NL10 FT vs Stars

[hohenadel]

I have been playing NL10 at both FullTilt and Pokerstars lately. I have played many more hands on Stars but I like FT better. I have winning numbers on both sites.....Seems like all is well right? Well I have a question that really puzzles me..The FT rake seems to be ENORMOUSLY higher than at Stars. Doesn't that mean that the NL10 game at FT is much harder to beat at the same rate? If any one has any info on the rake systems on the two sites or any suggestions for better strategy to beat the rake better at FT please post...

[ajrees]

I found it really hard to beat the rake at NL10 on Full Tilt. So then I did the obvious thing and shortstacked NL25 on Party and went ROBUSTO /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ICMoney]

What is the Stars/Tilt rake schedule comparison?

Do you have RB?

[hohenadel]

no I do not have rakeback........dont feel like opening a new account and re installing and everything....plus depositing is a major hassle due to living in the great U.S. of A. I dont have any info on the rakes at either site I was hoping someone else did though....

[Iwineverypot]

Here is why sir: FT's rake schedule for 10NL is $0.05 per $0.50 in the pot up to $2.00, while stars' sticks with $0.05 per $1.00 up to $3.00. There are so many more small pots than large pots that the difference from 2.00 to 3.00 is hardly noticeable compared to the difference between 5% and 10%.

[hohenadel]

so what would the suggestion be? Avoid playing NL10 at FT and try to play NL25? Or is NL10 still beatable just maybe requiring some more hands played for the same numbers as Stars for net winnings..

[castigar]

I personally have 350$ on PS to play NL10 and 1500 on FTP to play NL25. If I start running bad on FTP, I switch to PS and play NL10 for a while.

[carnivalhobo]

playing on ft without rakeback is burning money

[DaycareInferno]

you can still beat nl10 on full tilt, even with the rake, but it is very high. the way that the rake is structured, there are single hand caps, so as you move up, you hit that cap more often, in nl10, you pretty pay the max most of the time.

with a vp of 19, over the course of my 12000 hands, i ended up paying 8.9BB/100 in rake.

[spigge]

wow never realised rake at FT NL10 is SO high

[DaycareInferno]

yep. with the same vp, you'll pay more like 5BB/100 at nl25 and 4 at 50.

beating 10 is harder to beat than a lot of people give it credit for being. table selection is important, even though there are so many bad players, because you basically have to crush the game to win.

[ICMoney]

I wouldn't play at FT without rake.

Set it up once and profit forever as you move up.

Don't really think you need extensive table selection at NL10.

If you don't want RB I would stay at Stars.