More Rake IS Better? (GGPoker High Stakes Boycott)
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 06. 2024
- The GGPoker High Stakes Poker boycott has been hot news after the poker site's recent rake increases. Is more rake better? High stakes pro Phil Galfond has thoughts and more!
🌟 The Only MTT Course You'll Need: ➡️ galfond.link/MTTStepByStep
The rake on GGPoker was already almost 10 times that of the competition at the high stakes, but has recently been nearly doubled!
This change sparked notable high stakes poker pros to coordinate a high stakes poker boycott, where the players moved all of their action over to other poker sites to show their dissatisfaction.
Micro stakes, low stakes, and mid stakes online poker players have been dealing with high rake for decades, but have also had the option of outsized returns to make up for it.
How does this affect you if you aren’t an online high stakes poker pro?
What costs are associated with high stakes online poker?
Has a high stakes poker boycott been successful in the past?
These questions and more are answered today!
Leave a comment and your suggestion or question might end up being a part of our next poker news breakdown or you may help Phil pick the next video topic!
Remember to Subscribe for more high stakes poker video content and turn on notifications so you don't miss any Galfond Challenge live streams!
Two Plus Two discussion thread: forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...
Follow Phil:
Weekly poker insights: www.philgalfond.com/mindset-yt
Twitter: / philgalfond
Instagram: / phil.galfond
TikTok: / phil.galfond
00:00 More Rake IS Better?
00:34 GGPoker doubling High Stakes Rake
01:53 Can this boycott work?
04:01 Costs and Viability of High Stakes Games
06:36 What is GG trying here?
09:41 Is GG trying to help recreational players?
10:26 Rake Example #1
12:31 What does GGPoker think is going to happen? Example #2
14:43 High Stakes without the Pros? Example #3
16:28 Unbeatable Games / Low Edge Games
17:17 "I'm scared once again"
18:04 The poker dream: Why we need winning players
19:35 Why haven't other Poker Sites done this?
20:50 What does this mean for the future of online poker? - Hry
This was really interesting you could have made this an hour long and I wouldn't be bored.
Absolutely. Phil is the goat
Thank you so much 😊. That really means a lot to me! I love making videos with more substance like this, where I have some relevant experience and knowledge. Usually the algorithm likes flashier things, but between this and the recent AI/bots video, it seems like the tide might be turning and videos like this will be well-received! I’ll have to think of some more topics!
You could say that about every single one of his videos I think.
As the rake increases the “skill aspect” of poker diminishes.
Imagine a game where you’re raked 100bb/hand. Basically seeing your opponents hand face up doesn’t allow you to have an edge.
As the rake increases the impact of edge and skill decreases and dilutes poker to basically PaiGow.
I really think you nailed it, I do not think people focus on long term goals any longer, it is about creating a bump in profits, being recognized as a success and leverage that into a promotion onto the next big thing.
Another excellent video; very thoughtfully put together. Your voice and temperament make it very easy to follow already interesting topics for poker players. It's almost like a free Masterclass without any gimmicks, promotions or annual costs.
With your experience at the WSOP (in multiple events) over the years, any chance you would consider a video about what a first-timer should expect or prepare for? I reported for a bit during the series last year and was unable to play any events during the series, but do intend to play a few smaller buy-in events if my Ford Focus can make the 3,000 mile trip again.
Thank you for all that you do, and have done for the world of poker over the years.
This is a prime example of the butparadox of poker condiitions.
In short: Anything that makes a venue less attractive to thinking players (or more attractive to non-thinking players) makes the games there better. It is easy to reach a point where that isn't true but it often is true.
Great point. I agree - it's tough to fight against this.
So Daniel was right all along
@@ticenits1926 Whoever stay on the site should be happy. They all know what the rake is. For me it's not my type of poker. I can imagine very loose short stack all-ins and big swings of luck and bad luck.
Does it matter if the poker website is taking your money through a high rake or if the pros are taking your money because they are better?
YES! It does matter. Because you might be able to beat a pro or become a pro yourself. You can never beat the rake.
Daniel Negreanu claims otherwise. I suspect he is not telling the truth.
You're less likely to play against skilled players when the game doesn't favor them. If you're willing to play in this type of game, then you're more likely to play against players that play for the same reasons that you do. This rake increase is good for the players that want to play it.
