|
|
#1
08-13-2007, 02:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Rake question
The past two months I have a negative result of approx. $500. But for the same period I have earned $2000 in rakeback (30%). Does this mean I have beaten my opponents but not the rake?
Does $2000 in rakeback means that i personally have paid $6666 in rake? 0,3*6666,66... = 2 000. Is this the correct way to calculate the rake? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] 
|
|
#2
08-13-2007, 02:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rake question
Should be, yes. If you use PokerTracker you can actually see how much you've paid in rake.
Note that rakeback is usually calculated per hand played, not per pot won. A good player will win fewer, bigger, pots than average. So PT might show you having paid less rake on your won pots than the site calculates you've paid by having been in the game. And incidentally, I think "beating one's opponents but not the rake," is an accomplishment worthy of celebration. For my last 20k hands I'm about even, but it probably comes to about $2k in rake. That's pretty sobering, but also a reminder that even is ahead of 80+% of the field.
|
|
#3
08-13-2007, 03:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rake question
Ok, how much would I have won if there weren't any rake?
|
|
#5
08-13-2007, 04:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rake question
Well, it's not quite that simple. My explanation above sucked, but I believe that number only holds if you're winning 1/9 of the pots 9-handed, etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think every seated player is credited equally for rakeback rather than each hand's winner[s]. So if you're playing tight-aggressive (winning fewer, bigger pots) you wouldn't have an equal share of rake. But it's a decent approximation.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
