Beating the Rake @ PLO100 ?

[Elrazor]

[ QUOTE ]
We can affect rakeback through our actions

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly - i wont play at sites not offering rakeback purely out of principle, but seriously if you aint smart enough to get a rakeback deal when you are starting out, i doubt you are going to be savvy enough either at the tables or at managing your bankroll

[jbird]

[ QUOTE ]
We can affect rakeback through our actions


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Like going all in a lot at lower stakes to make sure the rake is maximum...

[warmachine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I move up to PLO100 will the effect of the rake be significantly reduced?


[/ QUOTE ]

um. yes. you explained why in your intro paragraph.

but as somebody said above, if you learn how to beat the game at a steady clip, you won't worry about rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I should have stressed "significantly" more. What I'm wondering is, after all the math is done, what the subjective impression is about how much the effect of the rake is at different levels.

I'm "beating the game" at a low but steady level, but the rake definately has a significant effect at PLO50. And even if I'm beating the game as bad as $800 profit for $100 rake at my level, that's about 11% I'm losing to rake. (Is the math right here? (800+100)/800 = 11.25?) Now if I could lessen the effect of the rake to 8% or 9% of my profit by moving up a level or two that, in my mind, would be a significant boost to my winrate in the long run.

And I do think such a consideration can have impact about decisions, maybe not on how to bet or play a particular PLO hand, but about how agressively to attempt to move up limits in relation to my bankroll. I guess if 2/4 is turning point I've got a ways to go, but my attitude would be to try to be more agressive getting to that level than going beyond it.

Thanks for input pro and con. It helps me think through the (non)issue.

-WM

[sondring]

The % of rake paid and the level of play are inversely proportional to each other.

You move up and pay a lesser % of rake, but the players are better and your winrate decreases. You seem to be forgetting this point.

[Poker monkey]

It's really dependent on your winrates at the different levels.

Go up the stakes, and the average rake taken will be higher, because pots are bigger. Also, your winrate will be lower, because players are better. This offsets the "lower % of your winnings" effect.

You just need to look at your DB and work out the BB/100 for rake at different levels, and compare that to your winrate at different levels.

So for example, if at PLO100 the rake equates to 6 BB/100 and your winrate is 8 BB/100, that's worse than if the rake at PLO50 is 8 BB/100 but you're winning at 13 BB/100, despite the $/100 you're winning being better at PLO100.

[Hattifnatt]

bump cause its an pretty important subject, at least in my (and prob more ppls) eyes.