Destroyed by Rake

    • w34z3l
      w34z3l
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 03.08.2009 Posts: 13,295
      Ok, so I've looked at this chart many times before. Never really thought about it too much. Below is average rake paid per 100 hands across a variety of networks, courtesy of pokertableratings.



      First thing to note is that there are some errors with the chart. For example Ipoker might appear to have some of the cheapest 25nl games on the net, but these are really 20nl games. Party appears to have the cheapest 5nl games on the net, but these are really 4nl games.


      The second general observation is that, the higher up in stakes you go, the less important nitpicking over rake amounts is because we are dealing with much a much smaller decrease in winrate across sites. For example 25nl pokerstars you will pay rake at a rate of ~6bb/100 hands while at 1000nl pokerstars you will pay rake at 1.5bb/100. 25nl party-poker on the other hand charges a whopping 10bb/100 hands in rake - a 66% increase over stars. 1000nl party (which doesn't exist anymore) is not as good as 1000nl stars, but the difference is proportionally smaller.


      This means if you are breaking even at 25nl on party poker you are essentially winning at 10bb/100 but just not seeing any profit for it. If you played the exact same game on pokerstars you'd be beating the games for 4bb/100. Might be a low winrate, but it is profit and certainly not to be sniffed at.


      I want to think specifically about what this means for 2 deals that a lot of you currently have, specifically looking at micro-stakes where it makes the biggest difference. And please note I'm not trying to sway you from one deal/site to another, I'm just highlighting the facts. Many of you have a 30% deal on party right now (27% + I heard the extra points might add up to 3% for a micro-stakes grinder). Many of you also have a deal-me-in bonus at full-tilt which I was told adds up to 47% (40% dmi + additional 7% through points etc). These RB figures may not be completely accurate but you can always adjust them depending on your actual RB%.


      So first party. If you play 25nl on party you are paying $2.64/100 in rake. You receive 30% of that back. Total Rake paid after RB is therefore $1.84/100. The default rake you pay at pokerstars (and this not including any rakeback whatsoever) is $1.59/100. So hold on, with 0% rakeback at stars you are still paying less rake than at party with a 30% deal.


      Ok full tilt. If you play 10nl on full-tilt, Default rake is $1.11/100. (It's possible this has changed under new ownership, PTR had to stop tracking after all). Assuming 47% of this is returned (and this is only the case for 3 weeks, afterward it will be 25% max RB under edge deal) we are paying $0.58/100. With 0% rakeback at stars you'd pay $0.66/100. That's pretty close - and given that even with the lowest VIP level at stars you'd still get 12% or so RakeBack, once again stars is the better deal even with 47% RB at full tilt


      I've seen in the forums that FTP is bit of a reg fest at the moment. Everyone is in a mad rush to grind at a room that gives them the best rakeback deal. Ironically they might have been better off at the room they came from - since obviously a higher percentage of rake back does not automatically mean your net-rake paid is going to be less.


      Anyway, this wasn't supposed to be a long thread. Apologies if it's hard to read and/or contains errors, I've had several drinks but this was bugging me and I wanted to post.
  • 24 replies
    • Darkyd10
      Darkyd10
      Bronze
      Joined: 08.04.2010 Posts: 1,328
      haha ive noticed that my friend when i was calculating same thing few months ago. its stupid but really no reason to play other rooms other then more fish, because of the rake paid. rakeback is bullshit if u really do the math, stars still wins. Thats why i <3 stars :p
    • MatejM47
      MatejM47
      Black
      Joined: 21.01.2010 Posts: 1,193
      Nice analysis and yeah you are more then correct. So many focus on rakeback instead of total rake payed after rakeback. Playing NL50 or bellow anywhere but stars is just dumb. Your paying up to 50% more rake and there's no way the games are that much softer on other rooms.

      In fact stars has a bunch of fish and if your able to table select halfway decent then you can get more soft tables then on any other network. Who cares if there's more regs, there's also more fish and the fact that regs are a bit better then elsewhere is easily compensated by lower rake.

      And overall if you grind at nl25-50 you can still easily hit SN if you put in decent volume for 40% rakeback which is higher then on party or tilt. Party is the worst of them all, having at least 20% higher rake and 10% lower rakeback. On top of that their games aren't fishy at all compared to stars and their software sux. Your pretty much overpaying for a shitty software with reginfestedgames :)
    • SillySaurus
      SillySaurus
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.01.2010 Posts: 206
      It's a jungle. And those rake numbers differ from the ones we find here on PS.com under the different poker forum rooms. :P But as I understand, the numbers gathered by PS.com are more up to date, so I mainly look at those. :f_grin:
    • Targetme
      Targetme
      Bronze
      Joined: 04.05.2009 Posts: 1,888
      wish I knew that when I was one of a few winning nl25 regs on party
    • cozacu
      cozacu
      Bronze
      Joined: 14.02.2010 Posts: 1,379
      What about Microgaming network?
    • OoT4NKoO
      OoT4NKoO
      Bronze
      Joined: 01.10.2012 Posts: 92
      Good morning,

      I am thinking of moving my role to Unibet on the microgaming network which gives me 30% rakeback. Here is their rake information:

