PDA

View Full Version : UB BBJ included as Rake?



SharkSandwich
04-01-2009, 12:44 PM
Can someone, who knows for certain, tell me *categorically* if the Rake stat includes Bad Beat Jackpot money or not on UB.

I'm having issues with my rakeback provider, and need to be able to tell them with certainty if my stats are accurate. (BTW I know it is dealt rake not contributed like UB, but this month it's not even a ballpark figure).

Thanks

morny
04-02-2009, 11:55 AM
Im pretty sure its not but ill escalate to Roy just to confirm

SharkSandwich
04-02-2009, 12:44 PM
Thanks Morny.

I did do a search before posting but couldn't find a single definitive answer.

Rvg72
04-02-2009, 02:18 PM
Overall rake will include any additional rake in the hand like with the jackpot. Then, total rake / total players dealt cards is calculated.

For some sites this calculation is not correct - instead they might use contributed rake. This will be fixed in an upcoming version

Roy

kb coolman
04-07-2009, 09:39 PM
I hope this is fixed soon, because my stats are waaaaay off with my RB providor. I play mainly on AP, were the rake is contributed, and there is a BBJ rake.

Dolce Vita
05-02-2009, 01:57 PM
I hope it's will be fix soon because I play mainly on UB and this problem with HEM exist since a long time... I love HEM but if I have no choice to choose PT3, I'll have no choice... I recommanded HEM to many players and I know that many of them have the same problem...

We will very appreciate if HEM can fix it because we nerver now if we receive the appropriate rackback for our provider.

Thank you very much,

carr1
06-05-2009, 02:00 AM
I'm also trying to calculate BBJ rake on AP/UB and came up with the following. My understanding is that HEM does not take this rake into account and it can add literally 100's to the rake you pay each month. First note that 50 cents is taken for the BBJ off of each hand that is raked .25 or more.

So to find the BBJ rake paid I filtered the following at .25/50 NL:

1. More Filters;Other filters;Won hand=True
2. Final Pot size in BB's is bigger than 10.

Then take the number of hands this results in * .50=BBJ rake.
Reasoning: At 50nl the rake is .05 for each $1. So we need a $5 pot to trigger BBJ rake(a pot raked .25 or more). 10 big blinds is equal to $5.

Can anyone confirm if I did this correctly? If I didn't then :o on me.

If correct 92 hands out of the 3350 I've played so far this month have qualified for the BBJ rake. 92 * .50= $46. That's a nasty surprise! About 1/10 extra rake for just for 3 days of play. WOW.

kb coolman
06-05-2009, 12:51 PM
I'm also trying to calculate BBJ rake on AP/UB and came up with the following. My understanding is that HEM does not take this rake into account and it can add literally 100's to the rake you pay each month. First note that 50 cents is taken for the BBJ off of each hand that is raked .25 or more.

So to find the BBJ rake paid I filtered the following at .25/50 NL:

1. More Filters;Other filters;Won hand=True
2. Final Pot size in BB's is bigger than 10.

Then take the number of hands this results in * .50=BBJ rake.
Reasoning: At 50nl the rake is .05 for each $1. So we need a $5 pot to trigger BBJ rake(a pot raked .25 or more). 10 big blinds is equal to $5.

Can anyone confirm if I did this correctly? If I didn't then :o on me.

If correct 92 hands out of the 3350 I've played so far this month have qualified for the BBJ rake. 92 * .50= $46. That's a nasty surprise! About 1/10 extra rake for just for 3 days of play. WOW.

I want to say this is right, but I'm seeing something strange on mine. When I filter off my quick session this morning, I have 14 hands that meet the criteria, and it says my total rake is $1.42. That can't be right, since the minimal rake (including BBJ) would be $.75/hand. But then again, it's contributed rake, and I really don't know how that's calculated.

And FWIW, the BBJ rake is brutal...I think it easily adds 30% to the rake you pay. Good thing UP/AP are soooo soft.

carr1
06-08-2009, 08:36 AM
Can someone, who knows for certain, tell me *categorically* if the Rake stat includes Bad Beat Jackpot money or not on UB.

I'm having issues with my rakeback provider, and need to be able to tell them with certainty if my stats are accurate. (BTW I know it is dealt rake not contributed like UB, but this month it's not even a ballpark figure).

Thanks

I'm beginning to think now that the HEM rake stat **does** include BBJ rake.

