Moving up for lower rake?

[mithras]

Over here in the Netherlands we have a state monopoly on casino's, and they charge a hefty rake on the few poker tables they have.

On the 2/4 limit table the rake is 10% with a maximum of 8 or 10 dollar (2 big bets)

On the 5/10 table the rake is a much better 5%. Would these numbers warrant it to play slightly underrolled at the 5/10 games? (The competition is a bit or maybe more than a bit better at the 5/10 as opposed to the 2/4 tables.)

[*TT*]

How many bets are in your bankroll at 5/10? Are you familiar with bankroll theory? Have you read Gambling Theory and other topics?

[swope]

jamie gold actually had some insightful words on this topic (go figure). during an interview, he was asked if he had any advice for up and coming players, and he said (paraphrased);

"move up to the highest limits you can afford, because when you play at low limits, the house gets every penny at the table through rake."

flys in the face of basic bankroll management theory at surface value but i must admit, i think the premise holds water.

[SellingtheDrama]

My take on level/limit selection has always been to play the highest $$EV game that I can sit down at, while always being willing to take a chance on moving up if I can fade a single-session 'normal' loss.

Given the higher relative rake (in terms of pot size for either rake or timed games) in a smaller game, I absolutely agree with Jamie.