Rake comparison

where i read the NL50 on ftp and stars rake ratio the same amount , something like 5% up to $3?
dont understand why you pay so much , you played NL or PLO?
i paid like 5.47bb/100 ftp rush NL50 over 34k hands

nice to know

I don't know. It might be my VPIP (I'm pretty loose) related. I play 6max with ~30% VPIP.

lol =S

u need a bigger sample than 3k hands...

Bigger sample needed. Also, I assume you won more at FTP (which automatically means you pay more rake)

I've played 131k hands on NL50 rush and payed 6069 in rake (5259 MGR)

Which is 9.2bb/100

If I count bonus + rakeback (I've got 2x500 bonuses) + rakerace (won 120 $x2) I've got around 4262 in "rakeback" when paying 15375, which is 27,7 %.

It kind of sucked when they changed system from dealt to contributed even If you are pretty loose.

Now I haven't used any of my points (around 300k ~ either, which should add a couple of percentages when I use a bonus or something).

rake is capped at $2 if its 5 handed. If you're playing Rush on FTP every single hand you play is 6 handed. On stars if someone is sitting out you can play 5 handed. Check your HEM and your "avg players" for stars will be around 5.5, which means half your hands are 5 handed and the other half 6 handed, more or less.

On May 10 2011 08:22 blackjacki2 wrote: rake is capped at $2 if its 5 handed. If you're playing Rush on FTP every single hand you play is 6 handed. On stars if someone is sitting out you can play 5 handed. Check your HEM and your "avg players" for stars will be around 5.5, which means half your hands are 5 handed and the other half 6 handed, more or less.

Wow is that right? I start tables and sit at 3 handed tables most of the time. I thought the rake was bigger not smaller :O

well, yes, my winrate so far is higher in FTP than Stars in the 3k hands I've played at FTP. I didn't know that even mattered, I just assumed it'd be a flat rate +_+

some rake analysis

http://www.pokertableratings.com/poker-rake-analysis/no-limit-hold%27em