Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

At the lowest stakes (.05/.10) Full Tilt takes a rake of %10 of the pot. Seemingly insignificant, but look what happens often in a game like omaha hi/low...

Players #1-5 enter the pot for .10, so $.50 pot preflop . The flop comes and hits player #1 hard for the low and he pushes all his money ($4.75 into the center)....everyone folds to player #5 who has a lock to the high and so he calls with the rest of his stack (also $4.75) The cards play out so the outcome is just as anticipated: player #1 takes the low, #5 wins the high. However, the $10 is now raked at %10...so both “winners” get to split a pot of $9...$4.50 each...which means they each lost $.35 on the hand!!!!! And the other 3 players in the hand each lost $.10. Full Tilt makes $1.30

So, unless one scoops, how can such a game be profitable?

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

Well, if two players massively overbet the pot with almost no other dead money out there, [censored] like this is going to happen in high/low split game.

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

OP makes a good point imo.

edit: How does full tilt make 1.30 if they only took 1 from ten?

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

[ QUOTE ]
edit: How does full tilt make 1.30 if they only took 1 from ten?

[/ QUOTE ]
They don't. OP's math needs some work.

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
edit: How does full tilt make 1.30 if they only took 1 from ten?

[/ QUOTE ]
They don't. OP's math needs some work.

[/ QUOTE ]

My bad (to coin some phrase.) $1.00 for FT.
But the point makes some sense?

I realize in my example there was a massive overbet made by both players, however from my observation, plays such as these are quite common at the very low stakes.

More subtle betting involving multple players on 4th and 5th street could easily lead to a similar outcome. So perhaps, my question really should be...does a %10 rake make for a profitable game?

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

[ QUOTE ]
So perhaps, my question really should be...does a %10 rake make for a profitable game?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I think you make a good point. That's too high at small stakes, and I wouldn't play that particular game. Imagine if three people are all in and you get quartered. You "win"! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

I think 10% in nickel-increments is indeed a pretty sucky rake and might be exaggerated for a hi/lo game.

Note that Stars, and I assume many other sites, rake at 5% for such games. Yeah, that double-rake stuff at FT really sucks in comparison. Better be a really good freaking game to justify playing such games over there instead.

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

Yeah, 10% definitely sucks and certainly makes it tougher to come out ahead. I think many people (myself included) don't pay enough attention to this issue...sometimes a higher bonus or rakeback can be negated by a higher rake.

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

The nickel dime games at Full Tilt are rarely good enough to overcome that rake differential.

Play .1/.25 nl/plo or the .25/.50 limit games or sngs or somewhere else.

They should change that rake configuration. It's ridiculous.

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

Scoop more.

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

I would imagine 99.9% of the people who play these games are oblivious to it so FT can continue to charge what they want and it doesn't affect business.

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

Suckers or oblivious, yes indeed.

Thankfully if people playing these $10nl games on FTP ever try to learn and post a hand in the 2p2 uNL forums, usually someone will let them know of this injustice and advise to play elsewhere until rolled for $25nl+

Respect to uNL [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

Totally agree with everyone - the excessive rake works out to like 7PTBB/ 100 hands or something like that even with playing like a rock.... that was FR too, I would imagine it be even higher for 6 max, and terrible for Hi/Lo Games...

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

[ QUOTE ]
At the lowest stakes (.05/.10) Full Tilt takes a rake of %10 of the pot. Seemingly insignificant, but look what happens often in a game like omaha hi/low...

Players #1-5 enter the pot for .10, so $.50 pot preflop . The flop comes and hits player #1 hard for the low and he pushes all his money ($4.75 into the center)....everyone folds to player #5 who has a lock to the high and so he calls with the rest of his stack (also $4.75) The cards play out so the outcome is just as anticipated: player #1 takes the low, #5 wins the high. However, the $10 is now raked at %10...so both “winners” get to split a pot of $9...$4.50 each...which means they each lost $.35 on the hand!!!!! And the other 3 players in the hand each lost $.10. Full Tilt makes $1.30

So, unless one scoops, how can such a game be profitable?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is called the poor man's tax. Very standard.

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

[ QUOTE ]

This is called the poor man's tax. Very standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also called rich man's greed.
[X] Standard

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

They should have enough data to determine if they make more by raking 10% and having nearly everyone lose instead of 5% and having a small percentage of those players break-even/small winners who may eventually move up and pay higher rake.

I would think they'd want every micro player to do well so they could move up and pay more rake per hand but maybe not enough of them end up moving up.

