Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder
Hint - larger pots do not necessarily correlate to more rake earned. At mid and higher stakes it means less rake for the site. At micro stakes it can mean more rake on a particular hand, but not overall. Hint #2 - the only way a site increases overall rake is to have more players seated at tables on a 24/7 average basis. Now do some math.
First, I'd like to apologize in advance that this response isn't about riggedology or whatever it's called these days. I probably should have started a new thread for this, but I knew you were active in this one, and since you happened to mention rake and that happens to be what I've been thinking about lately, I thought I'd butt in...
I know you've been working on some pretty extensive analysis software for Indy's giant data base, and I was wondering, if you haven't already finalized it, how much trouble it would be to add a section pertaining to rake at the different sites. Specifically, I'd like to see how much rake is taken at each level, and I'm mainly interested in the Big Two -- Pokerstars and FTP -- although it would be interesting to see the rake at other sites as well.
2+2 has endless threads comparing rakeback at FTP to the VIP program at Pokerstars, but the two sites have different policies for raking pots, and this is seldom mentioned. As far as I know, no one has collected any significant rake data, at least not recently.
The commonly accepted wisdom is that FTP with rakeback is better for low volume players, and Stars surpasses FTP at Supernova levels and above. Things aren't as clear cut as most of us assume, though, and I have a feeling that the two sites are a lot closer than everybody thinks, simply because of the way FTP rakes pots. The only way to know for sure would be to actually collect rake data and compare them directly.
I'm pretty sure FTP changed their rake policy fairly recently, so if Indy's data base doesn't have recent hands, this analysis would be useless (at least for that comparison). If you have any interest in this (and if you haven't already finished your analysis), I think the easiest way of doing this would be to add up the total pots and total rake for each level of play, site by site.
I suspect we'll find that FTP rakes more from each pot at all levels below NL50 -- I just don't know how much more. I expect NL50 and above to be pretty much identical, but it would be nice to see it all collected and published. If it's too late to add anything, or if it's just too much of a pain in the ass, I understand. I do think it could put to rest a couple of persistent myths, though.
Again, I apologize for not talking about riggedology. But if it helps, I was 4-tabling tonight and simultaneously got AA and QQ, while my opponent in each hand had the opposite: QQ and AA. On both tables, QQ stacked AA. So, there ya go.
Oh, and I came out 50 cents ahead. Booooo-yaaaaaaa!