Pacific Rake

[TheScientist]

Does anybody have stats for Pacific's rake in BB/hr for anything from about 2/4 limit- 10/20 limit? I'm trying to do a critical cost/benefit analysis and have never played on Pacific before.

[Komodo]

I dont know about limit, but according to my tracker, the rake for NL10 is 15-16BB/100h and 13BB/100h for NL25

[TheScientist]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont know about limit, but according to my tracker, the rake for NL10 is 15-16BB/100h and 13BB/100h for NL25

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, I play some NL too, so this is certainly helpful.

[Pokeraddict]

They rake uncalled bets even if it is preflop and rake a max of $4 in many limits so it is pretty bad.

[Komodo]

Thx for letting me know that
Then its pretty stupid to bet 30$ when villain got 3$ left.

[kidpokeher]

They are absolutely the worst. Rake you to the penny. Seems like almost 10% in early rounds. I asked CS to explain it to me and they couldn't do it. Best they could do was point me to this, but what this says and what's happening on the tables seem totally different.

http://www.pacificpoker.com/en/onlin...ting-limits--2,5.htm#Rake

[PotLuckPete]

It's a mixed blessing. Yes, the rake is terrible + no rakeback. However, it keeps players like 2+2 far away. The tables are so loose and so passive, I think a solid player could do quite well.

[daedalus]

I thought that too but the disconnects are terrible there, lagging tables, suck outs. I'm much happier at Party.

[MrPow]

Yeah you have all the problems there. The rake is just terrible, although with the qaulity of players that are there, make it worth while!

[PotLuckPete]

It's definately a catch 22. The sites that pay the highest rakeback and lowest rakes, usually have the better players who take advantage of it. Sites that offer the worst, generally have the best mix of bad to worse players.