Why does the rake increase when we move up, haven't people made a fuss about this? Don't read 2p2 much, anyone aware of a discussion there?
FTP
8.3% @ $6+0.50
9.1% @$11+1,$33+3,$55+5
7.6% @$110+9
Stars
6.7% @$15+1
8% @$25+2
8.6% @$35+3
9.1% @$55+5
7.9% @$105+9
????????????
Which genius came up with these structures?
I think the pattern is clearer if you look at the regular SNGs first. Historically, regular SNGs came before turbo SNGs on PokerStars at least. Then the turbo SNGs were added with the same rake, but usually slightly higher buy-ins, to fill some of the gaps between regular SNGs.
I agree that it is a shame that the rakes are so high in high stakes SNGs, and I think this is part of the reason there are few people who play high stakes SNGs professionally. This also means that the high stakes SNGs run less frequently.
There's a damn load of regs in 2p2 that regurlaly complain about this and propose changes. Rooms don't do anything about it though.
Medium and high stakes are reg-filled, and if that isn't bad enough you have to beat a higher rake = no wonder sngs are dying.
They should fix this (and get rid of DoNs).
So assuming that i can keep adding tables without affecting my ROI too much, I would be better off playing lower stakes games where the players are worse (higher ROI) and the rake is lower (higher ROI)? I should just add tables to boost my hourly rate.
They should fix this (and get rid of DoN's).
Turbo Dons have 4% rake on Stars, i think they are most profitable all limits. Which is the reason for small number of players on regular SnG's(and the hi rake). I play them but they are the worst form of poker for someone to play, you cant learn or play anything else then tight 5/5 first 3-4 levels (that's not poker)(you will have more fan if you are super nit) , plus they are boring and poker rooms made them for multitabling bot's(i play 20+ on 19" monitor,and i only 1 month ago play more then 4 tables).
My point is why Poker Stars encourage people to play this anti poker?
Originally posted by elhh82
So assuming that i can keep adding tables without affecting my ROI too much, I would be better off playing lower stakes games where the players are worse (higher ROI) and the rake is lower (higher ROI)? I should just add tables to boost my hourly rate.
That's what happens on Stars. Some REALLY good regs just keep grinding $16s (lowest % rake for turbos). Check out sippin_criss on SharkScope, for instance. Instead of moving up and dealing with sick swings, he simply 25 tables $16s.
Many players have taken the path of adding more tables instead of moving up. This has gotten so popular that some players skip learning to beat the games first, and start 9-tabling as losing players. That usually doesn't end well.
Even the top player sacrifice ROI to play so many tables. You time out on the nuts, you overlook that someone raised in front of you, or that there was a microstack, you don't bother to drill down into your advanced HUD statistics, and some people even lose track of a table and blind off. In addition, most players find that they do not learn as much when they play as many tables as they can. If you are playing professionally already, then your main concern should be getting in the table-hours with your decent ROI. However, many players should have learning as a higher priority. As you are trying to learn how to handle situations and are trying to interpret your opponents' actions, don't play the maximum number of tables that you can. When you learn, you can have a higher ROI on the same number of tables, or the same ROI on more tables, or the same ROI on the same number of tables at higher stakes, whatever you prefer.
Sippin_Criss is a friend of mine. I think he would win more if he moved up, and he has taken quite a few shots at higher levels. However, it is also the case that the achievable ROI drops as you move up, and the $16 turbos have a large supply of casual players and bad regs whose games Sippin_Criss understands remarkably well*. A set loads very rapidly, even if you want to play more than 20 tournaments at once. So, while I think staying at the $16s is a mistake for him, it is not as large of a mistake as it might appear at first.
* In one triple commentary session (which will probably not ever be released), I had the mouse with about 8 players left. A reg limped in early position, the button shoved for 10 bb, and I called in the SB with AKs without waiting for the other coaches to confirm my decision. Sippin_Criss said, "No! That reg only limps high pocket pairs, QQ+!" before his KK was flipped over. That type of read, combined with dedicated study with SNG Wizard, is part of why he is the only player I know in those games whose 95% confidence interval is entirely above a 10% ROI. That is, in case his results are just because he was as lucky as he would get 1 time in 40, his ROI should still be over 10%. Many players have an ROI over 10% briefly, but probably got lucky to do so.
