[Closed] Microstakes Rake

Originally posted by AlCaTrAzzALZ
i still recommend the best thing for a micro grinder to do is not worry about rake and focus more on table selection and working on your game. i'm assuming NL10 would be fairly fishy anyway, as anyone half decent would have beaten the limit and moved up already.

just focus on playing good ABC poker, take notes on any regs you might come across, and beat the game FPP's are a nice bonus on top of that, but focus more on actually beating the game, not trying to be a RB winner

-AlC, NL50 RB winner

the thing is, why should you play on a site that has like 40% higher rake on a limit then another site ? I wish I started on stars, I really do, would have at least 3k $ more in my cashier coz of the rake, and thats only NL10:) cant wait to get my goddamn withdraw from FT and see with my own eyes how much the rake difference will be on stars.

I think it all evens out pp has crazy rake but because of it less regulars but ive only played 1 site and it happens to be raked the highest makes me wonder...

Originally posted by OZSA

Originally posted by AlCaTrAzzALZ
i still recommend the best thing for a micro grinder to do is not worry about rake and focus more on table selection and working on your game. i'm assuming NL10 would be fairly fishy anyway, as anyone half decent would have beaten the limit and moved up already.

just focus on playing good ABC poker, take notes on any regs you might come across, and beat the game FPP's are a nice bonus on top of that, but focus more on actually beating the game, not trying to be a RB winner

-AlC, NL50 RB winner

the thing is, why should you play on a site that has like 40% higher rake on a limit then another site ? I wish I started on stars, I really do, would have at least 3k $ more in my cashier coz of the rake, and thats only NL10:) cant wait to get my goddamn withdraw from FT and see with my own eyes how much the rake difference will be on stars.

but if you've paid $3k more rake on FTP than you would have on stars, maybe it's time to work on your game and move up from NL10?

would be interested if you posted total hands played at NL10, total rake paid and what the difference would be on stars for that rake?

alcatrazz, if you read my blog u will understand why i didnt move up, and I really want to, once I can get out my cash from FT, but its not that easy if you dont have netteler, and ur MB account is in EU, but u dont want to convert it to eu..

Once I will start playing on stars, I will do about 2-3weeks at NL10 and post the difference between FT. But as I checked this site
http://www.pokertableratings.com/poker-rake-analysis/no-limit-hold%27em

Stars is almost twice better then FT @ NL10. No matter how you look at it, FT takes 1 from each 15cent pot, stars takes 1cent from each 20cent pot, so thats a huge difference, rake is aprox 7% on FT, and 5% on stars even on NL25 stars is better because of the maximum rake/hand at FT is 1$ higher, which is again a big difference, not as much as at NL10 but still.

direct example is: NL10 @ Stars with 100bb you go allin vs a guy, pot is 20$ and your winning should be 20 - ( 20*.05 ) so exactly 19$
but at FT you will only win 18.64$. and over 100k hand sample thats a big difference.

I dont have all the hands since I play poker, but I have since last year august, and I will write what rake I payed, and what would I pay on stars.

So. here we go, @ FT 482k hands, 4234$ rake payed. 1cent at each 15, so 4234*15=63510$ (this is the total pots i played) if you divide that with 1cent at each 20 (stars) then its 63510/20=3175$, so difference is 1050$, however I really believe the difference is higher then this. If the PTR analysis is correct, then FT has almost double rake, but I dont know this untill I checked it. From my calculations @ FT NL10 $ rake / 100 hands is not 1.11$ like PTR says, its only 0.882$ and for stars they say 0.66$ well..thats something i gotta find out. ofc, these numbers will always differ at each player. my stats are 16.4 VPIP and WTSD 23.1.

I checked the rake generated today, and that was 0.95$/100hand - stats 15.1 VPIP and 24.7 WTSD. so rake depends on ur stats aswell.. but a fact is fact, FT has more rake no matter what how u calculate it. Once you moved up to NL50 I believe the rake becomes equal, at least pure math says it should be. max rake is same, and 5% at both, so dont know why PTR says again that stars beats FT big time in rake...you need to compare ur own database to check for the truth.

Anyway, NL25 and below go stars, above imo they are the same, except supernova beats full tilt... I see the post is just as fuckedup as my usual ones, hope you understand what I wanted to say

Originally posted by Sinnology
It looks like am doing a comercial for pokerstars, but if you look at it this way there is almost no point playing on full tilt once when you pass NL5 limit.

You are acting like a PokerStars shill considering you talk all about Stars reward system and completely ignore FullTilt's.

Unless you put in a sick amount of volume Tilt with rakeback is still the best place through NL50. Somewhere between NL100 and NL200 Stars gets better in most cases.

For anyone who doesn't play daily or near daily Tilt is probably better regardless of the limit. (Due to the straight percentage rakeback.)

Also, I personally find the euro sites like OnGame and iPoker better for my overall winrate.