I have seen several times on this board comments like "the rake is much lower at 2-4 so you can play more hands" or "you will do fine once you move up to 2-4 because the rake is lower". After looking at the table below I no longer understand this comment. At 1-2 the rake is fixed at .5 BB while at 2-4 it is fixed at .5 BB for a 5 person table but maxes out to .75/BB if the table is full. I see that it comes out in different increments but does that really make that much of a difference? I see at 3-6 and beyond that the rake decreases in a hurry esp for 5 person ables but it seems to me like over time you will pay more BB's in rake at 2-4 than just about any other limit. Am I missing something?

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/rake/

ps
F@#$ dbeckham

pokerstars 6-handed limit rake in terms of BB/100:

0.5/1: 3.95
1/2: 3.11
2/4: 2.36
3/6: 2.40
5/10: 2.47
10/20: 1.66

courtesy of marketrake.com

This place always gets a flurry of action whenever beckham gets mentioned. He is an enigmatic celebrity deserving of his own 2+2 thread. If he promised to make daily contributions we should give him his own official thread. He'd have a much better platform here than his stupid blog.

i wonder if dbeckham is one of us... who knows...

interesting . . . .
2/4 has lowest rake until you get all the way up to 10/20

2-4 has teh toughest competiton though!!!!1

A gay?

well, yes... he is "one of us". he didn't login for over a month though.


oh, and Martynas has returned.

and inflate his head by another 3 inches?

I was hoping we could enter his head in the Macy's Parade.

A bit, yes.

a 2p2er

but u understood it anyway...

a handful of 1/2 to 3/6ers should change their avatar to dbeckhams face on stars

Germans always do.

Scorcho,
was thinking about it myself. But I play too rarely with db though I am playing 2/4.

LOL

and

LOL also.

lol that would be cool

Sundancer is on a quest to revolutionize poker imo, I saw him openlimping at least 4 times today and he was running at 50/20/0.5ish over about 120 hands

SB is SunDonkey. I don't think he's figured out that a flush beats a straight yet.

FTR Hand History Converter Output (intended for copying and pasting into poker forums!):
PokerStars Limit Hold'em, $6.00 BB (4 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

Preflop: Hero is BB with Q, K
2 folds, SB raises, Hero 3-bets, SB calls

Flop: (6 SB) 7, 5, 9 (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets, SB raises, Hero 3-bets, SB calls

Turn: (6 BB) 8 (2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks

River: (6 BB) A (2 players)
SB bets, Hero raises, SB 3-bets, Hero caps, SB calls

Total pot: $84 (14 BB) | Rake: $2

Results:
SB mucked 6, 4 (straight, nine high).
Hero had Q, K (flush, Ace high).
Outcome: Hero won $82



SunD in BB. Just out of curiosity how many of you play 94o in the BB to a HJ raise?

TR Hand History Converter Output (intended for copying and pasting into poker forums!):
PokerStars Limit Hold'em, $6.00 BB (5 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

Preflop: Hero is UTG with 4, 4
Hero raises, 3 folds, BB calls

Flop: (4.33333 SB) 10, 2, 4 (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets, BB calls

Turn: (3.16667 BB) 5 (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets, BB calls

River: (5.16667 BB) 5 (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets, BB calls

Total pot: $43 (7.16667 BB) | Rake: $2

Results:
BB mucked 4, 9 (two pair, fives and fours).
Hero had 4, 4 (full house, fours over fives).
Outcome: Hero won $41

This sucks...I hate what our government has become, exactly who are the protecting from what:

winnings of thousands of online poker players frozen.

The Justice Department has long maintained that Internet gambling is illegal, a view that the poker group challenges.

The Poker Players Alliance told The Associated Press that the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York instructed three banks to freeze the accounts.

Documents obtained by the AP show that a judge in the district issued a seizure warrant last week for an account at a Wells Fargo bank in San Francisco, and that a federal prosecutor told a bank in Arizona to freeze an account.

In a letter dated Friday and faxed to Alliance Bank of Arizona, the prosecutor said that accounts held by payment processor Allied Systems Inc. are subject to seizure and forfeiture "because they constitute property involved in money laundering transactions and illegal gambling offenses." The letter was signed by Arlo Devlin-Brown, the assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.

In another letter faxed the same day, Devlin-Brown asks that the bank treat the funds "as legally seized" by the FBI, saying that the government has probable cause that the gambling payments of U.S. residents had been directed to offshore illegal Internet gambling businesses.

A spokeswoman at the Southern District declined to comment.

John Pappas, executive director of the Poker Players Alliance, called the government's move an "unprecedented action" against online poker players.

In a letter Monday night to Devlin-Brown, Pappas said that the funds belong to the alliance's members, and requested that his group be notified and given the opportunity to be heard regarding attempts to seize the frozen funds.

"The PPA will pursue every legal course available to ensure that poker players' funds are not seized and their right to play poker online is protected," he wrote.
Reply With Quote

^^^ This is insane
How the **** can they do that I thought online poker was not illegal in the US yet??

i can't imagine how mad i'd be if the government took my money

bad beat . . . .

fk the us govrnmnt

Pokerstars gave me $195 free when the US GOBVMNERSMENT locked their account they usually paid my checks with. Push IMO.

this