Do this test:
1. Write down your AP/UB balance before your session.
2. Afterwards check your $ earned and add this number to #1.
3. Now check your bal.

I only tried this once but found that the AP balance matched exactly. If HEM didn't account for this rake then the AP balance should have been lower.

Can anyone else confirm this?

btw I think an additional 30% rake from the BBJ seems steep but your probably right. If that's the case I better be receiving a piece of that BBJ now and then.


EDIT: Wait a second. If HEMs rake numbers are dealt and AP is contributed then how in the world did this match up? I need to test this some more.

carr1
06-08-2009, 08:41 AM
I hope this is fixed soon, because my stats are waaaaay off with my RB providor. I play mainly on AP, were the rake is contributed, and there is a BBJ rake.

My stats are way off too. But in general I find if I take 20% of HEMs rake number I get a pretty close figure. Of course now that AP/UB deduct 50% for bonus this number will be lower.

kb coolman
06-08-2009, 03:22 PM
I'm beginning to think now that the HEM rake stat **does** include BBJ rake.

Do this test:
1. Write down your AP/UB balance before your session.
2. Afterwards check your $ earned and add this number to #1.
3. Now check your bal.

I only tried this once but found that the AP balance matched exactly. If HEM didn't account for this rake then the AP balance should have been lower.

Can anyone else confirm this?

btw I think an additional 30% rake from the BBJ seems steep but your probably right. If that's the case I better be receiving a piece of that BBJ now and then.


EDIT: Wait a second. If HEMs rake numbers are dealt and AP is contributed then how in the world did this match up? I need to test this some more.

HEM will always match up on your wins. It also accounts for BBJ rake as part of the TOTAL rake, not sperately. Since the BBJ rake isn't eligible for rakeback, the stats are off.

tarheel
01-04-2010, 05:57 PM
Overall rake will include any additional rake in the hand like with the jackpot. Then, total rake / total players dealt cards is calculated.

For some sites this calculation is not correct - instead they might use contributed rake. This will be fixed in an upcoming version

Roy


Thank you for implementing contributed rake, but the above is still a problem. There is no way to get an accurate rake total if you're lumping in the bbj with actual rake paid.

netsrak
01-05-2010, 05:29 AM
I'll forward it...

tarheel
02-01-2010, 08:04 PM
Any ETA on this? Is this a complicated fix?

netsrak
02-02-2010, 09:47 AM
Its on the list of future improvements but i can't give you an ETA

tarheel
05-08-2010, 03:34 AM
Can you guys please push this through. It's been 4 months since i pointed out that it was not calculating correctly and it's been 2 years since you guys said correct rake for all sites was planned! Not once have we ever had correct rake numbers for UB or AP.

MartinBKK
05-08-2010, 03:59 AM
I have this problem with party poker this month. My HEM stats are way off and the difference between this month and last is that i've played way more jackpot tables. Is HEM calculating these incorrectly?

netsrak
05-08-2010, 06:13 AM
The rake calculation per site was implemented some month ago and it is working pretty well.
We sometimes have users saying its wrong for a site but we need an official statement from the site how they calculate rake and sample hands.

So if you think our calculation is wrong please provide this informations with link to this thread to support@holdemmanager.net.

zachvac
05-25-2010, 07:12 PM
Right now it calculates rake right but since bbj is not eligable for rakeback we need a rake without bbj stat. So say it rakes max rake=$3 bbj rake=$0.50 right now HEM will say rake=$3.50 which is obviously right but since the 50c goes into bbj and does not count for rakeback to check with my rakeback provider we need another column rake without bbj that would report rake that hand as only $3. Do you see what I mean? Thanks.

SharkSandwich
05-27-2010, 04:06 PM
I started this thread well over a year ago, and it's still not done...

fozzy71
05-31-2010, 10:05 PM
Can you please zip and email us a sample of the BBJ hands from your archive so we can assign the task to our new parsing programmer?

Please include a link to this thread.

SharkSandwich
08-25-2010, 11:53 AM
Any news on this?