@@Liwet. Rake is only for the house. Wtf you thinking. Skill you can improve to lost few or even win for new player but rake more you will never win. Poker will be play for fun and no more profit. 5-10bb/100bb is hard enough and they take 4-7bb from you. That kill poker dream
@@Liwet. sure thing dnegs. Women ARE the rake and more rake is better!😊
Loved this one, your insight and passion for the topic really shines through.
Personally I have a slight issue with the 'site distributing rakeback more to losing players' argument because that involves the players trusting the site that it does indeed happen, which is hard when the way the rake is distributed is kept undisclosed. And also it's always way too easy for some $ to fall between the chairs for one reason or the other. Also, if one of the scenarios you described occur, with a higher proportion of recs per table, now their WR actually becomes less negative and increases, in which case they begin to get less rakeback, so where does the rest go now?
Really interesting video. Insightful as always, I like these longer videos. As the top comment mentioned, could listen to you talk about this for an hour and not get bored.
Thank you so much 😊
Excellent Analysis. I was thinking about the winrate examples lately and created some examples exactly like yours to see what's going on :)
Great video! Would it be possible to follow up with a video about how much different rake structures translate to in bb/100 paid for different sites/apps and what variables to consider (vpip, antes/straddles etc)?😇
Loving these videos Phil, your opinion as someone who knows what is going on from all perspectives is refreshing and very helpful to understand what is happening in topics like this 🙌
Thank you so much!
GG wants to adjust the rake so that pros are indifferent to playing or not playing. 😅 Great vid as always
looking for the gto solution lmao
We should make a solver to analyze this.
@@zefix1234 You say outloud what everyone understood, thanks :)
Another great video and summary of what is going on in the poker world, specifically the online poker world. Thanks for the video and time discussing. Perhaps GG is one step ahead and knows or wants to try something.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Please never leave the internet. I never will be a poker pro but I enjoy listening to you very much.
That means a lot to me. Thank you 🙏🏻
This is an interesting perspective I hadn't considered before. Great presentation as usual!
Thank you!
Having you as a resource to peek behind the curtain on some of this stuff is great
Thank you so much 😊
Your last scenario (only losing players playing) is a site's dream. Biggest fear of the site is pros milking losing players too fast, since that requires big cashflows to keep the operation running. When everyone is losing at a slower rate, theres no cash escaping the system and requires much smaller cashflow in also.
If there is 5 fish and 1 reg at the table the reg will be winning at 40+BB100
Exactly. Pros that win a lot are bad for the game. They just take money out of the system and crash it. They destroy the poker economy.
These arguments are just bizarre. With a higher rake, EVERYONE is losing MORE. Period. That's what a higher rake does. A fish isn't going to be losing LESS just because the rake is HIGHER. Makes no sense!
@@SPQR_14 wrong, a fish will absolutely lose less because the competition will be easier. VS a professional, a fish might lose 50BB/100, remove all the professionals and he’s only losing 20BB/100.
You don't suddenly start losing 50bb/100 just because a "professional" is in the game. Especially not at the higher stakes. These comments are senseless.
Great analysis. It seems the online poker industry will suffer occurrences like this until a site captures the majority market share, that is run by people who actually care about poker (like runitonce or the original poker stars). Even if driving out pros is “good” in the short run by whatever metrics gg measures, no WAY is it good in the long run. Recs might be losing money, but what’s the average lifespan of a Rec player? 2-5 years? If they are losing at low rake of course they will lose more in the long run to high rake regardless of who else sits the table. If there are no winners to look up to there is no poker dream, we’ll all have to beat baccarat and invest in pharmacies like Mikki. Stupid move from gg, regardless what happens from here.
Ok... This was def the most detailed position I've heard explained on the issue.
I appreciate the breakdown, everything else I've heard on this boils down to "Sadge. Rake too high!". But I haven't heard a reasonable explanation of the why of it from both sides.
This will be my goto link if anyone asks me more about it.
I appreciate that. Thank you 😊
Its also worth noting that the effective bb/100 you pay in rake will be slightly higher for winning players vs recreational players. Rake is not distributed evenly among players of different skill level as amount of hands approach a reasonable size. I dont have any data to refer to but it should be something one can deduce
I also think when we see these kind of decisions made by big online pokersites, the correlation between higher rake/softer table is always going to benefit the site and hardly ever the players. There might be spots here and there where a player can benefit a few bb/100 but overall, a move purely for the benefit of the site. I remember some years ago, pokerstars had the slogan "for the players" man i miss 2010's
Thank you for giving your thought on this :D such a huge change to talk about
You’re welcome!
