|
|
#21
11-07-2007, 03:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
[ QUOTE ]
I have logged 19.7k hands of PL$10/NL$10 at FTP (all 6-max hold em). The total rake, according to PT, for those hands is $567 That means I have paid 5670 ptbbs in rake. 19700/1970 = 100 5670/1970 = 2.87 Therefore the rake = 2.87ptbb/100 [/ QUOTE ] 
|
|
#23
11-07-2007, 05:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I have logged 19.7k hands of PL$10/NL$10 at FTP (all 6-max hold em). The total rake, according to PT, for those hands is $567 That means I have paid 5670 ptbbs in rake. 19700/1970 = 100 5670/1970 = 2.87 Therefore the rake = 2.87ptbb/100 [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Who are you trying to fool? 5670BB/197=28,8 as far as Im concerned. I dont get where you get the figure 2,87 or 14,4from.
|
|
#24
11-08-2007, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
[ QUOTE ]
I have logged 19.7k hands of PL$10/NL$10 at FTP (all 6-max hold em). The total rake, according to PT, for those hands is $567 That means I have paid 5670 ptbbs in rake. 19700/1970 = 100 5670/1970 = 28.7 Therefore the rake = 28.7ptbb/100 Is my math correct here? That is an outragous amount of rake. Thank god I've moved up to PL$25 since then (where I am only paying 14ptbb/100 in rake [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] My equations were wrong, but my answer was right (I think): Should have read 19700/197 = 100 5670/197 = 28.7 With 27% rakeback: 20.95ptbb/100 in rake 7.75ptbb/100 in rakeback
|
|
#25
11-08-2007, 08:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
I have no problem in believing the figure of 28,8.
Lets say average pot is 2$ in these games and you are playing 100hands/hour. With 10% rake it means fulltilt rake 0,2x100=20$ from every table every hour which is 3,3$/player=33BB/100hands for the average player.
|
|
#26
11-08-2007, 10:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
[ QUOTE ]
Ehr, it's "2835" instead of 5670. "197" instead of "1970". Net result is 14.4 ptbb/100. [/ QUOTE ] This is the correct answer, since 1ptbb = 2 big blinds. 14.4pt/bb is still rediculous, and we should bring this up to Doug at FTP in the next FTP suggestions thread.
|
|
#28
11-09-2007, 03:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
[ 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.
|
|
#29
11-09-2007, 04:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
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
|
|
#30
11-17-2007, 04:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Are low stakes games a suckers play at Full Tilt?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Totally agree with everyone - the excessive rake works out to like 7PTBB/ 100 hands or something like that even with playing like a rock.... that was FR too, I would imagine it be even higher for 6 max, and terrible for Hi/Lo Games... [/ QUOTE ] 10% rake has to be far more than that. I would guess at least 15BB/100 hands [/ QUOTE ] I agree on average - the 7PTBB/100 was my rake paid, and I played like a rock (VPIP <10)
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
