Why is the prize fund for a 2k heads up game only 3.6k??
400 rake? Why? Where do they go ?? What do Replay use them for when they take them??
probably to not make the chips decrease in value over time, if only new chips entered the game and none left (you canât cash out play money 
) then the value of a single chip would go down and down and down and down. There are guaranteed prize pools which bring new chips to the tables, there are buyable chips (although itâs rare that people buy them) that bring new chips to the table. If none left the table then obviously the lower stakes would get redundant after a while because a chip that was originally worth 1, is now worth 0.5 (very extreme example though)
1 Like
how do you know that chips are buy very rare if your right who pays replay bills
I get where you are coming from . But Im not sure I agree as the chips have no value , they are free chips ? What do they do with the rake , these are used to be sold to to other players , I dont think so . Im sure Replay can make/create/issue as many chips as they want . Doubtful its as stringent as a Federal MInt. Bt thanks for taking your time to help. Appreciate it. One moâ question actually , how come my profile pic in the Community is my old one and not my new Kick-XXX one?
Please Replay , send some one to explain The Chip Economics. Thaaaaaaaaaaaank You
Gotcha covered!
http://help.replaypoker.com/knowledge_base/topics/rake-and-tournament-fees
We have a secret plan to make those a bit more useful to players in the very near future too, but that article will tell you where it goes (helps regulate the economy) and how theyâre calculated.
1 Like
Itâs very likely that it pulled that on your first visit. It may update if you log out and back in again â we use Discourse for forum software, so itâs not directly integrated into your Replay Profile.
Should be able to mess around with your forum settings/profile by clicking on your name in a post, or from your icon on the top right.
LeMow is correct. There would be massive inflation because of all of the chip bonuses. Letâs say every player who logs onto the site gets 500 chips just for logging in, thatâs over 1,000,000 new chips in circulation per day. If the site didnât take some out then many many players would have millions of chips and the lower stakes games would be pointless.
Once I got into the millions, it became difficult to care about the results or even pay attention when I play for lower stakes, so inflation is a real problem even when the currency is technically worthless.
Thanks Greg
Exactly what I was lookinâ for . Thanks man
Itâs probably more 
, just count how many QE they did (yes thatâs off topic ^^).
Hehe, you can see that with everyone getting a daily bonus, which can range up to 2500 chips. There are about 750 people seated right now, so youâre already at potential 1,875,000 just for waking up today. I donât think Iâm just speaking for myself when I say, thatâs already higher than my bankroll.
Incidentally, the topic of rake in in-person poker is pretty cool too. Iâd encourage checking out the Wikipedia article: Rake (poker) - Wikipedia
Quantitative Easing is not my specialty , but please feel free to digress
The extortionate rake taken by many casinos and online sites is another reason to stick to free poker (for now at least). From what I hear, some places take 10% with $5 max at $1/2 tables. That is a huge hit to any profits.
According to my calculations, even if I maintained the ring win-rate I have at high-stakes on Replay of 140 big blinds per hundred hands (which is an absurdly high win-rate in real-money poker) at $1/2 tables, at 25 hands per hour, I would make $580 in 8 hours, which the rake would slash to $522 (the detrimental effect of rake would be much greater due to its effect on the compounding of any winnings, but itâs too much work to calculate that more accurately). I would have to play 300 hundred days and maintain that average (ignoring the extremely high variance) in order to make $150,000 in a year. Not to mention that it would be physically impossible to play for so long. I guess in online poker it would be more reasonable, but from what I have heard the players are better. Anyway, this got me thinking.
I just found an article that says this: âAn exceedingly skilled player, one averaging 100BB/100hands, has a CRF = 300. That is, if they can keep this up for a mere 300 hands they can feel confident in their results.â I have only been tracking 600 hands so far, which is an extremely small sample, but according to the article it may be enough to draw conclusions from, at least on sites in which most players are dead money (which the article also discusses), like Replay.
It does say that a win-rate of 30bb/100 hands is unrealistic, but based on my longer term gains, 140/100 is definitely possible. Basically, I average increasing my stack by 70% over 100 hands. That sounds about right.
1 Like
"The two main findings, both of which fit nicely with the intuitions of most experienced poker players, were:
- Three-quarters of all hands never go to showdown.
- Only about twelve percent of hands are actually won by the best hand."
Huh! Thatâs crazy. I figured the best hand would, at the very least, win more based on the psychological effects and confidence in the hand. Makes me feel a lot better about folding aces.
Mainly because people raise with suited connectors / suited aces, then miss the flop, cbet and take it down vs bottom pairs and higher cards. Also middle position has to fold to a lot of weaker hands from early position raisers simply because of the possibility to get squeezed (shoved on) by the hijack / button. 12% doesnât sound right to me though, but i donât have the numbers so i canât really disprove anything.
Weâd need a topic for that ^^
Long story short, at some point the fed as an entity injected close to 100 billion $ a month in the economy (half in treasure bonds half in MBS).
30/100 is unrealistic LOL, sure on this site people are bad enough to call down with bottom / middle pair, they almost never raise you on obvious flush / straight draws and still pay off even all in bets with top pair on the most dangerous of boards. They will call your all in on a KQJT6 with a set of 10âs. But do you really think that on a level where you play poker for your main income, you will be able to keep this up? Dead money gets rarer and rarer the more you move up on the poker chain.
This site is mainly about value betting, if you only played aces and kings on a 6max table with 100bb starting stack and went all in every time you got aces or kings, you would probably double up because fishes call you with QTo. Play money sites canât be compared with âgood pokerâ in any way, shape or form.
I partially agree with you. First, I agree that the winrate one can get on Replay is completely unrealistic (as I said before). And, I agree that the competition gets much stronger at higher limits of real money poker.
But, in my hypothetical scenario I was considering only $1/2 no limit, which is the lowest level in a casino. From what I have heard/seen the level of play isnât much different from Replay because the players donât know or care about poker strategy. I was also taking into account how slow live poker games are. But, again, I agree that it is not realistic, and my original point was that even in optimal conditions, the payout isnât going to be worthwhile.