from: http://www.pokertableratings.com/blo...u-pay-to-play/:

"PTR will soon be launching a comprehensive section dedicated to explaining the true cost to play at the online poker rooms we cover. In order to preview this information, let’s look at the cost per 100 hands at the different levels of full ring games.

Rake is often difficult to quantify by just looking at the rake tables published online and trying to understand exactly how much the poker sites are charging you to play in their games. This table contains the amount paid in rake per 100 hands played by the average player. It’s a great way to compare the true cost to play at the sites.



You can see that the amount you pay to play 100 hands at the different sites can be dramatically different. The standouts in terms of cost are Full Tilt, Poker Stars and Cake, who are across the board the best in terms of the rake paid per 100 hands. In some cases, the cost to play at these sites can be as much as half of that of their competitors. This translates to significantly less bb/100 you need to earn in order to break even.

Cereus, whose basic rake structure is comparable to Tilt and Stars, takes extra money out of every pot in order to build the bad beat jackpot. We decided to include this cost in our comparison because it is so unlikely that you will ever win this jackpot. All but the tiniest percentage of players will experience the bad beat jackpot as a hit to their bb/100. We used the same reasoning for Party Poker’s BBJ drop.

For all you Stars.fr players out there outraged about the increased rake at the French site, you can see very clearly how dramatic the increase in rake is. At 100NL you would need to earn over 3bb/100 more just to maintain the same earn rate.

In the future, we will be taking a look at how dealt vs contributed rakeback mgr calculation methods affect these numbers. It turns out that there are dramatic differences in your effective rakeback percentage depending on your VP$IP when playing on a dealt rakeback site.

Our new rake analysis section is now live. You can view similar information from other game types and structures there."

Pretty seriously misleading.

It's more like which sites have nittier games. Check out Bodog vs Stars rake structures for instance:

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/rake/
http://poker.bodog.com/how-to-play/bodog-rake.html

You'll notice that Bodog actually has a substantially cheaper (or equal) rake structure in all situations except at heads up. Yet the graph shows them charging nearly 2x Stars' rake in many situations. The reason is Stars games are full of supernit 24 tabling rakeback pros, and Bodog's games are full of loose passive fish. So you end up seeing more flops, having bigger pots and subsequently seeing more large raked pots on Bodog.

Although the data does have an amusing secondary purpose. You can use it to definitively work out your VPP/hand at the various levels on Stars. VPP on Stars full ring is 6x $1/rake. So earning Platinum Star each month at Stars for various stakes would require:

Stake | Hands per month to each Platinum Star

$2NL 625,000
$5NL 328,948
$10NL 189,394
$25NL 78,616
$50NL 44,642
$100NL 25,303
$200NL 17,100

Stake | Hands per year to reach Supernova Elite

$2NL 83,333,125
$5NL 43,859,624
$10NL 25,252,471
$25NL 10,482,108
$50NL 5,952,252
$100NL 3,373,725
$200NL 2,279,995

We can also use it to verify the data from FPPPro.com. They offer the following VPP/hand rates:

FPPPRo.com VPP/hand rates
$10 0.04
$25 0.10
$50 0.18
$100 0.30
$200 0.45

Actual VPP/hand rates:
$10 0.0396
$25 0.0954
$50 0.168
$100 0.2964
$200 0.4386

They're quite close but also a bit off in some instances. I don't think this is because of any sort disingenuity on part of FPPPro.com but more likely they games have tightened up even more since the last time they ran their numbers. For instance, it means you need to play on average about 60,000 more hands per year at $200NL to earn supernova elite than FPPPro.com would state. Not a big deal, but also not irrelevant.

I suppose it's too much to hope that people will finally notice how much they're getting ripped off by playing 6max.

ripped off for playing a more interesting game?

Everyone knows 6max pays more rake. They all complain about the Fullring players folding their way to higher rewards while play less.

You get ripped off playing online poker. We're all paying thousands per month which is unacceptable period. I mean just look at that chart. Even at nittier sites at many stakes the sites are raking a whole buyin away from the table (remember that graph is rake per player) every 200 hands! So if you play 1800 hands at a table and everybody just broke even, there'd be no money left on the table. The site would have taken it all! That's just sick. And that's at full ring where the rake 'isn't so bad'.

How about Omaha?

You can check out omaha/6-max/etc here: http://www.pokertableratings.com/poker-rake-analysis

Some of those figures are just sick. You pay $48.73 per 100 hands at full ring $400PLO on Stars for instance. So your VPP/hand would be 2.9 so you could make supernova elite in 342,021 hands or 28,502 hands per month. So you could pretty easily 4 table your way to supernova elite. On the other hand you're paying $500 per 1000 hands to the site!?!?!?! That's just insane. That also means the site is raking $4,500 from the table every 1000 hands. So I doubt those games are sustainable. The sites are just taking too much.

I'm going to laugh (and then rejoice) if this sends the rakeback pros running to PLO!

You get about 1.0 to 1.2 VPP/hand at PLO400 on Stars. I don't care what PTR says, it's wrong.

Also, with omaha, it is harder to multi-table and you get less hands per hour than at NLHE/LHE.

NLH




from: http://www.pokertableratings.com/pok...imit-hold%27em

hahaha, trying to preempt the rakeback pros from flooding the games?

Do you play full ring? For what its worth the figures are unusual. It states Stars rakes $14.01/100 at $200PL, $48.73/100 at $400PLO and $30.15/100 at $600PLO. But in general PTR seems to have some fairly competent guys so I doubt they did something like use 300 hands for their sample. So who knows. If somebody really cares they could email PTR.

I play 6max. Mostly 3/6 and 5/10 these days, but I have a tonne of hands at 2/4.

I'd love it if "rakeback pros" tried to play PLO. Fwiw it's insanely easy to get to SNE playing PLO. I play like 3-4hrs a day and am gonna get there. Highly recommend it imo.

The table doesnt take into account that Stars.fr rake is in €. So Stars.fr is the worst at any limit.

including the BBJ for party is silly seeing as it is easy to avoid those tables.

It does. Its in red that means they are the worst on the market.

Pretty sure he means they haven't converted it to USD for an easier comparison. Not everyone reading the chart will be familiar with the Euro/USD exchange rate.

Funny how they point out that Cake 0.10/0.25 FR is the cheapest. Problem is that Cake doesnt offer 0.10/0.25, it is 0.10/0.20 there.

is this before or after stars raised the rake at the micros? looks like before

They haven't exluded the rake for the BadBeatJackpots have they?
I think that is why the rake at PP is high. Probably not so much looser.

same with ipoker nl25 when it is nl20

And that is known as "government regulated poker".

C'est la vie

Not true. Convert € into USD and there will be even more red for stars.fr

But your rigth that stars.fr is the worst on the market.

Can anyone explain to me why there's such a huge difference between Tilt and Stars? Their basic rake structure is the same, e.g. on NL10/6max they each take $.01 for every $.20 in the pot. Maximum rake is $3 at FullTilt and $2 at Stars, which should be a pretty rare case, though: the pot would have to be over $40 (Stars) or $60 (Tilt), respectively.