Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?

[ajml]

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.

[_dave_]

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]

[CheckCheckFold]

[ 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.

[ibluffoldladies]

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[BradleyT]

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.

[RoundTower]

[ 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.

[MelchyBeau]

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