Rake calculations

[sonartec]

i just dug up my 2/4 3/6 5/10 stats from tilt, and am paying over 2.5bb/100 for all of these levels.

Are these games even beatable at that level?

[joker122]

[ QUOTE ]
anyway, its easy to datamine this at ftp and i dont think it takes long to converge. just look at summary tab and look at the column that says bb/100. at the bottom there should be a number in red. i understood that to be the bb/100 of the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

uhh..if we're talking about the same tab and same column than that number is just the average winrate of all the players you have in your DB.

EDIT - just realized why that is essentially the rake. ok n/m. will post stars numbers soon.

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]
just look at summary tab and look at the column that says bb/100. at the bottom there should be a number in red. i understood that to be the bb/100 of the rake.


[/ QUOTE ]

As usual you are right. It's the overall lose-rate of the player pool, which is to say, it's the rake.

[ QUOTE ]

i think its sick what high rake has done to low (and to a lesser extent mid) limit games. at this point its simply not feasible to build up from the low stakes learning the game in the process.


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget that the rake online is still significantly lower than the rake in live games, where you are expected to toke a buck every time you win a pot unless it's teeny tiny. And I understand that low stakes players are more likely to toke than high stakes players for some reason. Fun element I guess.

Anyway, as usual Victor is right here. Grinding up through the limits is not possible really. What is possible, is what was always possible, namely running sick hot at the low limits and aggressively moving up until you reach a level where the rake doesn't bite so hard and finally find something approximating your real win rate.

To be honest, I think that's what happened to most players, with one or two exceptions I'm aware of who played twelve billion hands of $5/10 and below before moving up.

Guy.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyway, its easy to datamine this at ftp and i dont think it takes long to converge. just look at summary tab and look at the column that says bb/100. at the bottom there should be a number in red. i understood that to be the bb/100 of the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

uhh..if we're talking about the same tab and same column than that number is just the average winrate of all the players you have in your DB.

[/ QUOTE ]

which is 0, except there is a rake.

[joker122]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyway, its easy to datamine this at ftp and i dont think it takes long to converge. just look at summary tab and look at the column that says bb/100. at the bottom there should be a number in red. i understood that to be the bb/100 of the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

uhh..if we're talking about the same tab and same column than that number is just the average winrate of all the players you have in your DB.

[/ QUOTE ]

which is 0, except there is a rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok wait but if my data is a mix of mined hands and actually played hands will the number be skewed since i have to either include my stats or not?

wouldn't a better idea be just to look at what each level's rake has for "% of pot" which is also in the summary?

[Victor]

i dont think including your hands will skew it.

[joker122]

without my data 10/20 6max is (1.76) with it's (1.59).

[Victor]

"wouldn't a better idea be just to look at what each level's rake has for "% of pot" which is also in the summary?"

i guess it depends what you are looking for or how you like to look at things.

[milesdyson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just look at summary tab and look at the column that says bb/100. at the bottom there should be a number in red. i understood that to be the bb/100 of the rake.


[/ QUOTE ]

As usual you are right. It's the overall lose-rate of the player pool, which is to say, it's the rake.

[ QUOTE ]

i think its sick what high rake has done to low (and to a lesser extent mid) limit games. at this point its simply not feasible to build up from the low stakes learning the game in the process.


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget that the rake online is still significantly lower than the rake in live games, where you are expected to toke a buck every time you win a pot unless it's teeny tiny. And I understand that low stakes players are more likely to toke than high stakes players for some reason. Fun element I guess.

Anyway, as usual Victor is right here. Grinding up through the limits is not possible really. What is possible, is what was always possible, namely running sick hot at the low limits and aggressively moving up until you reach a level where the rake doesn't bite so hard and finally find something approximating your real win rate.

To be honest, I think that's what happened to most players, with one or two exceptions I'm aware of who played twelve billion hands of $5/10 and below before moving up.

Guy.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's why I keep trying to slingshot my way up to 20/40 by playing 50/100 every time I grind for a while at 5/10 and 10/20. Unfortunately I keep losing like 50 bets and having to drop back down. Online poker is tough.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
without my data 10/20 6max is (1.76) with it's (1.59).

[/ QUOTE ]

i think that means you are a winning player. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]