Hi,guys,sorry for my poor english first,I am not sure I should post a thread here.I was just shocked when I see the rake stats of my hm2.
Let us see the plo 100,13811hands,raked 1706$,that means I was raked 6179$ if I play 50k hands,right?
How many regs can win 12 bigblinds every 100hands?Play 50k hand everymonth,you have to be raked 61buyins first.
I have to say the rake is so so crazy!

Yeah, noticed I earned wayyy more fpp's at PLO than NL. Due to the fact that pots are generally bigger and more all ins.

I've only played about 11,000 hands of uPLO between .02/.05 and .25/.50 (mostly .10/.25) and I've already raked about $500.

was going to troll because this rake question is still confusing me, this is problem with trackers.

is that rake number the rake of all pots within that 21k hand sample or is it the significant rake which is out of the pots that ended up your way?

This is a hidden problem with no auto top up aswell, it makes rake cost the player who loses the pot aswell, for when he stacks opponent later the stack is smaller. I don't think that individually players spend long enough playing against each other, rake with rakeback does seem reaosnable to me. However 0 over everything it is dfraining the pool and making it tougher but poker is going strong imo no auto top up actually better for stars due to rake cap.

Hi Mt.FishNoob,it is all pots.As you can see,I only filter the stake and players which make sure there is no headup table

There is plenty of winners at PLO100 on stars.

Yes, the rake is (too) high, but that doesnt mean that +5bb winrates is impossible

It is true,I am winner also,but that doesn't mean the high rake is right,it just like rob.There is also lot players can't win,what about them.

oh ok, well then we agree. Yes rake is too high. Unfortunately this is nothing new and has been debated to great extent here on two plus two.

Dont hold your breath while waiting for stars to lower the rake. Aint gonna happen