Microstakes Rake

    • Meemawuk
      Meemawuk
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.05.2009 Posts: 758
      What is genreally accepted as the best site to play cash at the microstakes? The rake seems to be pretty unreasonable at many of them and I'm looking for easy ways to increase my BB/100 whilst I try to improve my game.
  • 24 replies
    • Hahaownedlolz
      Hahaownedlolz
      Bronze
      Joined: 24.04.2009 Posts: 1,755
      If you consider what your getting for your money then the poker sites rake is quite rediculous. Especially if you grind alot or play high stakes.


      Your options are pretty much.. play on a site with lower rake.. i think the 2 big ones pokerstars/fulltilt have a reasonable(comparable) rake compared to other sites. or get rakeback..
    • Meemawuk
      Meemawuk
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.05.2009 Posts: 758
      I'm talking for NL10. I'll be withdrawing and moving to a new site soon so just looking for options.
    • Wacko118
      Wacko118
      Bronze
      Joined: 21.06.2009 Posts: 300
      Im also interested in this, does anyone know the rake in bb/100 on something similar for FT especially.
      Is NL25 more profitable than NL10 in that respect or not much..

      I just went all in with $10 and had 1.20 of it taken in rake when i won....
    • Meemawuk
      Meemawuk
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.05.2009 Posts: 758
      I raked $70 this month over 10K hands at NL10 and only managed a winrate of 0.37BB/100. That means Titan are making approx 20x what I am from my efforts to beat the micros.... LOL
    • fuzzyfish
      fuzzyfish
      Bronze
      Joined: 12.01.2010 Posts: 862
      The rake is same everywhere. If it was lower there wouldn't be any point for poker rooms to operate. Would you bother to run a poker room that generates less than 25% net profit? Right, of course not.

      That's free market, take it or leave it. There's no cartel. Why would you even think there's a cartel? Who ever thinks there's a cartel is stupid. And a communist. Do you want to be a communist? No of course not. So quit whining about the rake. It's absolutely normal to pay €1000 a month for grinding NL20.
    • Meemawuk
      Meemawuk
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.05.2009 Posts: 758
      Originally posted by fuzzyfish
      The rake is same everywhere. If it was lower there wouldn't be any point for poker rooms to operate. Would you bother to run a poker room that generates less than 25% net profit? Right, of course not.

      That's free market, take it or leave it. There's no cartel. Why would you even think there's a cartel? Who ever thinks there's a cartel is stupid. And a communist. Do you want to be a communist? No of course not. So quit whining about the rake. It's absolutely normal to pay €1000 a month for grinding NL20.
      Did I say anything about a cartel? I asked a simple question about whether some sites were more micro-freindly than others. I really don't think it's worth becoming so hostile over. Chill!
    • JonikoP
      JonikoP
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.05.2010 Posts: 600
      All the sites are pretty bad for rake at the micros. Getting a decent rakeback deal will make a massive difference. FT is a good site and you get 27% RB.
    • OZSA
      OZSA
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.05.2009 Posts: 804
      If you want to play NL10 go stars, its 5% there, @ NL10 stars 5% > FT 7% (ur rakeback is less then the rake difference, im not even adding stars FPP at all, just the rake % itself)
    • w34z3l
      w34z3l
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 03.08.2009 Posts: 13,309
      http://www.pokertableratings.com/poker-rake-analysis

      This is a comparison of the average rake at different stakes across different sites.

      Might be worth a quick oggle; click no-limit holdem on the left hand side.
    • Meemawuk
      Meemawuk
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.05.2009 Posts: 758
      On a quick look, Most of the main sites are $0.01 in every $0.20 (with FT being $0.01 in every $0.15), and what varies is where the rake is capped. Tilt and stars seem to cap at $3 where Titan actually only caps it at $1.

      I suppose playing NL10 getting your stack in vs 1 opponnent should mean that the pot is rarely much over $20 so the rake will still be ~$1. Interestingly though, at Titan for instance, this $1 cap applies to the NL20 games too.

      Maybe just shuffling round the Ipoker network would be the best till I can manage hit some kind of upswing.
    • Meemawuk
      Meemawuk
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.05.2009 Posts: 758
      Originally posted by w34z3l
      http://www.pokertableratings.com/poker-rake-analysis

      This is a comparison of the average rake at different stakes across different sites.

