PDA

View Full Version : Rake calc and jackpot rake on AP/UB



DeepBlue
03-13-2011, 12:13 AM
I posted in the other thread about this but just did an experiment. I played one hand that generated jackpot rake. The summary is:

Total Pot($5.75) | Rake ($0.25) | Jackpot Rake ($0.50)

HM reports Rake as being $0.15 though!

1. I guess this is proof that HM does NOT include jackpot rake as rake, right?

2. But does it include jackpot rake when it deducts rakeback (since I get such a high figure for rakeback, although it does seem to be 30% of my rake)? Or this difference is because it calculates rakeback in a different method still?

3. Why does HM report rake as being $0.15 on this hand when it is $0.25? It does not "calculate" rake on the fly, does it? Doesn't it read this from the hand history file? Obviously the data isn't matching up on this hand.

Thanks!

Patvs
03-13-2011, 05:28 AM
1/2/3: We're looking into the whole "Jackpot tables" rake issue.
(this also affects the popular Jackpot tables on PartyPoker)

It's clear jackpot rake was never included in the HoldemManager rake calculation.


-"$0.15 on this hand when it is $0.25?" email us the handhistory to support@holdemmanager.com

DeepBlue
03-13-2011, 06:51 PM
Thanks Pat, I just e-mailed in the hand history for that hand. Will await your team's response.

SharkSandwich
03-17-2011, 05:13 AM
It's clear jackpot rake was never included in the HoldemManager rake calculation.
Pat, no it really isn't clear.

In fact I've just done a test (http://forums.holdemmanager.com/276661-post44.html) that proves the exact opposite, to the cent.

Please don't be mislead by people making mistakes over their own calculation findings.

Deep Blue the hand you listed is YOUR rake.

Your 0.15 is exactly equal to 1/5th of rake + JP rake (i.e. 0.75). So the hand must have been 5 to the flop (or 3/4 depending on what the blinds did, i.e. if they folded they still count).

It is working out rake correctly. It is just adding BBJ rake to it.

Here's a pointer: if you can't work out the rake to the cent then you are doing it wrong.

DeepBlue
03-17-2011, 11:01 AM
Shark, are you referring to rakeback? Rake does not depend on how many people are in the pot, only on how many seats are filled at the start of the hand. The rake a player pays is not subtracted from other players, it's a deduction from the pot.

It is very clear to me that the Rake (not rakeback) column in HEM is NOT including BBJ rake in my analysis. I do not understand why you're dividing by number of players for the rake - HEM should be parsing it directly from the hand history file, not calculating it on the fly. And so in my example, it seems it is either not parsing it at all (and IS calculating it), or is parsing it on the fly.

I did read your other post and I see where you're getting your numbers from. So you're saying the Rake column is reporting the rake figure that is to be used for determining rakeback?

If this is the case, then the whole Rake column is very incorrect - it should list instead the total rake paid in the hands (not including BBJ rake for now, just in general)! Why on earth would it make sense to list just the rake as proportioned to the player's contribution to the pot?

Is this what we're saying, that the Rake column is grossly off and is reporting the intermediate figure of player's share of the rake (which only makes sense on the path to calculating rakeback, not for any other purpose)?

SharkSandwich
03-17-2011, 02:35 PM
Blue I don't think you're calculating rake for Cereus properly at all.

Cereus' rake is Contributed, not Dealt as it used to be.

So YOUR rake per hand (you put ANY money in the pot)
= Total rake per hand / number of players who have contributed to the pot.

You divide the rake by mumber of contributing players because you don't get rakeback on others share of the rake, just on your share. What you are talking about is Dealt rakeback where it divides by all players dealt cards.

So for example if you are in the BB, and get raised by UTG, everyone else folds but you call. That is counted as 3 players contributing to the pot (you, the UTG, and the SB).
The total rake for that hand is then divided by 3 to give your own rake total.

Again, HEM is reporting the figure perfectly. But with Jackpot Rake incorrectly included. If it wasn't your Affiliate rakeback would be perfect.

Please don't keep saying BBJ rake isn't included if you can't provide the numbers to back it up (as I have). It just increases the likelyhood HEM will let this slide for another 2 years.

DeepBlue
03-17-2011, 07:52 PM
No, no, no - HEM is UNDER-reporting the rake. I have already sent in my hand histories to support, although they did say there is a backlog of parsing errors to fix.

Btw, you are referring to RAKEBACK - not RAKE! Rake is rake is rake. You do NOT get a discount on rake based on HOW MANY were in the pot. The rake is figured ONLY by table stakes, size of table, and size of pot. The number of people in the pot has no bearing on the rake. The rake is a tax on the pot, just like in the casino. It is figured as a percentage of pot size with a maximum.

If what you're saying is that HEM is actually meant to report what portion of the rake you were actually responsible for, well, that's something else altogether, and it's news to me - but I don't BELIEVE this was their intent in the Rake column figures. I firmly see an error in the parsing of the rake figure from the hand history file, pure and simple, with no BBJ rake being included at all.

Again, if what you're trying to say is that HEM includes BBJ rake as part of its RAKEBACK calculation, that is something different - but the fact remains, the basic rake figure is not being parsed correctly from the hand history files.