Phil- thanks for all the knowledge. You previously mentioned that short stacking can have higher EV. Can you explain this further? Big fan.
Well said! Your videos keep getting better and, better! Really well done! Hard to get all the Reg's to stop playing when the tables are full of Rec's, just super +EV even with the rake bump. Do they make more money off Rec's? are they just bumping the rake to have less pro's? i would think they would want more Reg's so they have a nice flow of rake.
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it! Yeah, I’m not exactly sure what they’re going for. Maybe it’s just an experiment.
I think one of the side effects of increasing rake (and thus reduces edges) that doesn't get talked about, is the increase in cheating that goes on. I think edges get thinner with increased rake it gives incentive for more people to find any way they can to mitigate the thinner edge.
Very good insights Phil! Very appreciate these kind of videos. Thanks
My pleasure! These are my favorite kinds of videos to make!
To be fair, if GG just put a load of videos out about the people who win some of the large tournaments (both live and online) it would alleviate a lot of the concern around the atrophy of the 'dream' of being a pro. So long as tournaments run, there will be people who win, which means big money payouts which means great opportunities for content and thus great marketing that draws in more players.
Great explanations, and appreciate the intelligent analysis and potential outcomes. Thank you.
Much appreciated! Thank you.
It makes sense. Monitor winning players and don't give them rakeback. All the RB goes to the losing players and increase rake until the pros leave. Thats the equilibrium.
Perhaps, give points for going all in with less equity. Pros are happy because recs make poor decisions, recs get rewarded for poor decisions. Exchange points for rake back or w/e.
Hey Phil- I think I have a great topic for a video-- Can you please do (for NL) a video on what solvers have taught us, even a top five, but, of course, I would like a top 10. Example would be- Solvers prefer small c-bets multiway on most flops and I'm sure there is some great examples that you could help us with. Anyway, thanks for putting out this awesome free content and all for all the CZcams people reading this don't forget to sign up for Run It Once training the best training site out there IMHO. Thanks Phil-
Great suggestion! And thank you for the RIO shoutout 🙂♥️
What is the rake for low to mid level limit games and how does that compare to other sites?
Which is the best site for playing medium/high stakes in terms of rake??
Good insight Phil into leadership and relationship to intelligence/quality. Only sometimes correlated, indeed.
I agree with your thesis; I and many people are thoroughly uninterested in playing unbeatable casino games like Roulette. They are going to kill the goose (that laid the golden egg)
GG poker is the worst site to make money from poker. The rake is insane in all stakes. But I believe that players will end up in lower rake sites, even losing players want to make money from poker. It just takes time
Excellent breakdown, Phil. Appreciate your perspective.
I appreciate that. Thanks!
Good breakdown! One thing I'm surprised by that you didn't address, especially considering your background in the biz, is the difference in volume that recs put in as opposed to people who do it for a living. It seems like there wouldn't be many recs who play 2000+ hands a session multiple times a week even if they lose multiple buy-ins. A losing rec putting in that kind of volume at those stakes would run out of money pretty quick, it seems to me. But maybe I'm underestimating the number of whales in the GG pool, or maybe the games don't run frequently enough for anyone to put in that kind of volume, rec or otherwise.
EDIT: Not to mention the fact that pros sort of function as prop players. It's a lot more appealing to a rec to join a running game than sitting down first and waiting around for other players to join. So it's gonna hurt rec volume as well, I think. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the meetings where GG's data scientists present their findings
Yep the greedy scumbags at GG are obviously making a big mistake.
I was shocked to see how high their rake was before the raise, 8x nearest competitor. Then to almost double it is insane. Super greedy, which is sad because I'm sure they are making a lot money right now.
Great analysis as always Phil! I have a question though - Do you think eliminating pros will help generate higher gross rake from a site's bottom line perspective ? Any pro putting volume generates far more rake than a rec
any individual rec, yes. but the perception of online poker from recs right now is that the games are waaaaay too hard. constantly losing online sucks. but if all of a sudden the largest site in the world for poker can say the games will be softer, maybe that encourages 100x more recs for every pro they lose. at that point word of mouth from recs is way more valuable for generating new customer leads than any individual pro generates in rake
@@supitschillbro I see your point. so it boils down to what's the tipping point where revenue from additional recs > rev from regs who leave the site
i didnt get it, the rec is loosing 34bbs pre rake and 39bbs post rake, so he is loosing more than before, how is the new system better for him?