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Totally agree with everyone - the excessive rake works out to like 7PTBB/ 100 hands or something like that even with playing like a rock.... that was FR too, I would imagine it be even higher for 6 max, and terrible for Hi/Lo Games...

[/ QUOTE ]

10% rake has to be far more than that.
I would guess at least 15BB/100 hands

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

I have logged 19.7k hands of PL$10/NL$10 at FTP (all 6-max hold em).

The total rake, according to PT, for those hands is $567

That means I have paid 5670 ptbbs in rake.

19700/1970 = 100
5670/1970 = 28.7

Therefore the rake = 28.7ptbb/100

Is my math correct here? That is an outragous amount of rake. Thank god I've moved up to PL$25 since then (where I am only paying 14ptbb/100 in rake [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

If you play for full stacks at .05/.10 it takes an extra dollar out of circulation every time that happens.

Every $200 wagered in raked pots takes an extra stack out of play at nl/plo10 at Tilt.

The average pot is somewhere around $2 at that level.

Every 100 hands on a table a stack that could be going into a bankroll leaves play.
On the "better tables" that actually happens faster.

That's a serious drain at that level to moving up via playing your way up.

obv the numbers aren't exact - but thats a close enough overview of what happens.

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

Move up where they respect your rakes

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have logged 19.7k hands of PL$10/NL$10 at FTP (all 6-max hold em).

The total rake, according to PT, for those hands is $567

That means I have paid 5670 ptbbs in rake.

19700/1970 = 100
5670/1970 = 2.87

Therefore the rake = 2.87ptbb/100



[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

Ehr, it's "2835" instead of 5670.
"197" instead of "1970".
Net result is 14.4 ptbb/100.

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have logged 19.7k hands of PL$10/NL$10 at FTP (all 6-max hold em).

The total rake, according to PT, for those hands is $567

That means I have paid 5670 ptbbs in rake.

19700/1970 = 100
5670/1970 = 2.87

Therefore the rake = 2.87ptbb/100



[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Who are you trying to fool?
5670BB/197=28,8 as far as Im concerned.
I dont get where you get the figure 2,87 or 14,4from.

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have logged 19.7k hands of PL$10/NL$10 at FTP (all 6-max hold em).

The total rake, according to PT, for those hands is $567

That means I have paid 5670 ptbbs in rake.

19700/1970 = 100
5670/1970 = 28.7

Therefore the rake = 28.7ptbb/100

Is my math correct here? That is an outragous amount of rake. Thank god I've moved up to PL$25 since then (where I am only paying 14ptbb/100 in rake [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

My equations were wrong, but my answer was right (I think):

Should have read
19700/197 = 100
5670/197 = 28.7

With 27% rakeback:
20.95ptbb/100 in rake
7.75ptbb/100 in rakeback

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

I have no problem in believing the figure of 28,8.

Lets say average pot is 2$ in these games and you are playing 100hands/hour. With 10% rake it means fulltilt rake 0,2x100=20$ from every table every hour which is 3,3$/player=33BB/100hands for the average player.

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ehr, it's "2835" instead of 5670.
"197" instead of "1970".
Net result is 14.4 ptbb/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the correct answer, since 1ptbb = 2 big blinds.
14.4pt/bb is still rediculous, and we should bring this up to Doug at FTP in the next FTP suggestions thread.

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

Why exactly do you use that way of counting for?
There is no PtBB in NLholdem games.

Counting BB/100hands is pure and simple.

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

[ QUOTE ]
They should have enough data to determine if they make more by raking 10% and having nearly everyone lose instead of 5% and having a small percentage of those players break-even/small winners who may eventually move up and pay higher rake.

I would think they'd want every micro player to do well so they could move up and pay more rake per hand but maybe not enough of them end up moving up.

[/ QUOTE ]
That doesn't explain where the rake money comes from originally. They need losing players to move up, not winners.

I think it's almost always better for the house to rake more, assuming they keep the same number of players.

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

at 25nl 6m you will be paying roughly 9.6ptbb/100 in rake
at 1/2 6m you will be paying approx 4.1BB/100 in rake

Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Totally agree with everyone - the excessive rake works out to like 7PTBB/ 100 hands or something like that even with playing like a rock.... that was FR too, I would imagine it be even higher for 6 max, and terrible for Hi/Lo Games...

[/ QUOTE ]

10% rake has to be far more than that.
I would guess at least 15BB/100 hands

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree on average - the 7PTBB/100 was my rake paid, and I played like a rock (VPIP <10)