Rake is normally calculated as a propotion of the amount that goes into the prize pool. so a £10 + £1 tournament is usually shown as 10% Posted by FCHD
Yes, it's usually shown as a proportion of the prize pool. However if we're talking about the percentage we're paying as fees, then it is £1 out of £11.
If you don't come to 9% then you're not accounting for £11, you're only accounting for £10. £1 has disappeared. A tournament with 10% fees would be £9 + £1.
But you don't relate to the percentage of the total amount you've paid, you refer to the amount of rake in propotion to the entry fee. Think of it like VAT - standard rate is 20% of the pre-tax price, not 20% of the end price.
But you don't relate to the percentage of the total amount you've paid, you refer to the amount of rake in propotion to the entry fee. Think of it like VAT - standard rate is 20% of the pre-tax price, not 20% of the end price. Posted by FCHD
No, you're right that the way the fees are displayed and worked out is as 10% of the amount going to the prize pool. However, the fees are not drawn from the amount going to the prize pool, they're a charge on top of that.
The cost of the fees relative to the amount you actually pay is 9%. If we're talking about how much of our money is taken off the table by the fees, then the relevant figure is 9%. 91% of our total buy-in goes to the prize pool.
In Response to Re: Double Poker Points -Another promotion aimed at cash players only....... : Everything you've said in this post is correct apart from the bolded parts. You see, I'm not saying that MTT's are "better value" than cash or vice versa, I'm saying they can't be compared. It's like saying " Which game is better value for my £10; Scrabble or Monopoly? " The only answer is " Whichever one you enjoy more ." So comparing 7.5%/5% rake to 9%* fees is not possible because you're comparing the cost of two very different things. The bolded part is the problem, though. When you compare Reward points received for £1 of cash rake to £1 of tournament fees, you're comparing Player A's £1 paid to the site with Player B's £1 paid to the site. You're simply comparing £1 with £1 so the foundation of this comparison is the same. To carry on the board game analogy; you buy scrabble and I buy monopoly, both for £10. We get to the counter and you're given a big tub of Quality Street as a free gift and I'm given a Chomp bar. Now, if that tub of Quality street is clearly advertised as an incentive for buying Scrabble, then I will have no complaints. However, if for one week the incentive changes and Monopoly is included in that Quality Street promotion, why should someone buying Scrabble complain about that? This is the heart of the matter. The Double Points week on cash tables is a similar advantage enjoyed by SNG's and MTT's year round. It's not an advantage being placed on the cash tables. There's nothing stopping those SNG and MTT players from getting on the cash tables (or buying Monopoly) if they think it's such a great promotion. *It is a little over 9% fees, btw. The tournament may be advertised as buy-in + fees but in a £10+£1 tournament, the cost to you is still £11. The percentage of that £11 which you're paying in fees is 9%. Posted by BorinLoner
lol we really could go all day on this one!
You're right you are comparing the cost of two very different things (method of calculating rake is different) but the actual cost, regardless of how it is taken, of SNG's/MTTs's is 10% compared to the cost of 7.5% (or less) for cash! The method for calculating the amount to be raked is the difference in the two formats and is your reason for saying they are not comparable. The method for calculating the points is also different for the two formats and is based on the two different methods of calculating the amount to be raked. To me if you can't compare one you cant compare the other because they both derive from the same overall formats. To me they are both inseparable.
Summary: a) Amount to be raked - Hard to compare (buy in vs amount in pot) b) Rake Paid % - directly comparable (10% vs <7.5%) - calculated using A c) Points awarded - directly comparable (10 per pound vs 6 per pound) - Calculated using B which derives from A.
To carry on your analogy even further. Suppose the £10 used to buy the board game is a voucher gained by spending in a shop. Then to get the £10 voucher I have to buy £500 of dvd's and you have to spend £400 on cd's.
Why should someone complain if the promotion is changed so that monopoly is now in the quality street promotion?! Well for a start the promotion would be get quality street and the chomp if you buy monopoly and only the quality street if you buy scrabble to get a more accurate analogy I.e. double points takes the points awarded to 12 per pound instead of 10 for sng/mtts. So not only is it a better promotion for the CD/monopoly buyer but the DVD/scrabble buyer has had to spend more on dvd's in the first place.
If this type of a promotion seems to happen all the time for the CD buyer but the DVD never seems to get any promotions (or very few) then the dvd buyer is going to get a bit annoyed. The dvd buyer is willing to accept the trade off on rake vs points as he accepts they are two very different products but he would just like promotions to be more evenly spread! This to me is the heart of the matter.
The initial question was concerning the lack of promotions for sng only players. Now it's turned into a full on debate about who makes the most points per £.
This is why i dont post on the forum...... The initial question was concerning the lack of promotions for sng only players. Now it's turned into a full on debate about who makes the most points per £. How do i close this thread... Posted by KinichAhau
Sorry Kinich I have to take a lot of the responsibility for derailing the thread!