This is what Dnegs was talking about when he said "more rake is better." Not for everyone, but it's not like his argument was completely unsound.
To expand on it a bit more, after driving most pros out, I think GG can use the higher-rake money to sponsor certain pros of their choice. Perhaps in the form of rake back or just outright paying them to play. These people could be poker influencers, or some famous screen-name highstakes poker player from other site. In this way, it kinda solves the long-run no-idol issue and still have good marketing in these games.
Real question, why would a poker site care about or want to attract regs? Wouldn't a game filled with recs be more enjoyable for the players and more profitable for the casino/website? Like who cares about regs except for regs?
The problem for the general poker economy is going to be that instead of recs losing money to pros, they'll mostly be losing to the rake.
So even if the game quality improves, the recreational players will be less frequently in other games. This would destroy the idea of winning at poker which I don't know that even most recs want.
i think what gg hates the most are probably just normal regs, not famous, but just crushing some of these mid-high stakes game. They serve no purpose from their business perspective, so taking those out will probably make the site much more profitable
My country shut down Stars last week and I arrived at GG because they are the only place that will take me.
My first impression playing low stakes is that the fish vs. reg ratio has become almost inverse. I regularly find myself at tables with 5 fish. At Stars there would usually only be max 1 fish and 5 regs. These games have so far been very profitable to me.
agree with everything you said. want to add, not just become a pro in the future but simply be a winning player not wanting to ever become a pro.
Phil, I love your content, and the way you put things.
I've actually been following since you helped Phil Gordon with that chapter in his little gold book.
That being said, concerning what you mentioned right around about 6:10 in this video, concerning how you assumed people who were higher up in these corporations would be knowledgeable about their business, I've always kept in mind a quote by George Carlin...
"Realize average human intelligence. Then understand that half of them are stupider than that."
What you think about that and then take into account how broad and scathing nepotism is...
Seems like the deciding factor is who can better bring losing players to a poker platform, winning players or sites. For high stakes it may well be the former, since severely losing players could want to sit at a table with winning players who are noteworthy professionals. Seems less rewarding online than live. If the rake goes up at higher stakes to be more on par with the rake at lower stakes, I wonder if those games will become harder as better players cascade downwards in search of a more beatable game. I'm sure 10kNL pros would have a sizable winrate against a lot of currently profitable grinders at 500NL, making it potentially more profitable to migrate there even if there aren't any more fish there, but in doing so making it unprofitable for those grinders
A measured take. I found this after the latest stables policy “change” I’m curious about your take on that
Depressing video, hope GG continues to get more pushback from highstakes players / changes can be made so that it is better than it was before the change - highstakes dream being alive is very important
Such a perfect take on the topic
Thank you 😊
Hello Phill!! Would be really nice if u make a video like these one, but in now a days. I watch u from brazil, very good english to improve my second language
I kind of like the GG approach and it has proven sucessful in attracting new players. Most of the famous pros are tournament players nowadays anyway and that is what the vast majority of players on the site play anyway. Cash players are a small portion overall
I like to thank you for this one, and I can't wait to see more. Glgl
Thank you! More coming 😊
I'll be honest, I'm a losing player at poker. I know it, I don't mind it. I play for fun at stakes I can afford to lose without trouble. So long as there's a fun run along the way, I don't mind leaving my money on the table when I'm finished. The only thing I don't like is playing against these pros who cannot make a wrong move, and dominate me in every pot. That's one of the most boring situations in poker, and, as a fish, makes me tighten my wallet a bit. The fact that rake is higher and pros are boycotting is great news to me. Someones gonna get my money, I don't care if it's my opponent or the house. I'm delighted to once again be presented with an opportunity to play with fishy fun players like myself.
Exactly.
Thank you for sharing this perspective. I always appreciate hearing from players who just play for fun and expect to lose.
Amazing video, you have a new sub.
Awesome, thank you! Welcome 🙂
Yes science shows more rake is actually better.
For GGpoker
one must say, the games were high variance before the change and a lof of pros were already loosing.
