this. Whereas it used to take an average of about seven hands to get a bonus point at 50c-$1 and just over four hands at $1-$2, it's now taking more than 10 hands at 50c-$1 and nearly eight at $1-$2. That looks like quite a fall-off. (I need 500 points for every $240 lump of bonus, but the bonus is in force for only about half the hands that I play)

But things are not as dark as they seem. I've noticed two odd facts that make things rather rosy.

1) If the games get significantly tighter, they run significantly faster. The exact numbers are hard to pin down, but I estimate I'm getting close to 480 hands an hour while six-tabling, up from about 380 hands. At $1-$2, that means about 65 points an hour rather than about 80. Fewer points, but not the end of the universe.

2) And this is the real oddity. I reckon that these short-stack players are contributing as much in rake, if not more, than their full-stack tight reg friends.

To explain this second point, we have to look at the theory behind short-stacking. This is that there are a maximum of three short-stackers amongst six looser and more aggressive full-stackers. When the full-stackers fight each other, you tend to get bigger pots, but the short-stacker still gets the benefit of the rakeback.

But in practice things are very different. First, once you are at $1-$2, a short-stack all-in generates a $40 pot, while the maximum level for rake is $60. If a pot goes to $200 between two full-stackers, it generates no more rakeback than if two $30 guys fight each other.

Secondly, you tend to get six short-stackers and three full-stackers, rather than the other way round. A random distribution of all-ins (36 combinations) would generate only three $200 pots, less than 10%. But it's worse than that, because the full-stackers are less likely to get it all-in against each other than are the short-stackers. My guess would be that the rake generated at a "normal" online game on Stars or Party at $1-$2 would come equally from short-stackers and full-stackers. At lower stakes the proportional contribution of full-stackers would increase somewhat (because it takes a higher proportion of the full-stack all-in level to reach the maximum rake), while once you got to $2-$4 -- well, at that level the short-stackers tend to decrease in number simply because you can reach maximum rake levels even as a short-stacker.

Volatility decreases at each level as well, and the games become more automatic -- this actually makes it possible to play more tables, thus reducing even further the loss from the "per-hand" rake.

Party, after suggesting that I might want to put my money back into Neteller rather than take a cheque (Barclays and PayPro managed to lose two out of the three cheques that I presented into my Citibank account) has now barred me from withdrawing back into Neteller because I haven't made a deposit from there in the past six months. So I've taken my money in my hands and ordered another cheque.

This is all a bit of a toss-about. I may enquire when I pay in the cheque if there is a"fast-track" system I can use, but with London, Gibraltar and New York all involved, I guess that it is a bit complex.

Neteller must be charging the poker sites a ton, because this is the second time that a writhdrawal back to Neteller has been blocked because I hadn't made a deposit from there in the previous six months --- Pacific Poker did the same.

In the old days it wasn't too hard to get money out of the poker sites, but they seem to be heading down the betting account route, putting as many minor irritants in your way that they can think of. Pacific takes about a month to get a cheque to you. Party gets you the cheque within a couple of weeks, but then loses it after you present it, resulting in the money being deducted from your account.

Once again, Pokerstars is a shining exception, showing the likes of Victor Chandler, Pacific, and others how it should be done.

++++++++

I always enjoy reading Malfaire -- I only wish it was possible for me to comment on his site. If there were two things that I'd like to say to him it would be "Stop setting yourself targets that are impossible to achieve" and "stop worrying about the unimportant things". One of the latter was the post of a hand where he asks on the best line with QQ in a particular situation. And, for once, I agreed with Sklansky. If it looks extremely close, the chances are that it doesn't matter much either way which choice you make.

So much more important in poker is making the generally right decision in situations that happen all of the time. And the other important thing is self-discipline. It's no use being a great technical player if you go on tilt. I had a woeful session at the start of the year when I was experimaenting with my LAG style -- my fault was that I got the loose bit right but not the aggressive bit -- so in effect I was a loose-passive fish.

