The assertion isn't that the rake is higher

The assertion is that the quantity of split pots makes the rake harder to overcome (because the only clear winner in split pots is PokerStars/other online site) and that the utility of that rake being lost by the players is higher in lower stakes games than in medium to high stakes, and therefore is more impactful.

$3 in a 10/20 limit game is not a big deal
$3 in a 0.50/1 limit game or 10c/25c nl/pl is a big deal

Generally the higher you go, the less it matters, as long as the $3 cap stays the same.

I'd also love to see you or someone else watch me play stud high low at 10c/20c and tell me my play isn't good enough to beat them/isn't far superior to their play and that the rake is nothing to do with it. I know that sounds provocative but I'm actually being sincere, I really would like someone to come by and tell me I suck if in fact i do, because I don't think I do because I play similar in tournaments and do just fine.

I can see that this is a confusing topic. In the end the only thing that matters is your winrate.

That assertion is nonsense. 50-50 flip in PLO or a guaranteed split pot in PLO8 have the same expected value.

Rake is higher is lower stakes, sure, but people also play much worse.

I do not know anything about stud H/L 0.1/0.2 so I can't tell if it's beatable with perfect play. Maybe I was unclear, but I was talking about plo8/nlo8.

There's more split pots in split pot games though!

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

If you understand my two previous posts you understand that it doesn't matter.

I played very few hands Stud 8 on lowstakes and its amazing how the stack sizes shrink fast just because of the rake. Unless you play aganst complete idiots its not really beatable imo.

Hard to imagine that playing a Hi/Lo game does not have an impact on how much rake you pay. Maybe its the awkward feeling of winning a big hi hand and getting back less then the invested chips because of the rake.

lol, i'll leave it at that then

Where the slot wizards at?

The "rake" of slot machines follows this pattern or similar in virtually all casinos, online or not. This is per coin

$0.01 - payback 80-85% (legal minimum is 80% or 85% in some places)
$0.05 - payback 87%
$0.25 - payback 91%
$0.5 - payback 93%
$1.0 - payback 95%
$5 - payback 97%
$10 - payback 97.5%
$1,000 - payback 99.9%

That is how slot machines work the more you bet the better your odds of winning and the lower the rake (rake = 100% - payback)

Poker is generally the same although updates on Stars make things a little more nuanced. So for FL games the poker tables follow the slot machines - the lower you bet the more rake you pay. For FL games with limited pot sizes it is better value to play as high as possible. The best value mid-stakes FL games on Stars are $10/20 and $15/30.

https://www.pokerstars.uk/poker/room/rake/

In PL and NL the nuance is that the best value on Stars are currently the lowest possible stakes based on equivalent pot sizes - so $1 gets raked less by a full 0.6% (largest jump in rake at any stake) at $0.01/0.02 than it does at $0.02/0.05, with better rake cap too. I imagine the winrate at 0.01/0.02 doesn't fit on the chart of a decent player so it's arguably better value to play 1 cent than 2 cent.

On Stars the worst value games are $0.05/0.10-0.08/0.16 so skip that level and go to $0.10/0.25. Yes micro O8 is raked less than any other variant due to split pots and effective bb/100

Due to incremental rake and caps the best value games are $100/200 + and the best value mid-high game is $5/10 PL/NL. From the table it's reasonable to say games below $1/2 PL on Stars are the hardest to beat ... or that games below $1/2 are unbeatable due to rake

The above table doesn't necessarily describe the rake you pay or value site vs site. You might say the rake at 5/10 is 4.5% and the rake on a mid stakes O8 MTT is 10%, so cash is better value. It's more like 4.5% monthly compound vs 10% annual. You pay a lot more for your money at cash tables and recycle much faster so relatively speaking you have to win much more often at cash than tournament to avoid going busto

For site vs site in various scenarios incremental rake can be > flat rake (i.e. Stars charges more vs other sites) but for the smallest micros and the highest stakes, Stars offers the best value (not including rakeback or promo)

Effective rake for zoom has been calculated by somebody here

http://www.pokerolymp.com/65184/rake...and-titanpoker

I'm pretty sure it's out of date and narrow data but even with adding rake increases they are saying the effective rake is 5bb/100 at 100NL (or $0.5/1?) and rake per 100 hands around $5-6. If someone is paying $10-12 per 100 hands at 0.5/1 that suggests omaha is taxed at twice the rate of NLHE. My explanation would be all the 50/50s and unfoldable draws in PLO and draws/splits in O8, plus the pot odds in many PL spots that encourage showdown. The authors of that effective rake thing note that play style makes a huge difference to effective rake. The more aggressive you are the more rake you generate.

Anyway remember your slot tables when deciding your game. Max your rewards min your downside

I find that simply table selecting well and running it once while also avoiding HU is the best way to make a profit at micros (though I've only played for 8 days).

You need.to consider why it would be in Stars' interest to make rake regressive. It would seem logical for them to hinder players from moving up as they would get more from each dollar deposited. If you also consider they won't bust those dollars as quickly against against lower skilled players they are going to play more pots that are raked. Psychologically also if you aren't going bust as quickly due to the skill level you will more likely deposit again. If there is a higher volume of players at lower stakes more pots are played at the higher relative rate of tax.

Keeping a higher percentage of players at the lower stakes has to be in their interest. People often think that if they're playing higher stakes they're are the ones that Amaya needs to keep sweet. Not the case.

Keep in mind streityboy: It's not amaya anymore... It's the Stars group...

I barely play these days at all to be honest so this has clearly​ passed me by. All I keep seeing is adverts on UK TV for Stars promising to make millionaires at a click of a button.