Players have underestimated 50NL before and then they couldn't beat MicroStakes
People think that pros are just going to quit the game, what they are actually going to do is going down in stakes where they have a bigger win rate and beat rake. You are going to have pros anyways
A huge number of people play poker because they know it can be beaten. Most of those people have no idea how much is being raked tho.
Reminds me of hustler stream (HCL) not allowing pros to play even in the high stakes. They want a circus.
Right? I can't even watch those streams, too many bad players.
Other sites are at 0.47 bb/100. That is a big leap to think they will increase the rake 15 times.
Most high stakes recreational players are successful individuals, they are fully aware they are loser in games with top pros. I'm pretty confident many play on a specific site or at a specific casino live so they can get the thrill and challenge of playing against the best. Full tilt with all its faults did attract a lot of players at all stakes because you could watch and play against the best in the world. I remember regularly donating 55$ to Eric Sidel when he played weekly a 55% SnG HORSE game. The issue is for the second tier pros and up and coming, a high rake structure makes the road from mid to high stakes very difficult if not impossible.
I already thought i was way too high on microstakes. Pre-tilt already.
I live in the Netherlands, where Pokerstars and PartyPoker have been gone since November 2021, still waiting for them to return. GG poker is currently the only real option to play online poker here; this practically means that GG has a monopoly in my country. The moment Pokerstars or PartyPoker returns, I'm out of there. However, this might still take a long time, since the return of these sites is getting postponed every couple of months. I'm wondering if GG has something to do with it...
The lower the rake the stronger the players. Maybe not go for the lowest rake, but don't play on a site where you are being ripped off. I been saying it for along time to reward recreational players. The sites that do it have the most traffic and the the best games. The sites who reward the grinders barely have any fish and it's a bunch of regs coin flipping on every table. Regs have no complaints if there is fish on the tables. The more fish loses give them bigger bonuses to reload. And they will reload.
Seems like it has taken a really long time for the operators to work out that they don't want consistently winning players at the table. Every dollar a pro takes away is a dollar less they can use to entertain the losers, or keep for themselves.
It feels like the question is whether high networth regs will be attracted to GGs model. My understanding is that low stakes games have high rake anywhere so no mula no matter - its the same game everywhere and no pro is playing for low $ per hour. I think GG could then be a good place for wealthier people to find their feet, whether or not their decision making in any spot improves to the point where they could be considered a pro. Presumably, people would prefer to have both low rake and beatable opponents. Once newbies play to the point where they have worked out that the rake might be what is stopping them from better returns, they could seek alternatives (and find out this is where more difficult opponents play). The challenge at that point is okay so where do I want to play to develop my game, high rake and beatable opponents or low rake with difficult opponents. Seems like the diversity in the market might lead to more players continuing to play overall. Definitely haven't thought this out as much as Phil has though
More needs to be done by respected members of the poker community like yourself to educate new players as to what rake is and how to avoid getting shafted by operators that charge too much. The more knowledgeable the average player is, the less greedy companies like GG will be able to exploit them. Yes, a fair rake is necessary. But excessive rake is disgusting and should always be called out.
Dnegs already stepped up and took care of it. We’re in good hands!
the thing is with gg they say they give more to loosing players but i herd guys saying before when they were on huge 2 month 60+ buyinn downswings they were still getting like 15% rake back when 60% was advertised
Interesting. I wonder if they were still considered winners/pros.
Yeah once the PVI algorithm has you pegged as a reg, my experience is it will not vary much depending on your short term results and the only way to reset it is to take a long break (~6 mo) from the stakes.
According to smarthand at 1000NL since the start of the year there are 13 winning players at that stake. Over 4 of them have winrates of 1.5/100bb over 80k hands or less so not clear winners. So as the rake is, barely anyone (probably less than a handful at each stake) beats the games. If you look down through the stakes and filter by hands played you will see that's the case across the board. The highest playing player at 5000NL has only played 50K hands. So these 'Pros' that are affected by this and going to band together and have a boycott. There must be only about 5 people.
I didn't know the rake was that crazy on GG. Just wow!
Can you explain how you could have all losing players at a table? Doesn’t the mere fact that the better players are no longer at the table increase the win rate of the other players at the table? Great video. In my opinion if the goal of GG is to drive out pros and leave losing to breaking even players . It is in the effort to rake these players to death over time.
