Big bets/100, not big blinds/100.

(If we're comparing apples to asian pears, shouldn't we be reporting the NLHE result in PTBB/100?)

BB/100 = 2x bb/100

BB/100 = PTBB/100

Bump..

I've just slid myself back into 6 max LHE and I think there has been a rake increase since last year. It seems that I'm getting more VPP's then I ever did playing 12 tables of 2-4 6 max. Maybe it's my style with the way points are given out but more VPP's ussually means more rake. Am I wrong?

Here are a couple of live poker contrasts:

1. 20/40 at Commerce, which is considered to have an exhorbitant rake (compared to Las Vegas or Northern California, for sure), drops 1.65BB/100 full ring.

2. 8/16 in Southern California, which is basically a close-to-unbeatable raketrap, drops 4.12BB/100 full ring.

So Merge without rakeback is basically almost comparable to a complete raketrap, and Merge with rakeback is still dropping way more than a pretty heavily raked live mid-stakes game. And Merge doesn't have to pay dealers!

Yeah, but "full ring" is often 8 handed, so don't divide by 10.
Winners get more pots, so they pay more rake
Tip and BBJ contribution should be considered part of the rake (at least I do, because I never win more than table share of the small jackpot :P)
All in all, I think that number is a tad too low, but not by much. More like 1.8-2.0BB/100 depending of your looseness.

Bella:

I am actually not sure winners get more pots. Fishy players play too many hands, so they may win more pots.

But as a general matter, I take your point.

i did a rake comparison and analysis (merge, revolution, stars) if anyone is interested

links here:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=501

It's great, but I wish you wouldn't mention the Laffer Curve, for various reasons.

yeah, a day later, I'm not sure either...

Hey BBB according to ur rake comp. on stars i have something to ask

For 6max

.5/1 rake is 3.12BB/100
1/2 2.81BB/100
2/4 2.4BB/100

which is ok as rake r lower in 2/4 compare to .5/1 & 1/2(star takes 4.5%,4%, 3%)

But when comes to full ring according to ur data

.5/1 rake is 1.57BB/100
1/2 1.69BB/100 ???
2/4 1.64BB/100 ???

How come rake is more in 1/2 & 2/4 here ?

If i am right rake should be much lower compare to 1.57BB/100

Please correct me if i am wrong

Stars rake is 2.8 BB/100? I've been paying 3.5 BB/100 all year long at pokerstars. f me.

dats, 5+5: my numbers are not 100% accurate. i averaged out samples from several folks for each measurement, but i'd guess there's still a couple tenths of a point of wiggle room in each one. as you guys know, in general the laggier you play, the more rake you'll pay. so my measurements depended a bit on the playstyle of the guys i got the samples from.

i included the stars rake schedule/chart in there as well so we can see how they are taking the rake, which should be useful as well especially when combined with rake figures that folks are reporting

from my experience live no-fold'em FR TAGs will win fewer, larger pots.

there's usually a SD.

Yep, you are certainly correct. That was what I mean by my comment - admitting I was wrong and lawdude was right

Don't worry, Bella, the universe will be restored to the natural order in the next thread I am sure.