      Rake information The "Rake" is the percentage of the pot that goes to the House. The Microgaming Poker Network uses the ‘paid rake’ or ‘weighted contributed’ method of rake calculation. The rake you generate depends on how much you put into the pot, the table limit and number of players. The player who actually wins the pot "pays" the rake which is limited to 5% for most tables with some micro stakes tables at 10%. Example: If you are involved in a €60 pot of which you put in €6, you have contributed 10% of the pot. If the House rake limit for that table is 5%, you would generate 30 cents in rake (5% of 60 = €3. 10% of €3 = 30c). The player who wins the pot will have the 5% deducted from the pot of €60 which means that they actually win €57. For tables with 3-10 players and stakes above 0.05/0.10, the House takes 5% of the pot up to a maximum of €3 or $3 – depending on the table currency. For heads up tables with stakes above 0.05/0.10, the House takes a maximum of 5% up to €1/$USD. For all tables with stakes lower than this, the House takes 10% up to a maximum of 10 cents in the table currency.


      As I will be playing NL10 moving up to NL25 would I be better off playing at stars?

      T4NK
    • nabokow
      nabokow
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.01.2008 Posts: 165
      that chart is outdated.
    • OZSA
      OZSA
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.05.2009 Posts: 804
      yes the chart is outdated, but, stars has even lower rake than the chart says. The chart was made about 2years ago, and since that, stars has 4.5% base rake, and even lower for nl2 nl5, so stars has lowest rake for micro grinders and even high stakes, also rake cap is lowest on stars aswell, judging by rake its the only site to play at.
    • nabokow
      nabokow
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.01.2008 Posts: 165
      e.g. FTP NL25+ and Party NL25+ have both 5pct and 3 dollar cap
      stars great for NL10 and lower, as u earn more VPP per dollar raked, I agree that rake is lower considerably up to NL50, higher there is little difference and one should consider player pool as well.
    • w34z3l
      w34z3l
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 03.08.2009 Posts: 13,295
      It would be nice to see an up to date chart somewhere.
    • Heffron89
      Heffron89
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.01.2009 Posts: 813
      The rake on new ftp is 6,66% for nl2, 5 and 10, which is ridicilious imo.
    • nabokow
      nabokow
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.01.2008 Posts: 165
      true, I was -1bb/100 over 25k hands there after reopen at NL10

      thing with Party is, u need to rake 10k before u can afford 30pct + additional rb from promos, unless u are in that gemstone promo, where u get 10pct, unfortunately I dont have my Party or WPT tracked...you can try to bonuswhore support as well, can get 20pct sometimes.

      agreed that there is lot of fish at stars, one just needs to create new tables, fish does not use waiting lists.
    • Jitroceler
      Jitroceler
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.05.2010 Posts: 217
      Originally posted by w34z3l
      It would be nice to see an up to date chart somewhere.
      +1

      Can somebody post a link with updated rake chart or something like that please? Also it would be nice if pokerstrategy will make similar chart and keep it updated.
    • acetbfish
      acetbfish
      Bronze
      Joined: 11.03.2011 Posts: 804
      Pokerstrategy actually has an updated chart for every network. Just got to the forum of the poker room you want to check and click on promotions and information.
    • jbpatzer
      jbpatzer
      Bronze
      Joined: 22.11.2009 Posts: 6,944
      Originally posted by acetbfish
      Pokerstrategy actually has an updated chart for every network. Just got to the forum of the poker room you want to check and click on promotions and information.
      I'm guessing, but I suspect that Full Tilt may not be there.
    • Jitroceler
      Jitroceler
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.05.2010 Posts: 217
      Yep, fulltilt is missing there. But whatever, nice to know that I´am getting ripped with 10bb/100 rake on every poker room on my limit. :(
    • nabokow
      nabokow
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.01.2008 Posts: 165
      We used a sample size of 500,000 hands for each limit and table size and applied the current rake structure to these sample hands. As a result we got the numbers above.

      one should consider stars is slightly tighter than other rooms as well, so in reality difference should not be that huge

      let's say we analyze NL25 stars and NL25 party
      stars has 4.5pct rake cap 2
      party 5pct rake cap 3 (well, usually u pay 2.5 100bb deep, right)


      according to pokerstrategy analysis, average player pays 7.5bb/100 at stars and 9.5bb/100 at party, while I think in reality numbers like 7.5 and 8.5 might be more accurate - and imo your winrate can be better at party by more than 1bb/100
    • SillySaurus
      SillySaurus
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.01.2010 Posts: 206
      Originally posted by w34z3l
      It would be nice to see an up to date chart somewhere.
      +1

      It's true we can find out ourselves, but an up do date chart would be sexy as hell. :f_love:
    • ferdy81
      ferdy81
      Bronze
      Joined: 21.08.2011 Posts: 150
      This is probably the most up to date (6.11.2012) graphical effective rakeback comparison for Stars, FT, Party and Titan. There are many details on how this was calculated (VIP levels, FDB, happy hours, etc..) and should be quite accurate for an overall comparison. Found on another affiliate site.

      Up to 20k yearly rake volume:



      More than 20k yearly rake volume:
    • 1
    • 2