What they said ☝🏻
If you’re a recreational player this means you can play longer because the chips move around more but eventually you’ll bleed out on rake.
@Ekudeht especially if you give the bader Rec more Rakeback. just let the Money circle around till its gone. fucking criminal!
@Ekudeht okay but does that ever happen in reality? Practically speaking, when's the last time you've seen a table of all recreational players where someone didn't end up winning significantly? This example presupposes that the players will all end relatively equal, such that even the players whom are slightly ahead will still technically lose due to the rake. I'm saying that the more recreational players there are at a table, the more unlikely a scenario where everyone ends equal is to occur.
Yes everyone will have similar skill levels, but when that skill level is "not very good" variance virtually guarantees a lack of equality in results.
@@sleepytattoos if you go by session to session then yea obviously there will be big winners even from those who are not "winning". you arent meant to look at this session by session tho, but at the overall long game. an non winning player is GUARANTEED to lose money in the long run. after enough hands. maybe not this hand. maybe not this session. but eventually, the math works out. and when it does, in this case, only the house takes home money.
What about a subscription based Poker site where you pay a monthly fee for membership. Could still have rake on the games but much lower and tournament sign up fees. Wonder could you work something like that out. Imagine for example GG having 200,000 people all playing $20 a month that's 4 million. Plenty to still have high GTD tournaments and promotions to attract recs.
IMO if there are plenty of fish you want to protect from the high volume multitablers winning few bb/100 then yes force these Nits to lower tables to increase winrate and leave some fish for the rest. But Hi stakes is diff the winrate is low bb/100 and just by playing there it will attract play to the site at all stakes kindof like Fill tilt before Black friday.
This is a masterclass on thinking your shit doesn't stink and being too greedy turning short term profits into a long term loss, this should eventually be gg for gg poker
This tells me that the pre-rake win rate of most of the pros on GGPoker is between 4 and 7 bb per 100.
Did you ever see the rake at coin poker on the 200,000NL tables? Holy crap!!
how much is?? TY
$80 a hand at 500-1k - preflop
This is insane. 4 x 50 per hour under the old rake, 7 x 50 per hour under the new rake. $350 per hour x 6 spots, $2100 per hour. That is an insane rake. How does anyone support that?
I don't know what the normal is because I do not play anything near these levels......but right now on ACR (Saturday, 7 PM EST), there is 1 table of 200/400 with 1/9 players, 1 table of 75/150 with 1/9 players, 4 tables of 50/100 with a total of 12 out of 23 seats filled, and 6 tables of 25/50 with a total of 1 person per table. So at least at this moment in time, the pros have not flocked to ACR.
It's frustrating that I didn't get the game development fee and guarantee from the ggpoker. Jackpot system lake coordination, etc. It was applied in consultation with the developer of the gg poker
It looks like you gave everyone the same rake share per 100? In my experience, the loose players subsidize the tighter players in a % rake game. If it's a time charge game, than the tighter players subsidize the looser ones. So it may be the case that the higher rake forces some pros out but the recreational players that come into the game help to subsidize the pros that are left. Edit: which is what you were saying with an equal share of rake, but I think it may be better than that.
Phil thanks! explained it the best. Lets hope GG is wrong and lets see more poker sites
I hope so too!
The scenarios seems incorrect to me. The rec losing at 30+4 currently in scenario A is losing on average 6bb to each pro pre-rake. In the third scenario he would be losing 6bb to the 2 pros and breaking even vs the other recs so -12bb then 7bb rake, total -19bb/100. Whilst still better than the current scenario at -34bb/100 I'm not so convinced its enough to suddenly keep that player active significantly longer.
Then on top of that the 2 pros have gone from 8bb pre-rake to 13bb which to me seems small. I believe a super pro on a table with 4 recs is going to be winning at more than 13bb pre-rake. If they are beating 1 rec for 8bb they would beat 4 recs for 32bb. So that brings the recs losses even tighter if the pros are winning more. Though to me that gap is to large and leaves room still for weaker regs to actually exist.
Then think about when there's only 2 pros on a table they should theoretically win at even higher rates because they can adjust to exploit the recs in even stronger ways with less to worry about other pros at the table.
I have always intuitively believed that when you up rake an equilibrium is found where the recs basically lose the same and the shift in win rates only changes from winners to operator. I mean this can be counteracted a small amount by high rake back to recs, but not by much.
