Rake - partypoker vs pokerstars

[Perseus]

yes lets send lots more 2+2ers to WPX good idea thanks!

[AlienBoy]

Dunno about being worried about rake:

Rooms with higher rake have a higher percentage of FISH, and therefore are more profitable.


AB

I hunted this down at one point and found a guy who had a bunch of hands at several major sites and PokerStars was generally the lowest rake.

I think one of the middle levels, like 3/6 or 5/10, was the only exception for whatever reason.

[recondite7]

[ QUOTE ]
yes lets send lots more 2+2ers to WPX good idea thanks!


[/ QUOTE ]

There are lots of bad 2+2ers and seriously who knows anything about WPX anyway besides poker forum people

[CountDeMonet]

[ QUOTE ]

The games are GOOD and you aren't crippled by a ridiculous rake.



[/ QUOTE ]

Their games SUCK MAJOR ASS !!! Average pots are the LOWEST you will find anywhere.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
Dunno about being worried about rake:

Rooms with higher rake have a higher percentage of <font color="red"> affiliates, </font> and therefore are more profitable <font color="red"> for affiliates</font>.


AB

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[Self Made]

The actual answer is here.

[Black winter day]

I knew, Stars has lower rake than Party.

[tom10167]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do they pay you guys to come and hijack every single freaking thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

The real shame is that this thead was really going places, before that nasty hijacking.

Now can somebody link me to Google?

[/ QUOTE ]

POTD

[bvaughn]

I'm not sure what games you're playing, but I think the ones I've played are good. A high average pot does not necessarily mean a good game. I'll take a table full of passive, predictable players (lower pot avg.) versus a table full of aggressive, unpredictable LAGs (higher pot avg.) any day. Of course, I'm not that good of a player either so maybe that's why I suck in LAGgy games.