Old online poker player here (2004-2008 maybe?) who has just gotten back into the game due to having tons of time because of the pandemic.

I dumped $100 on Ignition to mess around. I played a decent amount this month before starting a pokertracker trial.

I've been playing $1/$2 limit and over the last 2200 hands since getting PT, I'm down just shy of $100. The thing that is jumping out to me is PT has me as contributing around $130 to rake over those hands.

Obviously, the rake is very tough to beat and I am aware at lower levels, it may be unbeatable. I looked online and found this link about ignition rake:

https://www.ignitioncasino.eu/poker/poker-rake

I have thought about depositing some additional funds and just playing $3/$6, but see that the rake at that level is a max rake of $3 instead of the max $1 at $1/$2.

Questions:

1) Is this link current/accurate?
2) Are either of these games (1/2 and 3/6) beatable?
3) Which game does the rake hurt more?

Thanks in advance. I used to post here a TON back in the day. I couldn't remember my old login so this is a newer account.

2200 hands is tiny.

What does that have to do with rake contributed?

You ask a good question. I also have rejoined the $1-2 limit games after a very long hiatus. Rake IS higher now than when we played before. Are the games still beatable?
If you're trying to win, higher rake is not your only hurdle. You cannot choose your table there any longer. It used to be easy to choose a table with a higher percentage of loose players. Today, you can be seated at a heads-up table, a table with three sharks, etc!
Perhaps Mason Malmuth could answer this question about rake for us. He has recently written—at the magazine—about the high rake at both live and online poker games.

The rake in these games is higher than say, Party Poker 2006? Back then, I was getting rakeback along with table selecting (as you stated), and also was bringing in new accounts for a friend who was giving me a cut. It was lucrative!

And yes, the $1/$2 games at Ignition can be tough if you get sat at the wrong one.

So you're paying ~3BB/100 in rake at 1/2 and the structure appears to be the same (from what you've said) at 3/6 so you can expect to pay the same.

The question you will have to answer is if you're beating any game you're in for enough of an amount more that 3BB/100 to make it worth your while.

Your statement is basically that you lost $100 and paid $130 in rake, and then you questioned if the game is beatable. He's saying sample size is likely an issue in these observations.
As a newer player on a site, this could actually be a plus. Since you don't know who the good/bad players are, you at least get your fair share of good spots.
Playing 1/2, even with a decent WR your chances of redepositing are pretty good. With a 1BB/100 edge, a 15BB/100 SD, and a 50BB roll, your RoR is 64%. Totally get being cautious on an unknown site, but chances were you'd redeposit. Since it sounds like you're shaking the rust off, those chances are even higher.

The question at both levels is "do you have enough edge over your opponents to beat this (large) rake?"

+1.

Not much to add but not logical to pay these rake traps unless 100% RB possible


PS: Don't think those exist anymore but I'm confident there are grand fathered 100% RB pros on Ignition, Stars, etc

"As a newer player on a site, this could actually be a plus. Since you don't know who the good/bad players are, you at least get your fair share of good spots."

I disagree. Today, finding a good table at Ignition is a matter of pure luck. Years ago, you could easily find one with the number of opponents you wanted, with a higher percentage of players seeing the flop. According to poker author Gary Carson, table selection is the single, most-important thing that a winning cash game player must do. Because of this and the higher rake, I have moved over to SnG tourneys, so there is one less player at Ignition's limit-holdem cash games.

You've misunderstood.

Typically when new to a site the decent regs/grinders will know the tricks to scouting and getting good seats/tables. That edge is mitigated (if not removed) when a site does seating like Ignition does. So it's not so much of an advantage for hero but mitigation of what would otherwise be an advantage for the veterans of a site.

No one is going to disagree with you on how important good game/seat selection is. He's simply stating that you get an equal shot at winning the good seat/table lottery on Ignition.

You said it much better than I did.

It also comes down to whether or not you have the divine right to prey on weaker players as a strategy. It could be yes. It could be that random seating levels the field a bit and helps the bad players last longer. At some point, each player has to make the determination of "worth it" to them.
Wow, now that's an appeal to the oldest days of RPG. Can't remember the last time Gary came up around here. It is funny that the statement is true, yet I want to argue with it because of the name you brought up. All right, can't help myself. Having strong poker fundamentals matters more.

In the end, you have to beat the people at the table for enough to beat the rake. That's it. Money flows around the table clockwise, so it is much easier for you to take it from the player on your right. Hence, seat selection. If that player and the play on his right are both wizards, then good luck. If the player on your left is a wizard, you can't get too far out of line. You'd prefer horrible players on your right and predictable nits (who never adjust) on your left, sure. Given the choice between being in a great seat and not, I'd prefer the great seat. And a soft table. However, it might be in the best long term interest of the site not to let you maximize the short term. It is kind of like live casinos that offered really deep stacked NL (say Albuquerque). For a short while, the games were really good. Then, Sandia was a ghost town. Causality? You'll have to decide.

"It also comes down to whether or not you have the divine right to prey on weaker players as a strategy."

Divine right to prey?? Are you serious? Choosing a table with the number of players you want to play against with a higher than average see-flop percentage is hardly tantamount to "preying" on weaker players. In the old days, there often wasn't much difference in see-flop percentage anyway, so—if the number of players was the same—I'd just pick one table at random. "Preying" as you describe it should refer to multi-tabling grinders with HUDs who sought out weak players based on their statistics. It is because of that "preying" that the games deteriorated and online poker is a shallow remnant of what it used to be.

"It could be that random seating levels the field a bit and helps the bad players last longer."

I think leveling the field is best done with the anonymous player feature and limiting or ending multi-tabling. Online poker rooms should NEVER have allowed multi-tabling in the first place.
Anyway, when I click on six-max, that is what I expect to play—not heads-up or super-short against two other players as is often the case at Ignition today.

-1

Confident
6+ tabling with 100% RB on Cereus via:

-Example-
Two 9max Full or Close
Three 6max Full or Three / Four handed
One HUHU vs random

Was in my experience very profitable although I used Tracker, HUD, Holdem Manger.

NOTE: Data Mining / scripting available during that era without playing via keeping Cerus running + HUD and /or Tracker or Holdem Manager (dont remember )

PS: 100% RB nonexistent now and Data Mining / scripting banned in most online sites.

Confident Online Poker should be Survival of the Fittest and as some experts indicated in NC / LC recently, people are just lazy when resources are available to maximize EV, Skalansky Bux, GTO.

PS 2: I'd just get multiple Monitors, very strong PC, 6 table via 3-4 sites if multi tabling becomes banned online.

Tldn: I have close to 0% chance of playing online again per market being too profitable & I'm a lazy TAG fish