Is Berkey and airball playing rn?
Hi Phil, thanks for the great break down as always
I play at a local unregulated site, with 4% UNCAPPED rake, in all stakes 0.1-0.2 to 10-20 $
Do you have any opinion on this ...
🙏🙏🙏
Yea, don't play there lol
@@RandomFunZer lol to be fair the rake back and reward system is ok and I still beat the game, I don't have many options to play ...
@@Pokerfarhang idk if the action is super super soft and you´re beating it there is no reason to not play there but you need to be careful
Yikes. Uncapped is crazy. That will get very expensive. Have you tried to figure out what it equates to in bb/100 per player?
@@PhilGalfond I checked the session I played last night in an eight handed 0.5-0.5$ NL game 96BB is taken out of the table so it equates to 12bb/100 per player, you can see the attacks shrink by the naked eye especially in shorthanded games,
I approximately get 30% back through rake back /vip point rewards/referral and sometimes I get into the weekly most hand reward list as a nice bonus
I wish Run It Once was still in the UK. Very sad :(
I haven't played a single hand of poker for like 10 years.
And this analysis is literally 160IQ+ quality. (and i'm talking about 100 average and standard deviation = 15, so +4sd).
Is it really fair looking at rake as hitting everyone in the same manner?
Winning players pay more take than losing player.
Then is increasing rake is actually worse for pros than what you are showing?
Is it possible that the advent of solvers has compressed the skill levels of the best online pros too much? Back in 2010 if you got a table of 6 pros together chances are one of them would be a decent winner while now I would not be surprised if 5knl regs mostly are all within 5bb/100 of each other, so they NEED a recreational player at the table for any of them to win, and the rec's losses will be more evenly spread amongst the remaining players more according to position than anything since they are close in skill.
You get a situation where high stakes games are pros waiting to bumhunt recreational players, leading to incentives for the site to take measures like increasing the rake (and then redistributing via rakeback) to try and prevent all the recs from losing so much that they leave. The number of games you can run becomes overly dependent on how many recreational players you have, since 5 pros will sit with one rec then all leave as soon as the rec busts out.
It doesn't seem healthy for the game.
Rush and cash rake is 8 to 9 which is crazy...pls make video also about mid and low stakes phil❤
From what i hear it is way softer than zoom poker on Stars and more beatable even with the higher rake.
@@4evahodlingdoge226 it use to be at the beginning..now its not..also pvi is killing
I spoke with Daniel Negreanu and he said "More Rake Is Better"
Gg poker have always been greedy, yet they still grew because nobody took note, and Phil you are vastly becoming the staple boy for online poker if you weren't considered that already, keep up the good work.
Thanks Phil!
Nailed it. You can also see similar going on with bud light (I'm not arguing in any way if their wrong or right). It appears that they are moving to replace their customer base.
Rake destroys the game. In 2006 right in the poker boom. W.S.O.P. main event doubled the rake from $300 to $600 this takes out $1,800,000 from the prize pool per 6,000 players. But worse than that it sets precedent. Everyone starts raising the rake. In tournaments and live games. Plain and simple, more rake less winners.
Rake is the destroyer of poker.
What site is the best to play low stakes tournaments.
Gg
1. Part of the allure of playing on a site with named or celebrity pros, is that you might get to talk to or play against them.
2. Raise the rake from 4 to 7, deal with and then respond to the boycott by dropping the rake back down to 5 or 5.5, resulting in a net rake increase for GG.
3. Recs get to enjoy the short term but the rake on them will slowly increase over time.
4. Many people will just deal with the increase and play, rather than moving everything to another site. You know, kind of like a cable company - you deal with their price increases, because you'r somewhat comfortable with them and it’s a hassle to go elsewhere.
5. I'm in the states, so I can't play on GG anyway.
Great insights!
That's a lot of rake - about the same as 5/10 live, minus having to tip the dealer
well said man it is very concerning
Thank you 🙏🏻
GG has effectively introduced a 15-18 BB/100 winner into all those high stakes game. That's a scenario no player would ever want.... One thing I semi-disagree with is that you're assuming that most players are self-aware about their own skill level relative to their competition. This cognitive dissonance is what keeps most of the long-term losing players coming back for more. And because of that, I fear that GG's strategy will work and work well....