NL30 Live Session with w34z3l

  • Recorded coachings
  • NL BSS
  • $30
(3 Votes) 7626

JOIN NOW TO VIEW THE FULL VIDEO

Free membership

Join now
 

Description

Live play session on NL30 Snap Poker by our coach, enjoy!

Tags

888 coaching fast live play Live Video snap stream weasel webinar Zoom

Comments (4)

newest first
  • Tim128

    #1

    Because this video was about rake caps for a large part I did check the numbers...

    On NL5 the pot on a 6max table needs to be 25$ (500BB) to hit the cap, so basically it never hits the cap unless 2 deep stacks meet.

    (Calculation: Cap = 1$, rake = 4.15% -> 4.15% * 25 = $1.03 slightly above the cap)

    For NL10 this becomes: 330BB (33$)
    For NL25 this becomes: 170BB (44$)
    For NL50 this becomes: 80BB (40$)

    So as a micro stakes player (NL10 and below) you shouldn't really take the cap in consideration, because even an normal all-in won't hit the cap. From NL25 and beyond it does matter a lot.
  • Donboss

    #3

    I dont realy like SNAP
  • w34z3l

    #4

    @Tim128 - The cap absolutely has to be taken into consideration.

    The point here is that while the cap might rarely be hit at 888 on some limits, the rake cap will be hit frequently at other sites at the same limit.

    So it's not possible just to compare the % of rake taken when one site hits the cap frequently and another hardly ever hits the cap. Two sites can have the same % rake but one is literally charging double the other in bb/100 purely because of the cap.
  • Tim128

    #5

    @Weazel

    I forgot to mention that the numbers I gave were from pokerstars, which was said to have the smallest caps, so for example on NL5 the cap is never reached (ofcourse with the exception when 2 enormous stacks meet) on neither pokerstars nor 888 so I don't think it really matters on that limit.

    On the contrary the cap is reached quite quickly on NL50 on pokerstars, but on 888 the cap is twice as big so at NL50 it matters a lot on which site you play rakewise!

    So the point I was trying to make is that on the really small limits, the cap is almost insignificant because even at the site with the smallest cap, it rarely hits the cap.