I am pretty much saying that higher rake forces you to play better, because you want the winnings to compensate with the rake. I know that the player with the most skill in the world might not be the one that wins the most, due to variance and the other players he plays against, but I don't want to dig into this can of worms

Sure, if the rake increases I'm going to want to win more to compensate for the increased rake. That doesn't mean it's going to be possible to win more.

You didn't want to win more before??

Does rake impact the range of hands you can play profitably? Lets say site A rakes at .01 per .20 and the other is .01 per .25. Would that change your range slightly between the two sites?

In your range of profitable hands there is going to be a subrange that is least profitable. If rake is increased, then the least profitable hands can become unprofitable, and so should be dropped from your range.

hello

i play on stars FR $.5/1

sample size 45k

win rate = .7 BB/100
rake = 1.6 BB/100

please correct me if i am wrong

if i reach $ 2/4 i can lower my rake by 30%, as rake there is 3% compare to 4.5 % at .5/1 ?

also what should be a good win rate before we decide to move up even though we r winning & have a good BR ?

please advice

thanks

any suggestion please ?

Hey 5plus5, welcome to the micros. It just depends on whether or not you can beat 2/4 at all. The games have gotten harder in the last couple years, and there are plenty of former 5/T and 10/20 winners grinding RB at 2/4 and 3/6. You're winning marginally at .5/1, thus it is hard to picture you winning at 2/4. The whole "when to move up" thing is a complicated question. In your spot, I'd shot take at 1/2 and see what happens. You're allowed to game select across multiple limits.

Good luck

TKS dougl for ur reply...i appreciate

Rake is like a swimming pool. In the deep end even the tallest guy is drowning.

SH.

With one fish on the table you will be able to beat the rake and with two you can make a profit. So, pick your tables.

The rake becomes a problem at 3-6, that's unbeatable without picking good tables. The best players practically play at the 2-4, that's the highest limit they can beat until there is a good table above, in case they might be playing as high as 5-10.

0.5-1 to 2-4 will not be some making of money trip, just that with a low rake it's possible to play them through without losing money, and statistically the 0.5-1 with selected tables is some 2 big bets per 100 win (maybe with rakeback), and 1 at the 1-2 and 0.5 at the 2-4, though the games figure some tighter and tougher these days than just a few years ago and so still more attention to selecting tables is needed.

At 10-20 and above, in spite of the possibly already more beatable rake, no one beats the game without playing just one or two tables as the perfect play will not win, one needing to play the players closely.

P.S. You can move up when you reach those scores, like beating the 1-2 fish tables and then reaching 2 big bet per 100 at 0.5-1 and so on as the scores above will be realtive though you might need some additional skill that are not needed at one lower limit.

The rake i paid playing 2nl and 5nl on pokerstars in bb/100

if my calculations are right:

2NL - 68059 hands - 106,56€ raked --> 7.8 bb/100
5NL - 40210 hands - 112,72€ raked --> 5.6 bb/100

2NL stats 17.4/10.4/2.5 agg% 22.9
5NL stats 16.2/11.5/2.9 agg% 22.9 too

I used total rake to calculate bb/100 cause HEM rake on winning hands confuses me a bit cause it shows:

84.94€ for 2NL --> 79.7% of total rake paid
119.59€ for 5NL --> 106% of total rake paid

edit: sorry just noticed it is micro stakes LIMIT my stats are for no limit

Anyone want to do the same for LHE?

I've got 11,112 hands of $0.25-$0.50 on Merge, on which I paid $213.22 rake. That works out to 3.84 BB/100 in rake. (Note that with 35% rakeback this gets discounted to 2.49 BB/100.)

That's 7.68bb/100. Which is way higher than our NL guy would see at 50NL.