There are a few interesting things to note about this graph. Firstly, 2/4 seems to be a bit of a sweet spot in terms of rake - cheaper than 3/6 and even 5/10 at some sites.
Secondly, the rake is very different from site to site. Cheapest by far are Full Tilt, Pokerstars and Everest. Sites like OnGame, iPoker and Micro sit nearly 50% higher. This puts things like VIP bonuses and rakeback in context. For example, you probably pay more rake at Microgaming compared to Pokerstars even if you have 30% rakeback.
It is also interesting to compare NL with limit. NL is typically cheaper than Limit, but the difference is not really marked until you go above 100NL
Lastly: never, ever, ever play 0.5/1 at Pacific!
3 comments:
You have to be a bit careful with this data, because it hasn't been normalised to use the exact same hands.
So if one site is much looser, or probably more importantly, the sample much looser and the average pot for a $1/2 game is $20, when compared with another that is much tighter with an average pot of $10 then the looser site is going to show more or less double the rake no matter what rake structure.
Outcome .. very skewed results in terms of rake/100. I believe marketrake have normalised the data on some of the no limit table comparisons from memory but haven't for fixed limit.
A very valid point. I'll have to look at some of the specific rake structures.
Note that the graph I posted was average % rake, which is more accurate than BB/100. I had a look at PokerStars and Microgaming briefly for comparison.
At the 2/4 level, Microgaming charges a uniform 5% up to $3 while PokerStars charges $1 when the pot reaches $20, another $1 when the pot reaches $40, and a third $1 when the pot reaches $70. The PS approach, while looking similar to Micro results in significantly less rake when averaged over many pots. The rake is even lower if there are 5 players or fewer in the pot.
Post a Comment