[MicroBob]

Interesting analysis.
but I do have some disagreements.


[ QUOTE ]
But isn't a lower rake structure the best rakeback of all?

[/ QUOTE ]


Not really.
I would take a higher rake-structure if even higher rake-back went along with it.

If a site asked me, "We will increase your RB by 5%...or we will lower the rake-structure by 5%...which do you choose?" I would choose the increased RB.

I am playing tighter than most of my opponents. I am making more in RB on the hands that I am folding then I would gain in rake-savings (if lowered rake-structure) on the pots that I am winning.

A TAG-ish player on a 10-player table might be winning 7% of the pots.
Other players at the table are averaging 11% of the pots each.



[ QUOTE ]

Raked hands = 74.3%

[/ QUOTE ]


Don't they start to rake a bit lower than $20 pots though?
Do they take out $0.25 when pot hits $10?
Don't feel like checking but this would account for the discrpency of course.



[ QUOTE ]
they collect less rake on top of it.

[/ QUOTE ]


Is the rake-structure better?
Or do they just take less rake per hand on average?

If they are taking out less-rake per hand then this could just be a result of the pot-averages being smaller.


I just responded to a different thread where somebody made the mistake of assuming that one site was better than another because the average rake taken per hand is significantly less than Party's.
Well...Party's pot-averages are higher...thus they will also be raking more.


I conceded that party's rake-structure is worse also (because of the $0.50 increments every $10...and Stars does a $70 max-rake instead of $60).

Party: Pot = $51, Rake = $2.50
Stars: Pot = $69, Rake = $2.00


but just saying that Party's rake is worse because they take out more per hand is incorrect.

What if a site is getting $100 average pots on a 3/6 table?
Obviously they are going to be raking more than another site where the average pot is $17.
Even if their rake 'structure' is the same or better their 'average rake per hand' will be higher.


AP has a rep for tightish players and smallish pots. Obviously lower rake per-hand is related to this too.


I have considered absolute but I still hate the software for slowing down my computer (although not as much anymore).

I would need to set up a new acct anyway as I had previously signed-up there before RB.