What?!?!?! Party takes big rake

[WSOP2007]

I'd like to know how much rake party is taking compared to other sites on 100NL.

I've calculated that party takes about 9PTBB/100(including monster) on 100NL, is this correct?

Also could any1 tell me how much they take on FT and UB? Thanks!

[Push_Fold]

Dude Party takes a huge chunk - this has been hashed over in a bazzillion threads last month.

If you want to not worry about paying rake go to WSEX - rakefree.

[alimomoney]

If the idea is to minimize rake, go where the rake is lowest. If the goal is to make the most money.....

[Grey]

[ QUOTE ]
If the goal is to make the most money.....

[/ QUOTE ]Party still loses by a big margin.

[Equal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the goal is to make the most money.....

[/ QUOTE ]Party still loses by a big margin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. I'm not sure if it's that people just haven't played at the littler sites, or it's because Party is the biggest, or if it's people simply lying to try and "protect" the juicy sites, but Party certainly isn't the most profitable site.

[Legend27]

Well I played hands 69,595 this month on NL and PL 100 and my total rake was $6,498 and the Monster jackpot drop was $1,380

[poloplayer909]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the goal is to make the most money.....

[/ QUOTE ]Party still loses by a big margin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. I'm not sure if it's that people just haven't played at the littler sites, or it's because Party is the biggest, or if it's people simply lying to try and "protect" the juicy sites, but Party certainly isn't the most profitable site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you say Full Tilt is more profitable?

[Ali shmali]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the goal is to make the most money.....

[/ QUOTE ]Party still loses by a big margin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. I'm not sure if it's that people just haven't played at the littler sites, or it's because Party is the biggest, or if it's people simply lying to try and "protect" the juicy sites, but Party certainly isn't the most profitable site.

[/ QUOTE ]

I keep seeing these posts and it's not that simple. there's much more to making money then a soft site. Server reliability, multi-tabling, game selection at all hours, security, etc..
If you play one table i'm sure there are many more profitable sites then party. If you play 10 tables at a time and at different hours every day you are going to make more money on party then any other site out there.

[spino1i]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I played hands 69,595 this month on NL and PL 100 and my total rake was $6,498 and the Monster jackpot drop was $1,380

[/ QUOTE ]

something doesnt add up here. You mean to say you paid on average a dollar in rake when you won a hand?! I think your calculations for the normal rake are off. Though monster drop looks about right.

[destroBU]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the goal is to make the most money.....

[/ QUOTE ]Party still loses by a big margin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. I'm not sure if it's that people just haven't played at the littler sites, or it's because Party is the biggest, or if it's people simply lying to try and "protect" the juicy sites, but Party certainly isn't the most profitable site.

[/ QUOTE ]

I keep seeing these posts and it's not that simple. there's much more to making money then a soft site. Server reliability, multi-tabling, game selection at all hours, security, etc..
If you play one table i'm sure there are many more profitable sites then party. If you play 10 tables at a time and at different hours every day you are going to make more money on party then any other site out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention that the rake is decreasingly important the higher you go. What he says may be closer to accurate at lower limits, but I don't think it's even close at mid/high limits.