if theres another conversation about same topic pls throw me a link and close this thread .

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2015/1...nges-22923.htm

if this becomes reality in a few days and ppl start moving to microgaming will others follow?
i also know you can get a rakeback deal through sites on many microgaming skins for like 60% flat from the first hand.

so 60% + those caps would be awesome for poker economy.

/discuss

My first instinct is that you rarely reach the cap at microstakes, so normally it's effectively uncapped. With these lower caps, you hit them for pots above 60BBs, but you pay the full 5% below that.

Based on the figures provided, NL4 with 5% rake is going to be more expensive than Unibet (1% rake) until the pot is as big as 1200 BBs. NL10 will be cheaper than Unibet (3%) if the pot is over 100 BBs, but more expensive otherwise (nearly twice as much for pots in the sub 60BBs range). Microgaming will be cheaper than Unibet for any stakes above that NL20/NL25 (where both have 5% rake but Unibet already has a 3 euro cap).

^ To late to edit but in the above 1200BBs should read 300BBs (12 euros).

Nice, where do I find that?

Yes but its lower than on any other site (including stars). With the easier vip program (30% from the start if u sign up right) plus the promotions its very decent

@OP:
Yes its true and will be implemented by the end of this month lately

Alex Scott's blog is well worth reading in full. He uses some pretty emotive language in the opening (drawing a parallel between bumhunters and welfare benefit cheats wtf?) but the explanation for the reasons behind changing the rake structure seem solid. http://www.thempn.eu/blog/parasites-and-rake/

It's not straight 5% rake though, says at the bottom of the article it always rounds down (so 39c pot raked 1c).

+1 to what microgaming is doing recently (this/screen name changes)

Does that mean it's zero if the pot is 19 cents or below?

It was bad at NL4 on Unibet when the SB limps and you check behind, and the pot is now 7 cents not 8 cents, because the 1% is rounded up to effectively 12.5%.

seems likely by what alex scott says . would be awesome for nl4 and nl2 if this is the case its huge impact on winrates .
also that 3 bb cap on 200bb+ pots on micros (all in pre or on flop ) will help a lot on 40%-60% situations since now even on stars with the lower rake on the market you are getting robbed for around 10bb which is HUGE given the fact that you cant reach higher VIP than gold playing below 25nl.
so consider this 3bb + the 30% flat rake everyone gets w/o doing anything + the deposit bonuses(around +20% rakeback which you get all the time on many skins with the different promos they run every month)

fingers crossed


edit: last month i played on a microgaming skin they are taking atm 1 cent off the pot after the first 10 cent so a pot of 11 cent becomes 10 cent

This article annoyed me for saying "lower than other major sites", while we're bigger than MPN, so I'm going to post with some details.

I made a model from several hundred thousand hands on our site. It lets me calculate rake in bb/100 from the site's perspective for different rake caps and percentages.

At NL4, we have 1% to 100c cap, which works out as 35bb/100 from the site's perspective. 5% to 12c cap is 82bb/100.

At NL10, we have 3% to 200c cap, which is 65bb/100. 5% to 30c is 83bb/100.

so its super nice what microgaming will do (if they do it ofc).

they will make more money while providing the same rake grab as stars on nano stakes on pots below 60-80bb while i will make the same money on those pots but when for example(and this happens a lot):

nl10:

rec open limps on Early position (90bb) - i isolate raise him on BU with a premium lets say AA and flop is heads up (9bb) :

flop: A 10 5

rec checks, hero bets 6bb, recreational player raises to 20bb , hero goes all-in , rec player calls and pot is ~182bb before any rake is grabbed.

rec player shows 10 7

so i put my money in the middle here 72% vs 28% and the site (any site) with the least rake grab on the market takes away from that 182bb pot a 10bb rake and gives me back 20% rakeback. this is not automatically anywhere near a 72% for me or 28% for the other player . (not to say that for the 55-45% all ins)

now lets sum up all those similar pots and run filters on a 10nl winning players 200k hand sample with an infinite rake cap and a 3bb rake cap. (for 100bb tables)

the result is im getting robbed infinite buy-ins(increased winrate for me) and/or shot taking(applies for both normal long run for the reg or lucky runs for the rec) on 20nl for those who clearly understand how poker economy works and wondering why nowdays midstakes tables are a post zombie apocalypse town.

also and the most important part on those all-ins is when someone is running bad and loses 10bi in a row with the 3bb cap+rakeback he doest have to win 11bi back to break-even LOLz

so according to this
http://www.thempn.eu/blog/parasites-and-rake/
vs this
https://www.pokerstars.eu/poker/room/rake/

on NL2 we pay 0.02€-0.06€ cap depending on # of players while on stars it is capped at 0.30$ ?!

