You make some accurate observations that a few people miss.

Multitabling, tho it is not in any way wrong, also accentuates the skill gaps as one pro can spread his skill over many tables,, slicing and dicing fish as they show up.

Another problem is player pools that are simply too small or that block out areas that produce a higher ratio of fish.

However, rake matters and incentive programs do matter as well. Rake increases should be opposed vigorously and rewards programs encouraged. Props to players protesting the Stars rake increase in both words and actions; notice the increase was rescinded.

Many pros make modest livings and even an extra 3 dollars an hour means quite a bit. Also, higher rake sucks money out of the economy at a faster rate.

Seemingly little things often add up over time and can be significant.

Wise words here, no one said it better than you did.
back when computers were running XP/2000, they weren't powerful enough to process multiple table so sites didn't allow more than say 10 at once for the sake of your computer overheating.
And as for the skill edge - you're better off playing live, the fish will always love to play live. Especially if there is an adjacent blackjack/roulette table. Yes, the BB per hour is considerably less but you have a higher edge despite the variance. Online is good for luck boxing donkaments and larger SNGs but that;s about it. Forget cash. Micro, A: either the rake is too high (at minors not as mid stakes or higher) to be profitable or B, earning $50 monthly might be someone's thing i.e. the Eastern Europeans someone here mentioned and C: It isn;t worth the time grinding for less than a semi-skilled worker can earn at a pen pushing job. Higher stakes: The knowledge is simply too good with the advent of technology and fast internet, all knowledge is freely out there that pros knew of 6-7+ years ago with all software available. last item I played a 42/$4 as a shot too see what it was like I left after about 2 hours. Everyone bumhunts and as soon as the guy leaves they all leave in seconds that the games only run for as long as the fish/rookies stay.

The term effective rake has been well defined for over a decade.

There are a bunch of cry babies who can't beat micro stakes because the rake is "too high". They have their own definition.

They are also waiting for the silver spaceships to pick them up.

I did. Unfortunately, there's nothing there that answers my question. Care to define it?

I'm not buying that this so-called "effective rake" is somehow higher when the actual rake is lower based on some incoherent forum post.

I'm assuming it relates to average pot size which is far greater in live poker ....ie if rake is 5% capped at $5 and a pot is $100 so rake is $5 then the effective rake is greater proportionally than if rake is 10% capped at $10 in a $300 pot.

When looking at a poker game, and trying to work out if it's beatable, rake in bb/100 is all that matters sir; so all of these posts mentioning about live rake in an absolute sense are wrong.

Yeah, the casinos take lots of $$$ out of each pot, but you can also win lots of $$$ from a player with that same pot. $25NL and $50NL live would not be beatable with the rake structure as it is. $100NL would be tough to beat but may be possible, and obviously $200NL+ is comfortably beatable since only 2.5bb's or less are taken out of each pot, and the player field is so weak.

Play tournaments online and cash games live, that's how you adjust to the new online poker reality.

Playing small stakes online and trying to build a roll by chasing bonuses, vip levels and rakebacks haven't been profitable for a while now for your average small stakes grinder and we all know that so complaining and hoping sites will change their business plan is silly.

This isn't a rocket science, for your cash games fix hit your local casino and learn real poker.
For tournament practice, Stars have so much choice and huge fields which is absolutelly amazing, it wasn't like that in the 'golden age' of online poker of early 2000s and it's a crime not to participate.

Just stay away from cash games online and all is good, why is this so hard to understand for some?

I think the term generally means something like "the ratio of total money which is raked from a game to the total expected win for the most skilled player in that games player pool over a fixed number of hands". It would obv be better if it were adjusted for the average pot size somehow so it was directly comparable with normal rake, and maybe that is included idk.

It would be nice if someone could once and for all define the term precisely because it is a useful concept in some situations.

Why are huge fields amazing?

Is this really true?

you can play 50x the amount of hands online (4 tabling zoom anyone?) than live, letting you pay less rake a day live than online, while online is also harder.

so you have like 50 hands with high rake and high BB/100 live or thousands of small pots with a bit of rake in any of em.

cliffs : many regs refuse to update their skillset and look to blame anything but that refusal

games are fine, decent midstakes guys will still earn way above the average tax free

also thank god somebody finally made the point that when referring to winrate in bb/100 you also need rake in bb/100 to make any relevant distinction

Whoop whoop, yay. :-D

You're conflating several unrelated factors, and calling the resulting conglomeration "effective rake." It doesn't make sense.

Online games are generally tougher, and your win rate live would be higher (assuming you could adjust, which not everyone can). But that has nothing to do with rake - that's a matter of skill and game selection. Also, there's a lot more rake to overcome live.

LOL at the notion that online rake, which is miniscule compared to live, is a major issue. Online rake is cheap. Get your focus where it belongs - on building your skills.

It let's you practice the dynamics of big WSOP-like fields and when on a heater you can win 30K+ for 11 bucks investment for example.
Win-Win.

LOL.

Live rake is cheap as f*ck in bb/100 terms, particularly when the live games are so soft and play easier than online microstakes.

I make money at cash games online as a USA player and I avoid donkaments like the plague. I do play live poker when I can but unfortunately I don't have casinos very close to me or enough home games to go around.

There are fish at all levels of play both online and live. Rake structure IS important at all levels, but it is not a deal breaker at all levels or places. Find the games where the rake is beatable and the fish play.

LOL. Live game rake is capped at $4 or sometimes $5 a hand. What site charges that much?

Rake has NOTHING to due with the "softness" of the game. You are so confused.

Effective rake is very much dependent upon the stakes. Playing $1000 NL/PL or $30/$60 FL, effective rake is small. Playing $300 NL/PL, or $10/$20 FL, it is much higher.

Continuing onto micro stakes, the effective rake is so high, the game is virtually unbeatable. This is the nature of the beast. Accept it. Move up in stakes. Play better. Or find a new hobby.

the lowest rake i pay is maxed at 3.75 euros online
4-5 euros is the norm on many sites

rake is due to softness. More small flop seen = more rake paid. limpers are rake creators.

if i play a limper i pay about 30bb/100

thats 30 euros each 100 hands of hu with 100 stacks

Maybe you are playing on the wrong site. AFAICS, PS rake is capped at €2.25 full ring (5+ players), and €0.50 HU.

The term effective rake has been defined for over a decade, and has nothing to do with ROI.

Pretty well written. Overall good post.

Why don't you realize that no one cares to hear what you have to say regardless if you post it once or 100x from 100 different accounts?

Playing tons of small pots online is just soul destroying and you fall into a massive rake trap. But if you try pushing the action and stealing most of those small pots, players adjust and call you down lighter or 3bet more. You can't win whatever you do.

Because it's probably waste of time.
Here's a question:
Why do you think Stars backpeddaled on their rake increase plan?
a) Forum outrage
b) Implied business loss
c) Actual business loss

My money is on c), as in, many regs withdrawing their rolls and moving on to other sites)

We all know that over the years the games got tougher and edges smaller to the point of many having a problem beating the rake but that's not Star's fault and it's naive to expect of them to take a paycut because of it lol it's not how any business works.
Raising the rake is a deal breaker for players just like lowering it is a deal breaker for owners of Stars.

It's up to us players to adjust to new developments in the games we play but that's ok, it's what we do, 'adjustment' is every good poker player's middle name no?