Open Side Menu Go to the Top

05-26-2008 , 04:57 PM
I did search but got no joy I heard FTP is better for low limit players because RB>FPP's but how does the rake compare. I mean I play low limit Omaha h/l where most pots are split so I don't fancy being raked 5-10c each time I play a split pot!

Any help/experience/suggestions wanted.

Quick rake question Quote
Quick rake question
150% up to $2,000 Welcome Bonus on CoinPoker
Join the action now
Daily Rewards • Splash Pots • CoinRaces
Quick rake question
05-26-2008 , 05:14 PM
Rakeback is better for lower limit players because you probably won't be able to get to supernova status in FPPs until you play mid or high stakes.

However, if you're playing $0.05/$0.10 NL Omaha h/l on FT, the rake is 10%. This is the lowest limit they offer for O8 or NLHE. If you're playing this limit, you're much better off playing on a site like Poker Stars where the rake is only 5%. Limits above this have a comparable rake to other sites.

To see what the rake will be for your game, you should look here:
www.fulltiltpoker.com/rake.php
Quick rake question Quote
05-26-2008 , 08:09 PM
getter a better deal on a smaller site wish more fish, why play ftp when there are easier games?
Quick rake question Quote
05-26-2008 , 10:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shick
Rakeback is better for lower limit players because you probably won't be able to get to supernova status in FPPs until you play mid or high stakes.
And/or multitable pretty seriously. Stars' "RB" is very much driven by volume, rather than just stakes. I don't know that anyone who also holds a regular job could make supernova. Is that possible...?
Quick rake question Quote
05-27-2008 , 03:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alaplancha
getter a better deal on a smaller site wish more fish, why play ftp when there are easier games?
Because smaller sites disappear overnight and so does your money

Battlefield for one, among many others.
Quick rake question Quote
05-27-2008 , 07:59 AM
10nl: Stars is better.

25nl: Rakeback is better.

50nl+ Stars is better if you put in enough volume to reach super nova, otherwise rakeback is better.
Quick rake question Quote
05-27-2008 , 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyp
Because smaller sites disappear overnight and so does your money

Battlefield for one, among many others.
lol....yeah im not talking about carlos poker etc. Im talking about the well known sites - pacific, paradise, betfair or crypto - the well known sites on there are safe... it makes no sense to play on ftp when you can easily make more money elsewhere but i guess it is your loss and perhaps in your own time you'll come to realise the same thing...
Quick rake question Quote
05-27-2008 , 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alaplancha
lol....yeah im not talking about carlos poker etc. Im talking about the well known sites - pacific, paradise, betfair or crypto - the well known sites on there are safe... it makes no sense to play on ftp when you can easily make more money elsewhere but i guess it is your loss and perhaps in your own time you'll come to realise the same thing...
Thanks for your concern I guess but I am not intending to ever play to make a living and so 10/25/50NL is fine with me to blow whatever I deposit. It's just a hobby to relax me and I'd rather play on the bigger sites.

I guess in time you may realise the same thing...
Quick rake question Quote
05-28-2008 , 07:26 PM
Stars now offer good deal with fpp 10 to 5000 to get into the sundy millions over 8000 players.

For someone who doesnt play cash game yet, only sitngo and tourney : rakeback is very much better ?? For example if i play a sitngo 10+1 to full tilt they will gives me 27 cents back?

poker stars is only given 5 points Value 5 to 10 cents
What do you think?
Quick rake question Quote
Quick rake question
150% up to $2,000 Welcome Bonus on CoinPoker
Join the action now
Daily Rewards • Splash Pots • CoinRaces
Quick rake question

      
m