Admittedly there is a disparity between the 200% points for cash this week and the 166% points on SNG's and MTT's for the rest of the year. However, I think you'd agree that one week in the year is not a reasonable thing to complain about if 51 weeks of the year the advantage is the other way around and, relatively speaking, much larger.
I think I've come up with the best way to explain the difference between rake and fees here, using Timed Tournaments because of their payout structure. So:
Player A buys-in to a £100+10 one hour Timed Tournament. He is charged £10 just to sit down and is given 10,000 chips. The value of each of those chips is 1p. By some quirk of fate, after the hour is up Player A has exactly 10,000 chips, so he cashes out for £100 and has made a £10 loss to the fees. He is given 100 reward points and has paid 9% of his buy-in as a fee.
Player B sits down at a cash table with £110. He is not charged a fee to sit down but the rake is 7.5%.
He plays a hand, blind on blind, which he puts £5 into. He wins the £10 pot which is charged 75p rake. He's now sat with £114.25.
Immediately afterwards he plays another hand, blind on blind, which he puts £5 into. He loses this £10 pot which is charged 75p rake. He's now sat with £109.25.
Again by some quirk of fate this scenario is repeated, with each player breaking even from the others, until Player B stands from the table with £100. He has lost no money to his opponents and won none from them but has lost £10 to the rake. He has been given 60 reward points and has paid9% of his buy-in as rake (Note: not 7.5%).
Player C sits with £110 at a cash table. He is not charged a fee to sit down but the rake is 5%.
He plays a hand, blind on blind, which he puts £50 into. He wins the £100 pot which is charged £1.80 (the maximum) rake. This is rake of 1.8%. He's now sat with £148.20.
He then suffers an unfortunate reverse in the very next hand. By some quirk of fate, this scenario is yet again repeated until Player C stands with £100. He's broken even against his opponents but has paid £10 in rake. That is, again 9%, not 5%. He, too, receives just 60 points.
Players A, B and C have all broken even in their play. They've all sat with £110 and they've all left with £100. Each has paid 9% of their pull-up to the site but player A has received 166% of the points given to players B and C.
Of course Players B and C could have left earlier, meaning that while each pot is raked at 7.5% or 5% up to a maximum, they would have paid less for their session as a proportion of their stack. They could stay longer and end up paying a bigger proportion of their stack as rake.
If these two cash players were to continue breaking even from their opponents until they reach 100 reward points, they would leave with stacks of £93.33. In other words, for their 100 points they would have paid 15.15% of their original pull-up as rake.
This shows that the rake at 7.5%/5% is not directly comparable to fees at 9% as the rake is variable in relation to the pull-up. The way in which the rake is drawn - as 7.5%/5% of each pot - means that, relative to the cash player's pull-up, rake can be anything from zero to 100%. The tournament fees are always 9% of the tournament player's pull-up.
You literally cannot compare the 7.5%/5% directly with the 9% and say that one is better value than the other, as you have in your post jdallstar. One is drawn from the pot while the other is drawn from the buy-in.
You can compare like with like when it comes to reward points. To win the same number of reward points the relevant numbers are 15.15% rake against 9% fees. These two numbers are directly comparable and show how much of a better deal MTT's and SNG's regularly receive.
It's all a bit convoluted but it does illustrate some of the difference. This has taken me hours (not solid writing, just coming back and forth from the computer), so I'm sure other posts will have appeared that I've missed.
This is why i dont post on the forum...... The initial question was concerning the lack of promotions for sng only players. Now it's turned into a full on debate about who makes the most points per £. How do i close this thread... Posted by KinichAhau
Yes, the discussion developed and moved on to something else. Just as discussions usually do. It's become a discussion on a particular element of the original post.
We don't close threads ourselves. We just have a little chat with each other. If you want to move back to a broader topic, say something on that.
nobody seen the new promotion then? Posted by SHANXTA
For goodness sake!
This Super Prize Draw started at midnight last night but they're only telling us about it now... I was on that promo page earlier this afternoon and there was no information about it.
Why would you start a promotion BEFORE announcing it?
Comments
New low for promo threads
If you don't come to 9% then you're not accounting for £11, you're only accounting for £10. £1 has disappeared. A tournament with 10% fees would be £9 + £1.
The cost of the fees relative to the amount you actually pay is 9%. If we're talking about how much of our money is taken off the table by the fees, then the relevant figure is 9%. 91% of our total buy-in goes to the prize pool.
New idea for a promotion Sky: Free Chomps!
You're right you are comparing the cost of two very different things (method of calculating rake is different) but the actual cost, regardless of how it is taken, of SNG's/MTTs's is 10% compared to the cost of 7.5% (or less) for cash! The method for calculating the amount to be raked is the difference in the two formats and is your reason for saying they are not comparable. The method for calculating the points is also different for the two formats and is based on the two different methods of calculating the amount to be raked. To me if you can't compare one you cant compare the other because they both derive from the same overall formats. To me they are both inseparable.