do I read this right? Sounds huge

yea and this also shows some good work :
3-4players sitting rake cap is 2bb
and HU is 1bb

Yeah 1BB in HU is nuts.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...vKHbRM/pubhtml

Made a quick comparison on the caps. Solid.

and since games are so tightened up nowdays what about those identical hands that go all in preflop? eg AKo vs AKo or more rarely KK vs KK
and im getting robbed 5bb so they can just put 95%of the time the money back on my icon

lmao i can go on and on if i start filtering my 1m nl2-nl10 hands database from stars who still have the most competitive rake and i can only imagine what happens on other networks with the money of net depositors being raked so fast on the lowest ****ing stakes w/o giving them a single ****ing chance when they run hot to climb the stakes and feed some hungry midstakes players where the site rakes them the same amount of money in 1 hand on 100nl than in 30 hands on 10nl?

Am I reading this right? Is the head of a major poker network publicly calling groups of it's own players (who have played within the house rules) 'parasites' and 'leeches'?

Firstly, it troubles me that someone in Alex Scott's position can be this unprofessional and tactless, yet sadly doesn't surprise me in this industry thats been run by bafoons from the start. Pokerstars got a walk.

Secondly, Microgaming takes the lion's share of a buyin off the table every hour and have the cheek to call their rule-abiding hard-working players 'leeches' in this game after they've been jumping through every hoop for years to beat such a grosly over-raked game? Utterly hypocritical. Their pricing of rake has been set to combine-harvest players for years.

The lack of professionalism and lack of responsibility to properly price and thus grow the online poker industry has dissapointed me since 2004; but all the sites' relatively recent bare-face disregard and blame towards winning players has been deplorable.

Of course new players should last longer,
I agree with thinning winrates and increasing variance to help new players go on more heaters in this newer highly skilled environment,
I agree 3rd party software and scripts should be banned to make players feel more safe and less hunted,
but I'm sick of sites doing it under the guise of 'its good for the game' and pointing the finger at parts of their player pool when the sites stand to get yet another game-damaging rake increase from these changes.

I agree with the post two above mine. Along with the rounded-up rake in limped pots, the other annoying thing is when you get all in with the nuts, see a chop and lose money on the hand because of rake. Split pots should be unraked. It would be rare in NL anyway. If it was also applied to the HiLo pot games (i.e. only rake scoops) then those would be way healthier than they are.

I just took a look at my last 533 hands on NL2 where more than 3.01 BB were taken off the table.

In those hands the other players and me paid 59.62$ combined which would been 27.64$ less, if the rake was capped at 3BB, and that's for 5+ players which is likely only a small percentage of those hands. With 2BB for 3-4 and 1BB cap for 2 players it would be even more "rakeback".

Agree, or at least half

The rake caps aren`t all right (e.g. nl100 5+ is 2,8 BB on stars) but it`s true that you will safe A LOT on the smaller stakes (up to nl50)

splittpotts are the biggest rakegrab for sites so sadly they won`t disappear

does this also count for PLO?
That would be insane cheap compared to other sites

Yes, as far as I understand, it's true and will apply to PLO http://www.thempn.eu/poker-games/cash-games/rake/

I think the title of the thread should be edited to draw this a bit more attention. They are making a big change to the heads up rake at higher stakes as well.

While its great that Microgaming is lowering the rake for micros, the increase in rake for heads up games is ridiculous. They already had a high rake for HU play (1€), and now they are doubling it to 2€. PokerStars recently raised their HU rake from $.50 to $1 and reversed the change back to $.50 after seeing the negative effect it had on the games.

Based on the hands I have played on MPN this year for HU PLO, I have calculated the new rake to equate to ~8.5bb/100 at 5/10 and ~13bb/100 at 3/6 making any game 5/10 and below virtually unbeatable for two regs playing each other. At 2/4 and below the game will be unbeatable unless you are playing an especially bad player.

In this blog post, http://www.thempn.eu/blog/parasites-and-rake/, the head of MPN complains of 'parasitic players,' yet these changes prevent players from winning in HU games without parasitic play.

In addition to the problems the new rake creates for HU only games, 6 max games will suffer as well since there will be no incentive for players to start tables.

The change will happen on the 21st http://www.pokerupdate.com/news/netw...o-stakes-rake/

Sorry for the double post, edit is not working:

Can someone with a twitter account ask Alex Scott (head of poker for MPN) about a rake decrease in Sngs?
https://twitter.com/alexscott72o

While the CG is very good with these changes SNGs are still the most expensive online