Don't know if anyone's mailed HH's (I mean you obviously have some anyway for working on UB's recent HH changes).

netsrak
08-25-2010, 12:31 PM
Can you please try with the latest Beta: http://forums.holdemmanager.com/releases/35199-1-11-05-beta-7-a.html

We made some fixes for the parsing but i'm not sure whether this issue was covered too.

tarheel
10-05-2010, 01:58 AM
Can anyone confirm or deny whether the beta had the fix in it or not?

netsrak
10-06-2010, 06:56 AM
Sorry but its still an open issue. I don't have any ETA when this will be fixed.

carr1
02-28-2011, 01:05 PM
Is the BBJ rake on Cereus now differentiated from regular rake?

It's been over a year...

fozzy71
02-28-2011, 02:25 PM
There has been no change in the status since Netsrak posted the last reply in October.

SharkSandwich
02-28-2011, 05:46 PM
God guys, this is pretty ridiculous. I posted this issue just shy of 2 years ago.

Not having this fixed pretty much makes rake info on Cereus useless.

carr1
02-28-2011, 06:21 PM
I wish I knew before purchase that HEM didn't correctly support AP/UB.

I guess that after 2 years of waiting for this I now need to buy PokerTracker, grrr.

I needed HEM to track my results and rakeback at Absolute. I don't even use the HUD. If I can't figure out my exact RB figures HEM is worthless. So basically I wasted a bunch of money for nothing.

carr1
03-01-2011, 03:13 PM
Sorry for the rant. I was on tilt.

But do you think this can be fixed sometime soon? I know myself and plenty of others who play on AP/UB have been waiting for this a long time. All we want is the BBJ rake to be put in a separate column.
______________

"The Bad Beat Jackpot collects $0.50 from the pot of each raked hand that is raked $0.25 or more."

Patvs
03-01-2011, 11:33 PM
Do all the BBJ tables clearly state "Bad Beat Jackpot" in the tablename or in the handhistory file for each hand?

Can you re-sent us a handhistory of such a table to support@holdemmanager.com also containing a link to this thread in the email.

SharkSandwich
03-02-2011, 12:46 AM
It's clearly identified in the HH, yes. So you don't even need to identify the table type and work out if the pot was big enough for BBJ, etc.

Here's the line in a handhistory.

Total Pot($21) | Rake ($1.05) | Jackpot Rake ($0.50)
when a BBJ wasn't raked from the pot (due to potsize or table) the JP rake bit is just left off, natch.

Total Pot($2) | Rake ($0.10)

I've sent the Hand History as requested.

I know there's a lot of people who would like this sorted.

Cbass
03-02-2011, 10:17 AM
This explains a lot. Wish I had read this before emailing both UB and my RB provider (the past few days is the first time that I've had significant play at the BB JP tables).

It truly would be great if this could be fixed... bummer to find out my actual rake is like 35% of what HEM says.


btw... HEM is GOLD (other than this issue).

carr1
03-02-2011, 02:41 PM
This explains a lot. Wish I had read this before emailing both UB and my RB provider (the past few days is the first time that I've had significant play at the BB JP tables).

It truly would be great if this could be fixed... bummer to find out my actual rake is like 35% of what HEM says.


btw... HEM is GOLD (other than this issue).

Lots of people have complained to their affiliates because of this. This issue creates a headache for both the player and the affiliate.

Since Shark emailed a hand history I won't send another. If you need more hand histories I'd be happy to help.

The BBJ tables are not differentiated in name as far as I can tell. However, as Shark pointed out, the BBJ info is right in the hand history:

*** SUMMARY ***
Total Pot($12.25) | Rake ($0.60) | Jackpot Rake ($0.50)

In addition, every hand on AP/UB that is raked .25 or more triggers the BBJ rake, which is always .50

Hope this helps.

h_ven
03-03-2011, 06:38 AM
+1

GatorXP
03-04-2011, 10:22 AM
Please get it done, brutal.

morny
03-04-2011, 10:59 AM
Guys ill bump the priority on this and see what we can do, we have a lot on at the moment but ill follow up with the developers and see if we can get this added once we get through the current workload.

jjberns
03-05-2011, 02:13 PM
This would be really nice.

DeepBlue
03-12-2011, 06:28 PM
Yes, please get this done. Even if it means just NOT including jackpot rake (and having to figure jackpot rake ourselves by running a filter for pots we won over 10 bb's), that would be great.

DeepBlue
03-12-2011, 08:44 PM
Hmm, I have a question - are we sure it IS including jackpot rake?