Summary:
a) Amount to be raked - Hard to compare (buy in vs amount in pot)
b) Rake Paid % - directly comparable (10% vs <7.5%) - calculated using A
c) Points awarded - directly comparable (10 per pound vs 6 per pound) - Calculated using B which derives from A.
To carry on your analogy even further. Suppose the £10 used to buy the board game is a voucher gained by spending in a shop. Then to get the £10 voucher I have to buy £500 of dvd's and you have to spend £400 on cd's.
Why should someone complain if the promotion is changed so that monopoly is now in the quality street promotion?! Well for a start the promotion would be get quality street and the chomp if you buy monopoly and only the quality street if you buy scrabble to get a more accurate analogy I.e. double points takes the points awarded to 12 per pound instead of 10 for sng/mtts. So not only is it a better promotion for the CD/monopoly buyer but the DVD/scrabble buyer has had to spend more on dvd's in the first place.
If this type of a promotion seems to happen all the time for the CD buyer but the DVD never seems to get any promotions (or very few) then the dvd buyer is going to get a bit annoyed. The dvd buyer is willing to accept the trade off on rake vs points as he accepts they are two very different products but he would just like promotions to be more evenly spread! This to me is the heart of the matter.
ps no more analogies
I think the whole point though was... for example 5,000 points = £100 C4P
To get them 5000 points, a cash player has to pay abuot £800 in rake
To get them 5000 points, a SnG player has to pay about £500 in rake.
So while this promo gives cash players more for 1 week, SnG players are enjoying more for the other 51 weeks of the year.
I think I've come up with the best way to explain the difference between rake and fees here, using Timed Tournaments because of their payout structure. So:
Player A buys-in to a £100+10 one hour Timed Tournament. He is charged £10 just to sit down and is given 10,000 chips. The value of each of those chips is 1p. By some quirk of fate, after the hour is up Player A has exactly 10,000 chips, so he cashes out for £100 and has made a £10 loss to the fees. He is given 100 reward points and has paid 9% of his buy-in as a fee.
Player B sits down at a cash table with £110. He is not charged a fee to sit down but the rake is 7.5%.
He plays a hand, blind on blind, which he puts £5 into. He wins the £10 pot which is charged 75p rake. He's now sat with £114.25.
Immediately afterwards he plays another hand, blind on blind, which he puts £5 into. He loses this £10 pot which is charged 75p rake. He's now sat with £109.25.
Again by some quirk of fate this scenario is repeated, with each player breaking even from the others, until Player B stands from the table with £100. He has lost no money to his opponents and won none from them but has lost £10 to the rake. He has been given 60 reward points and has paid 9% of his buy-in as rake (Note: not 7.5%).
Player C sits with £110 at a cash table. He is not charged a fee to sit down but the rake is 5%.
He plays a hand, blind on blind, which he puts £50 into. He wins the £100 pot which is charged £1.80 (the maximum) rake. This is rake of 1.8%. He's now sat with £148.20.
He then suffers an unfortunate reverse in the very next hand. By some quirk of fate, this scenario is yet again repeated until Player C stands with £100. He's broken even against his opponents but has paid £10 in rake. That is, again 9%, not 5%. He, too, receives just 60 points.
Players A, B and C have all broken even in their play. They've all sat with £110 and they've all left with £100. Each has paid 9% of their pull-up to the site but player A has received 166% of the points given to players B and C.
Of course Players B and C could have left earlier, meaning that while each pot is raked at 7.5% or 5% up to a maximum, they would have paid less for their session as a proportion of their stack. They could stay longer and end up paying a bigger proportion of their stack as rake.
If these two cash players were to continue breaking even from their opponents until they reach 100 reward points, they would leave with stacks of £93.33. In other words, for their 100 points they would have paid 15.15% of their original pull-up as rake.
This shows that the rake at 7.5%/5% is not directly comparable to fees at 9% as the rake is variable in relation to the pull-up. The way in which the rake is drawn - as 7.5%/5% of each pot - means that, relative to the cash player's pull-up, rake can be anything from zero to 100%. The tournament fees are always 9% of the tournament player's pull-up.
You literally cannot compare the 7.5%/5% directly with the 9% and say that one is better value than the other, as you have in your post jdallstar. One is drawn from the pot while the other is drawn from the buy-in.
You can compare like with like when it comes to reward points. To win the same number of reward points the relevant numbers are 15.15% rake against 9% fees. These two numbers are directly comparable and show how much of a better deal MTT's and SNG's regularly receive.
It's all a bit convoluted but it does illustrate some of the difference. This has taken me hours (not solid writing, just coming back and forth from the computer), so I'm sure other posts will have appeared that I've missed.
We don't close threads ourselves. We just have a little chat with each other. If you want to move back to a broader topic, say something on that.
This Super Prize Draw started at midnight last night but they're only telling us about it now... I was on that promo page earlier this afternoon and there was no information about it.
Why would you start a promotion BEFORE announcing it?