*** Official Short questions and answers/small topics thread ***
11-22-2012
, 10:53 PM
We know that the rake in relation to winnings ranges from 70% at micros to 50% at the mid stakes.
Does anyone know the ratio for tournaments?
http://twitter.com/knircky/status/27...221378/photo/1
I'd like to understand how much money is taken out of the economy by sites vs players.
I would guess that the rake at tournaments is way lower than at cash games.
We do know that the %-age of winners is roughly the same. Still I find tournaments way easier to beat.
I can't imagine that I am a better tourney player than cash, so I am guessing it must be the rake?
Does anyone know the ratio for tournaments?
http://twitter.com/knircky/status/27...221378/photo/1
I'd like to understand how much money is taken out of the economy by sites vs players.
I would guess that the rake at tournaments is way lower than at cash games.
We do know that the %-age of winners is roughly the same. Still I find tournaments way easier to beat.
I can't imagine that I am a better tourney player than cash, so I am guessing it must be the rake?
Last edited by knircky; 11-22-2012 at 10:59 PM.
11-23-2012
, 05:15 AM
Quote:
We know that the rake in relation to winnings ranges from 70% at micros to 50% at the mid stakes.
Does anyone know the ratio for tournaments?
http://twitter.com/knircky/status/27...221378/photo/1
I'd like to understand how much money is taken out of the economy by sites vs players.
I would guess that the rake at tournaments is way lower than at cash games.
We do know that the %-age of winners is roughly the same. Still I find tournaments way easier to beat.
I can't imagine that I am a better tourney player than cash, so I am guessing it must be the rake?
Does anyone know the ratio for tournaments?
http://twitter.com/knircky/status/27...221378/photo/1
I'd like to understand how much money is taken out of the economy by sites vs players.
I would guess that the rake at tournaments is way lower than at cash games.
We do know that the %-age of winners is roughly the same. Still I find tournaments way easier to beat.
I can't imagine that I am a better tourney player than cash, so I am guessing it must be the rake?
if you play $215 rather than $5.50 MTT's doesnt really matter rakewise.
but it really does matter if you play 2000NL instead of 50NL.
12-12-2012
, 11:44 AM
12-20-2012
, 09:44 PM
01-01-2013
, 10:52 PM
01-07-2013
, 07:48 PM
01-08-2013
, 12:02 PM
01-08-2013
, 12:10 PM
I always thought Erick Lindgren is a big winner 
01-08-2013
, 02:58 PM
Quote:
For live tournaments, no, losses are not taken into account. For online cash game winnings on one site, yes, losses are taken into account. However losses on other sites are not.
For sponsorships how much they earn from the sites varies a lot depending upon the player and the site. Daniel Negreanu likely makes several million dollars a year from Stars. Some guys on Full Tilt, on the other hand, had little more than 100% rakeback.
In general, like another poster said, most people probably make a lot less than you think and some of the guys you think are big winners are actually losers. But a few do make a lot of money.
For sponsorships how much they earn from the sites varies a lot depending upon the player and the site. Daniel Negreanu likely makes several million dollars a year from Stars. Some guys on Full Tilt, on the other hand, had little more than 100% rakeback.
In general, like another poster said, most people probably make a lot less than you think and some of the guys you think are big winners are actually losers. But a few do make a lot of money.
surely those who are "big winners and are actually losers" would have stopped playing poker? who do you see as an example of that theory?