Because when I do a filter for jackpot hands, I am getting a rake figure total for those hands I won that incurred jackpot rake that is LESS than the # of hands X $0.50. Shouldn't the rake be (# Hands X $0.50) + Regular Rake?

What gives?

I really need to know the answer because this affects my decision to play jackpot games in a big way.

Also when I first started playing, I thought I verified it was NOT including jackpot rake by zeroing in with the time selector to one jackpot raked hand, and seeing that the rake reported in the report's column was equivalent to the actual regular rake, not including the $0.50 jackpot rake.

So is it only including jackpot rake as part of rakeback, but NOT as part of the rake column as it stands now?

Someone please let me know what they've found. I am pretty confused at this point.

carr1
03-15-2011, 04:09 PM
Deep Blue:

Unless something has just changed on HEM's side the BBJ rake is still being included in the overall rake. My rake numbers are way higher than the rakeback I actually receive from my affiliate because of this inclusion of the BBJ rake on HEM. Of course BBJ rake does not qualify for rakeback.

I don't have the time to to re-crunch my numbers right now so I'm not sure what you're doing. but everyone else in this thread has had the same issue.

As far as whether you should play the BBJ tables, the short answer is those tables are a huge rake trap. Other people have estimated the additional rake is equivalent to roughly 2-3bb/100. This is a pretty huge as I said. Anyway, one way to figure this is simply compare your total winrate (including rb and other incentives) at AP/UB to other sites.

DeepBlue
03-16-2011, 04:18 AM
Carr, thanks so much for getting back to me. I did some more tests and I conclusively found that the Rake figures in HEM do NOT include BBJ rake. Whether or not the rakeback is included is another question (i.e., if somehow the rakeback includes BBJ rake and is thus skewed - I doubt it).

Instead, I found that the regular rake was not being calculated right by HEM (I found a hand where it reported $0.25, but I had only paid $0.15 - or come to think of it, it was vice versa).

Also, I think the reason HEM reports so much more rakeback than is actually earned is simply because of the formula used. Dealt vs. weighted-contributed makes a huge, huge difference, unless one's playing very short handed (pretty much heads-up would make them the same result I think).

I wish it were that easy to compare! The problem is, I've found that most regs on Stars at limit anyway are lifetime losers, rakeback pros only. So it would be a theoretical comparison.

Whereas on UB, I can crush even the $0.50-$1 LIMIT game, even though the BBJ represents half a big bet in $5 pots! (and which, I calculate, is costing me 1.7 BB/100 - yes, 1.7 BIG BETS - on top of the regular rake rate of 2.5 or so BB/100 - this correspondes to the figure you gave of 2-3 bb/100) Perhaps "crush" is extreme, but I am averaging well over 1 BB/100 over 10,000 hands, so it seems promising thus far. I think on the NL side it's not that big a deal if one is truly taking advantage of the weaker competition (and at least there it doesn't kick in until 50NL, which I am not at yet on that site).

Anyway I know it all sounds confusing but HM support says they will look into the parsing issue when they have time, so until then I guess I just have to disregard the rake figures in HEM and manually keep tabs on my rakeback by the day in my RB provider's site. (which sucks since I have to check it daily and log it, othewise I don't know how much got added in any one day)

carr1
03-17-2011, 01:41 AM
I'm working on some projects now so I can't confirm what you're saying. Obv. we need some more people to look into this. Shark- u there?

As for beating the .50/1 limit game straight out, most regs aren't because of the absurd BBJ rake. Congrats if you are.

SharkSandwich
03-17-2011, 05:00 AM
I'm working on some projects now so I can't confirm what you're saying. Obv. we need some more people to look into this. Shark- u there?
Here and reporting for duty Cap'n.

OK, so I did my own calcs.

Rakeback should be added up on a pot-by-pot basis.
Total rake in a hand should be equally divided between everyone who contributed to the pot (including both blinds 100%).

Mini-sessions of mine. Listed hands only where I contributed (saw a flop or was in a blind)
4 hand session:
2 to the flop (SB also folded). Rake 0.05. My rake = 0.02
4 to the flop (both blinds). Rake 0.65. JP rake 0.50. My rake = 0.1625 (0.29 with JP)
HEM lists 0.31. Exactly right WITH JP included.

