http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28/internet-poker/announcement-pokerstars-changes-rake-spin-go-prizes-battle-planets-1485512/, what an announcement. It will start after...well...3 days. I think Hyper Tubro HUSNG players suffer the most. Their action has already been screwed by Spin&Go and now this. And we can say goodbye to the profitability of any low stakes HU battle, either in HU tables or empty 6-Max tables.

Moreover, I think low stakes PLO is probably no longer worth playing at all. According to another thread earlier, http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/153/high-stakes-pl-omaha/rake-analysis-between-plo-nlhe-incl-zoom-1461881/, the winrate in PLO regular tables is only slightly better than that in NLH regular tables of the same level while the winrate in Zoom PLO is absurb...Even North Korean people can earn a better hourly rate than Zoom PLO25 players. And that's all before the change. So it is reasonable to guess that after the change the winrate in, say, PLO50 would be the same as NL50, if not less.

So here comes the question. In finance people measure the performance of a portfolio by Sharp Ratio, which equals risk premium divided by volatility. Basically it means you need to consider both reward and risk when you judge an investment. Thus the question is, if we can only win the same in both NLH and PLO, why do we bear the much bigger variance? For fun? Yes PLO is way more fun than NLH, but if you are a serious player who is trying to make a living playing poker. Fun should not be your priority. George Soros, one of the best hedge fund managers, if not the best, said once, "Good investing is boring". In this case, good investing refers to NLH.

Any thoughts?