This was a good lesson in how much a loose passive fish can expect to lose , or a maniac, or indeed anyone not playing a good game all of the time. I dumped about $500 in 600 hands and there was no negative EV or running bad involved. That, I think, would be standard.

When you work out that my expected earn is probably in the realm of 10 cents a hand, it doesn't take many instances of playing badly to wipe out any profit you make. And when you work out that any particular careful situational analysis is unlikely to make more of a difference than half a cent a hand, then you can see that stopping yourself playing badly (or reducing the proportion of the time that you play badly) is far more important than looking to improve your edges.

It's all simple Sklanskyish stuff. Winning at poker is not about genius. It's about not making mistakes. Other people will make mistakes. If other people start making fewer mistakes (which is what happens online compared to live), then you had better make sure that you start making fewer mistakes as well. Errors that are forgiven live (because other people make greater errors) are not forgiven online.

So, that's what I'm focusing on. Try not to play badly. Try not to play unfocused. Take each session as important, rather than 500-1000 hands to be "got through". Don't get distracted by the radio, or by web sites. Keep anything on in the background as just that, background. When I feel my attention flagging, quit.

__________________

Comments

"Rush Poker" on FT

[(Anonymous)]

Pete

Have you seen this "Rush Poker" innovation on Full Tilt? There's an explanation of it on http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/rush-poker

Basically, once you fold a hand, you are instantly moved to another table (random position) and another hand. A mate of mine tried it and played 518 hands in an hour winning 4 buy ins. I would have thought that this is a scenario you would be able to exploit very well. It doesn't particularly appeal to me personally at the moment, as I'm happily still grinding SnGs.

Brian

Re: "Rush Poker" on FT

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Hi Brian,
I haven't seen it, but it sounds like multi-tabling for people on a low bankroll! I'll have a look. One place where it might be useful is if you are on a Netbook, because it would enable you to get in a huge number of hands an hour (although 518 seems excessive) on a small screen. The four buy-ins is an outlier. Even if the players were crap you couldn't be looking for more than 80% of a buy-in as an average (and that's at 16 big blinds per hundred, which is pushing the edge of expected win).

PJ

Re: "Rush Poker" on FT

[jellymillion.livejournal.com]

I tried it at 5c-10c for an hour last night for about 325 hands. (Lost about $7) To be honest, I though it was rather fun, in a one-arm-bandit, instant-gratification kind of way: EP with a trash hand, hit "quick fold" and get another one, all in about 3 seconds.

What could be really amusing is seeing how the Hold'em Manager/PokerTracker/etc guys deal with it. If they even try. It looks like you get the full hand detail even if you've folded and bounced, so there's some potential for analysis.

Re: "Rush Poker" on FT

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

HEM and PT3 take the hand history that's stored on your local disk. In the old days if you quit the table before the end of the hand, you did not get the full history (or indeed points credits for playing the hand, at least in some cases). Those faults have now been rectified, so, yes, HEM would store the hands just as if you were multi-tabling. The PTR "screen scrapers" would not be able to cope with it (which is good).

I like the sound of this for Netbook play, TBH, and I now have the required items for playing away from home (Netbook, Mobile Boradband dongle, more than a grand in the FTP account).

PJ

Re: "Rush Poker" on FT

[jellymillion.livejournal.com]

I think the HUD for rush tables might have to be different: first you're going to have a new, random set of opponents potentially as frequently as every 3 or 4 seconds, although J4 in EP isn't likely to have you wanting to know anything about the tendencies of the others at the table. I'd quite like something simple and graphic to tell me, if I haven't bounced from a table in disgust, what we currently know about anyone who might also be playing the hand.

It would be a fun app to write. For some definitions of "fun".

Re: "Rush Poker" on FT

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

No, Hud would not be able to cope (as you can see when you suddenly get shifted from one table to another in tournaments). You would need a screenscrape for this to work, and that's not approved by the powers that be in the poker site world. This indicates a possible downside in that you might get a number of players doing a poker table ratings or HEM "research" if there is a decision to be made. That would slow down the speed of individual hands somewhat.

PJ