5 hands
3 to the flop (SB folded). Rake 0.80. JP rake 0.50. My rake = 0.20 (0.325 with JP)
4 to the flop (both blinds). Rake 1.60. JP rake 0.50. My rake = 0.40 (0.525 w JP)
HEM lists 0.86. Exactly right WITH JP included (both rounded up, 0.33 + 0.53).

Pretty conclusive guys.

It is 100% including JP rake as rake.

SharkSandwich
03-17-2011, 05:06 AM
The thing is reading threads here, HEM now knows how to calculate your individual rake on a per site basis.

It knows UB is contributed, so it correctly works out total rake per hand / no of contributing players.

So if they programmed it rightly to remove JP rake (or to add it to a seperate column) it would work it out perfectly. To within cents or so. And if they use the same rounding process it would be accurate to the cent and massively useful for dealings with your RB provider.

Let's get 'er done.

morny
03-17-2011, 10:00 AM
Thanks guys this is all documented and well get it fixed as soon as we can, couple of bugs ahead of it right now so i cant give an accurate ETA at this time

SharkSandwich
03-17-2011, 02:38 PM
Thanks Morny.

FWIW my early calculations suggest everything is right with the calcualtions. It just needs the BBJ rake column NOT including.


Total Pot($21) | Rake ($1.05) | Jackpot Rake ($0.50)

DeepBlue
03-17-2011, 07:57 PM
Shark I responded in the other thread - I think you need to be clear if you're referring to RAKEBACK, and not RAKE, as I think you are. As per my reply there, the contributed method is all about rakeBACK, nothing to do with RAKE...

As per my message above, I believe there is at least one problem, which is the basic RAKE is not being parsed correctly from the hand history file.

If you have determined my other point to be true (that rakeback is somehow including BBJ rake in its calculation), then my hat off to you for following up on this.

Just want to ensure HEM staff knows there are MULTIPLE and SEPARATE issues regarding the rake:

1. Pure rake is not being reported correctly.

2. Rakeback is not being calculated appropriately (whether due to either the fact they use the wrong method for UB, they include BBJ rake, or both).

Thanks!

SharkSandwich
03-17-2011, 11:20 PM
I really don't want to derail this thread, but I need to get this issue back ON the rails.
Blue you're near definitely working this out wrong.

The contributed and dealt methods determine the amount of rake you are said to have paid (by the site) out of the total pot rake. Rakeback is simply 30% (if that's the rakeback %, as UB is) of your apportioned share of rake.

HEM is listing your share of rake (under the contributed method) but including JP rake as regular rake (when there's obviously no rakeback on any JP rake).

It's like your looking at the rake in your won pots or something. When it has no baring on how much you are raked out of pots you win. You could lose every pot you enter and you will still be aportioned your share of rake.

I've just done another two calculations (a 13 and 20 hand session). I worked out my HEM reported rake to the cent in both cases. If I'm wortking it out wrong how am I able to do this time after time?

I'll do you a deal, send or post a hand history (no more than say 20 hands) and I'll send it back to you telling you what your HEM reported rake will be, and why. On a hand by hand basis.

DeepBlue
03-18-2011, 01:28 AM
Dude - rake is rake. The rake in the Rake column of the reports should equal the total rake taken out of all pots that you won. You do NOT get raked on hands you lost. Likewise, when you win a pot, YOU pay 100% of the rake for that hand! You're getting it twisted with the rakeback.

EDIT: Don't mean to be rude, but we're going in circles, so I apologize if this seems like an affront. In my eyes, the Rake column should list the whole rake taken out of all pots I won in a session, period. If this is not how it's supposed to be, then this is very big news to me!

SharkSandwich
03-18-2011, 02:39 AM
Dude - rake is rake. The rake in the Rake column of the reports should equal the total rake taken out of all pots that you won.
In my eyes, the Rake column should list the whole rake taken out of all pots I won in a session, period. If this is not how it's supposed to be, then this is very big news to me!
No. See, it doesn't work at all like that. Not in HEM. Not on the sites. Can someone back me up on this so we can move on?

That's why you're getting discrepencies in your own figures. The figures aren't random.
Whereas when I'm working it out I can get it down to the cent, but (incorrectly) including JP rake.

As I said earlier the formula is:
Total rake in a hand / everyone who contributed to the pot (including both blinds 100%). And you only get that portion assigned to you if you personally contributed. Hence contributed.

It's nowhere near as simple as "my pot got raked $x, so I get back 30% of $x". Go check a mini-session where you didn't win a single pot. Guarantee you you will have non-zero rake (except if no hand saw a flop where you put money in the pot).

