It depends on the poker site. PokerStars actually charge less rake for 2NL (3,5%), but on 888 Poker the rake is higher at 2NL (6+%). Most ofter site charge a "flat" 5% across the board. The rake per pot limit does not start to really matter until 100NL, so unless you play on 888 Poker, this will only get worse, when you move up.
I play on coinpoker and SWC rake is like 2% for 2.5ishNL. They also have a grinders program if you put in a certain amount of BB towards rake you're rewarded. I put in like 500 BB (2500 chips) and the reward is 4000 chips actually 7.5$ profit
use my referral if possible - https://coinpoker.com/!Ckwt
The site is great, supepr soft, come at 8:00 AM EST for all the Aussie donks
I can see they have no licence with the Danish gaming authorities, so I can't play there
Anyway - thanks for the info
I disagree with the bolded and think the cap can have a larger impact than the percentage so you have to consider the combination of the two. I think this tiny sample exercise shows that. Feel free to do a more meaningful sample and post results if this is misleading.It depends on the poker site. PokerStars actually charge less rake for 2NL (3,5%), but on 888 Poker the rake is higher at 2NL (6+%). Most ofter site charge a "flat" 5% across the board. The rake per pot limit does not start to really matter until 100NL, so unless you play on 888 Poker, this will only get worse, when you move up.
I find it difficult to win at 1/2c cash tables.
I notice that the netto rake % is very high because you almost never hit the rake limit.
what do you think?
What does rake/blind stand for in this chart?
If rake in BB: how does it is more in nl5 than nl10? That would make no sense...
This is a very important consideration. It basically asks the question: If we hit max rake in a pot, how many big blinds will be removed from the pot as rake? It is not the absolute dollar amount being removed, it is the amount in terms of BB.What does rake/blind stand for in this chart?
If rake in BB: how does it is more in nl5 than nl10? That would make no sense...
This is a very important consideration. It basically asks the question: If we hit max rake in a pot, how many big blinds will be removed from the pot as rake?
While larger pots may be more rare. Losing 15 BB in one hand is absolutely HUGE compared to losing 0.5 BB to rake in a single hand in a large pot where rake is capped (max). One of those pots every 200 hands would decrease your win rate by 7 BB / 100 for example.
You're focusing too much on the worst case scenario here. Although it will be more rare to play a max rake pot it will still happen on occasion. Pots can also go multi way and not just heads up so even if you aren't playing super deep you can win a big pot. But far, far before we get to the max rake cap. We are still paying lots and lots of extra BB in rake. Let's look at 3 super simple rake scenarios that are probably VERY common.Sure but that only apllies if we play deep. 400bb pot would be 18bb if we take 4.5% rake. I dont play deep at all. It increases variance wich i think is a bad thing unless we are at a level were we crush the field technically and mentally. Wich i dont give myself yet. Guess the thing to take away is we should play deeper than 200bb if possible, to maximze our EV.
Another reason i can see why we pay more rake at nl5+ is that players get better, thus we play more hands postflop vs more regulars wich then increases rake and those small pots add up over time. Therefore we dont pay that much rake playing big pots, the small ones make up a large quantaty of the rake we pay.
You're focusing too much on the worst case scenario here. Although it will be more rare to play a max rake pot it will still happen on occasion. Pots can also go multi way and not just heads up so even if you aren't playing super deep you can win a big pot. But far, far before we get to the max rake cap. We are still paying lots and lots of extra BB in rake. Let's look at 3 super simple rake scenarios that are probably VERY common.
[...]
How fast is that going to add up?
I'm not sure we agree after all. I AM saying the cap is bad. I come from live poker so I don't mind the 5% rake as I'm used to 10% lol. But the cap in proportion to BBs is what bothers me. In my very limited 2NL online DB I hit the rake cap about every 400 hands over 6.5k hands (before I moved up). That is rare but it is far from never. But max rake is only the worst case scenario. If we look at all the pots where 10 BB or more was raked from the pot it's more often than every 100 hands. So you get the point. All of the pots where more than 0.5 BB are removed are brutal in the long run and add up a ton.Completely on your side here. The small pots matter. I had the impression you were saying the Rakecap is bad, wich i dont see and agree with fundiver. The rake itself is whats hurting the winrate, the cap is (never) reached.
I'm not sure we agree after all. I AM saying the cap is bad. I come from live poker so I don't mind the 5% rake as I'm used to 10% lol. But the cap in proportion to BBs is what bothers me. In my very limited 2NL online DB I hit the rake cap about every 400 hands over 6.5k hands (before I moved up). That is rare but it is far from never. But max rake is only the worst case scenario. If we look at all the pots where 10 BB or more was raked from the pot it's more often than every 100 hands. So you get the point. All of the pots where more than 0.5 BB are removed are brutal in the long run and add up a ton.
LOL but the Unibet rake cap you reference for 4NL is 25 BB. That is my whole point. Think how they can get away with charging 1/5 th of the rake percentage of other sites. It's because increasing the rake cap makes up for it. Whether or not the rake is beatable is a different discussion but when discussing if it's too high or too low I think cap has more impact than percentage although both are important and need to be looked at together.I think you can shop around and I find PS/888 are both beatable, especially regular tables
Sites like Unibet offer very low rake structure for microstakes , e.g. 1% for NL4 .
I think you can shop around and I find PS/888 are both beatable, especially regular tables
Sites like Unibet offer very low rake structure for microstakes , e.g. 1% for NL4 .
Ok I'm wrong on this one. This 1% rake is still super low even with the ridiculous cap since you can never really come close to maxing it out.LOL but the Unibet rake cap you reference for 4NL is 25 BB. That is my whole point. Think how they can get away with charging 1/5 th of the rake percentage of other sites. It's because increasing the rake cap makes up for it. Whether or not the rake is beatable is a different discussion but when discussing if it's too high or too low I think cap has more impact than percentage although both are important and need to be looked at together.
I am really trying to address your thoughts and didn't think I was talking past you at all. Please let me know what I ignored so I can address it. I believe that I understood and simply disagreed with your assessment that the cap isn't that important since it wont be hit that often. We don't HAVE to be super deep to hit the cap either. Your example is only a heads up pot. The more multi way the pot is the easier it is to hit the cap. But that is beside the point. Way before you get to even 2/3 of the cap you're getting crushed already. I thought I showed that already in examples but it seems to have been dismissed as the 4.5% being the only issue.So we agree on the fact that for the rakecap to be reached we need play deep right? (2players*222bb/100*4.5=19.98 bb rakecap) therefore to pay the maximum amount of blinds in rake. So unless we play deeper than 222bb in a headsup pot we will allways pay 4.5% -> the maximum amount.
In that sense I think we are talking past each other. (Can you say that in english?)
So the factor that decides here is not the rakecap (we essentially allways will pay 4.5%) but the amount of pots we play postflop. Now if we play in a environment we're we face a lot of regulars we have a problem because while maybe having an edge over them let's say 2bb that edge is not big enough to generate enough profit to beat the rake. Obviously it all sums up, because we will also play those guys were we have edges of 30bb+. So beating them with 2bb is a bonus. But the money comes from fish in the end.
So we need to decrease the amount of pots we play postflop.
Thus I am concluding in following points to maximize our EV (4.5% rake):
- Play deeper than 222bb
- Don't play regulars
- Play tighter