      Might be worth a quick oggle; click no-limit holdem on the left hand side.
      Wow I must have misread Stars rake system then because it looks pretty good from that. Maybe I'll be shipping it to stars for NL10 and more traffic than Ipoker for next month
    • Meemawuk
      Meemawuk
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.05.2009 Posts: 758
      from pokertableratings rake comparison
      The data below shows the rake cost per 100 hands for the average player at a given site and limit. To calculate this number, we observed a very large number of actual games and recorded the total rake taken by the house. We then divided this number by the total number of players in those games to determine the rake paid per hand for the average player. Many factors influence how much rake is taken out of each individual game but these numbers will give you a very good sense of what you should expect to pay to play 100 hands at a certain site and limit.
      Can this not just mean that people are getting stacks in less often at stars rather than the rake system is better?
    • w34z3l
      w34z3l
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 03.08.2009 Posts: 13,309
      Yes, this is why I put the word average in Italics.

      If one site was less aggressive and generally had smaller pot-sizes the average rake might be lower.

      So you didn't necessarily misread the stars rake system.

      Maybe average rake could be a more useful reference point though, it's up to you to decide really.
    • JonikoP
      JonikoP
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.05.2010 Posts: 600
      If you want to play NL10 go stars, its 5% there, @ NL10 stars 5% > FT 7% (ur rakeback is less then the rake difference, im not even adding stars FPP at all, just the rake % itself)


      Between this and the PTR chart, it looks like Pokerstars has 4.5bb/100 hands less rake than Full Tilt at NL10! At NL10 that's like, $450 over 100k hands.

      Has anyone played NL10 at both sites and found this to be accurate?
    • OZSA
      OZSA
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.05.2009 Posts: 804
      I didnt play on stars yet, will go there in 1week aprox and check it out, but it has to be true since FT has 7% rake at NL10 and stars has 5%, 2% at 100k hands means at least 500$ as I calculated from my HEM.
    • Sinnology
      Sinnology
      Global
      Joined: 10.08.2009 Posts: 994
      This turned out to be a pretty long post wich wasnt what I planed when I began, I ve done some research and some calculations, and since math was never something I was good at it, misakes are possible if not expected.
      So if you spot any please write down, so we can corect them and have clear picture about this whole rakeback mambo jambo.

      Am playing nl5 6max on FTP and only thing that keeps me there is 27% rb, that I get every friday.

      I ve done some calculation and just solely on rakes taken per 100 hands it can bee seen that FTP takes more rake than pokerstars.

      According to this :

      6max NL5

      Stars: .52$/100 hands
      FTP : .77$/100 hands -27%rb(.208$) = .562$

      6max NL10

      Stars: 1.02$/100 hands
      FTP: 1.48$/100 hands - 27%rb( .40$)= 1.08$

      Now if we count into that the rakeback method.
      Pokerstars have delt rakeback method, which means that rake(points in this case) are equily spread to every player which received cards preflop

      Fulltilt has The weighted contributed rake( which basicly is you get 27% of your invested share of the pot, if you folded preflop, you get 0).

      Now for those, who dont know pokerstars doesnt have direct rakeback like fulltilt, but you can buy instant cash for points you generate thru your play, they name them VPPs (VIP Player points), and those, based on your VIP level are converted into FPPs( Frequent Player Points), which are basicly the points you are buying with.

      So lets take into calculation that we will play NL5 and will buy 25$ instant cash bonus.

      I mentioned before that stars have VIP levels, which basicly is that higher the level, more FPPS you get for 1VPP.
      For example if you are bronze, 1VPP = 1FPP
      Silver (which is easy to achive) 1VPP = 1.5FPP
      and so on
      LEts assume we will be bronze, so 1VPP = 1FPP for now.

      So according to FPPro site on NL10 6 max you gain 0.101 VPP / hand.

      so to achive 2500 FPPs which is required for 25$ instant cash bonus we need to play 2500/0.101 =24753 hands., which will rake 253$ to pokerstars and we get 25$, which is cca 10% of rb.

      Now remember, this is only for basic(Bronze) VIP level.
      IF you do calculations for Silver or Gold member, you will see that rb gets even bigger.

      PokerStars have one more cool thing and thats Stellar rewards.
      Its like them givving you some extra instant cash for playing.
      First few rounds you get 10$ for 750VPPS which on nl10 SH is basicly 13% rb.
      LAter you get 10$ fo 1000VPPS and 50$ for 1000VPPS, which is awesome.

      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.
      Its pretty hard to collect those points on nl5, but its achivable on nl10.

      I hope this helps, it helped me to decide where my next stop will be.

      Cheers
    • JuiceQuadre
      JuiceQuadre
      Bronze
      Joined: 05.10.2008 Posts: 2,688
      So apparently the best thing you can do is move up :f_biggrin:
    • AlCaTrAzzALZ
      AlCaTrAzzALZ
      Bronze
      Joined: 06.05.2008 Posts: 726
      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 ;)
    • JuiceQuadre
      JuiceQuadre
      Bronze
      Joined: 05.10.2008 Posts: 2,688
      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 ;)
      Nice post, i totally agree.. Micros are definitely beatable for decent bb/100 even with rake being so high..
    • 1
    • 2