Rakeback is nothing more than the part of rake assigned to you (via contributed or dealt methods) * 0.30.

HEM is working it out correctly. They just need to add a different column for JP contribution (hell, it would be better if everyone stopped calling it rake) or at the very least just ignoring it from rake.

DeepBlue
03-18-2011, 04:17 AM
Ha, I see. I was right on our discrepancy - you are talking about rake paid for the purposes of rakeback calculation, not ACTUAL rake paid.

I am talking about ACTUAL RAKE in terms of actual rake paid as deducted from the pots won.

The rake column in the reports should be reporting how much rake was taken out of all pots player won total, plain and simple. That is the real figure of how much rake the user paid.

The figure you mention is an intermediary used only for rakeback calculation.

So if what you're saying is true, that the Rake column will list a value even if I lost every hand, then that IS a problem with HEM - because for purposes of analysis, we need to know the REAL amount of rake that was deducted from the pots we won. I am surprised this is how it is, but if it is like you say, this must be the case (the Rake column is showing the intermediate rake value that is to be used for rakeback calculation).

So my original issue still stands - the Rake column should be fixed to list the total of Rake paid in pots the player selected has won. Perhaps there should be a separate column for Adjusted Rake, such as you describe, so people can match it up to their rakeback provider's reports? But for normal anaylsis (such as how much rake we're paying per 100 hands, whether we're beating the rake), we need to know the REAL amount of rake paid.

SharkSandwich
03-18-2011, 04:44 AM
Yeah we obviously were talking about two different things.

I don't personally see the purpose of knowing the rake taken in pots you won though? Why would we need this?

The Rake stat as is (when working correctly without the JPR) is superuseful as it allows us, and the software, to work out our rakeback. Which then allows us to see our real total profit, which can be used on the graphs and stuff.

How much my won pots have been raked just seems completely irrelevant to me. Interesting perhaps, but not at all useful.

Anyway I guess we got it sorted out, and I can now confirm more than ever that JP rake has been included. When even some of the HEM people were saying it wasn't.

DeepBlue
03-18-2011, 08:33 PM
Can anyone else chime in if this was intended behavior, that the Rake figure is not actual rake paid but the calculated rake for purposes of rakeback?

As for your question, it kind of surprises me - it's like a business asking why they would keep track of business expenses like rent and supplies. It's important because it tells us how much rake /100 we pay for different game types and different styles we might play. Moreover, it tells us how much we're actually losing to the rake! Like maybe you had a bad day, but when you look, you see that you paid more than that in rake, so you know you were beating the game, but not the rake.

I don't see why someone would want to know an approximation of their rake paid when they can know the actual rake paid. The approximation is only used for rakeback, so I only need to see the right figure in the Rakeback column pertaining to that. Otherwise I want to know the absolute amount of rake taken from me.

carr1
03-18-2011, 09:47 PM
Here and reporting for duty Cap'n.

LOL:)

But seriously, thank you for looking into this Shark. I'm super busy so not entirely sure of DeepBlue's issue but I'll take a guess: I don't think HEM calculates true rake taken out for us individually for any site... I may be wrong. I believe they do calculate our MGR and the BBJ should not be a part of this. I agree with DeepBlue that seeing our actual true rake paid would be a huge benefit. But once again, I don't believe HEM does this for any site. So the matter at hand is getting the BBJ rake put into a separate column and not included as overall rake!

DeepBlue
03-18-2011, 11:23 PM
Yeah I guess I was just naive about this for the past 4 years! (Also I suppose in reality it wouldn't matter too much if it's about the same anway, but the fact that here it includes BBJ rake was what made me notice, so at the end of the day, my problem truly is the same as Shark's, just that I wasn't expecting the Rake figure to be calculated as such in the first place, so it threw me off.)

I wonder if PT also calculates Rake as such, and doesn't give the raw figure from the HH files? Maybe I'll trial it sometime to see.

carr1
03-19-2011, 01:42 AM
OK, now that we've got that out of the way it's time HEM fixed this.

DeepBlue:
I share your frustration that we can't have all the data we want. However, the BBJ issue has been the cause of frustration for a lot of us for a long time. This is what we want fixed at the moment. I'd like to see true rake too, but one thing at a time right?

In the mean time I suggest:
1) Look at the rake comparison at pokertableratings. Go to Tools>Site Rake Analysis. You can see the BBJ drop has a huge effect on total rake paid. BBJ rake is included in these figures- I emailed them to make sure.
2) Each site publishes its own rake chart- compare these.
3) In HEM you can use filters to calculate the BBJ rake you paid. Under sessions, filter won hand=true and Final pot size in BBs is bigger than (input the amount of big blinds that triggers at least a .25 pot at your stakes. At .50/1 limit this is 10bbs. BTW this is another error is HEM. It is big blinds but they have it labeled as big bets). This will give you the number of hands that you paid an extra 50 cents on. Over 1000's of hands you may be shocked how much extra you pay.
4) Like I said before you can play a few thousand hands at different sites and compare actual winrates. Make sure to take into account rakeback + other incentives. I'd be VERY surprised if you weren't doing better at Full Tilt at .50/1 limit than AP/UB. IMO the only thing that could make you come out better at AP/UB is if you hit enough table shares to make up for the extra rake.

DeepBlue
03-19-2011, 10:39 AM
Yeah I definitely agree, if that's how rake is anyway, might as well fix it "as is" by getting rid of the jackpot component.

So that means right now the rake DOES include the jackpot, so when I do the filtering (which I was already doing, thanks anyway - I also picked up on the bb being mislabeled), that means that is part of the rake being reported. Darn, that means I am not as big a winner as I thought, since obviously I was considering jackpot rake to be a separate huge entity on top of the rake being reported (even if it did seem off). That sucks!

You're right, on FTP it probably would be better, but I refuse to play there anymore. I get spooked by the number of coolers I got there a year ago. :eek:

Guess I'll stick with NL again instead. Just hope the rake can still be fixed cause hopefully I will be at the NL $50 bad beat tables soon enough.

olliepower
03-30-2011, 12:55 AM
Hi,

We have a fix prepared for this, but we need some beta testers for it. If anyone would like to test the new build that includes this fix please email

support@holdemmanager.com

In subject line include

Urgent Att: Morny in the subject

morny
03-30-2011, 02:43 PM
The wrong email address was in the last post Ive changed it now, if you sent it to the last email address then please resend to the correct address

SharkSandwich
04-05-2011, 12:46 AM
Don't know if anyone's been trying this.

I've been using it the last few days and so far so good.

Any rake calcs I've done on small sessions have been spot on.

HEM MGR is very close to figure reported by rakeback site. It's slightly lower, but I know of at least one major hand that didn't save/import. So my guess is it's actually accurate to the cent.

morny
04-06-2011, 12:31 AM
Good to hear, let me know if you have any further issues

SharkSandwich
04-06-2011, 04:20 AM
Just the one as recently posted in this thread (http://forums.holdemmanager.com/poker-site-support/65261-one-hand-not-importing-into-ub.html) Morny. Which was why I had a non-imported hand, as above.

It just seems to be a simple issue where split pots have added BBJ syntax.

Total Pot($251.08:$197.40,$53.68) | Rake ($3:$2.36,$0.64) | Jackpot Rake ($0.50:$0.50,$0)
These hands don't import at all.

But changing it to regular syntax they import fine.

Total Pot($251.08:$197.40,$53.68) | Rake ($3:$2.36,$0.64) | Jackpot Rake ($0.50)

So it looks like it just needs something added so it recognises
"Jackpot Rake ($0.50:$0.50,$0)" (and maybe more than one $0 for 4-way+ split pots)
as regular JP rake.

Sarek
04-06-2011, 06:59 AM
Quote from 06d changes list:
Fixed Bad Beat Jackpot on UB rake issues - Fix implemented but may need more tweaking

ashleyc
04-08-2011, 10:23 AM
As I said in the other thread the update has not corrected it. To import the hands you need to manually change the HH syntax from

Jackpot Rake ($0.50:$0.50,$0)

to Jackpot Rake ($0.50)

carr1
04-09-2011, 11:54 PM
So besides the bug mentioned above the latest version of HEM has fixed the issue?

SharkSandwich
04-10-2011, 12:49 AM
I'm pretty confident it has. Yes.

Needs people to check MGR to be sure though.

carr1
04-11-2011, 03:26 AM
Wow, this is great news. Thanks to the folks at HEM for implementing this! Finally, the wait is over.