SH Rake

[fyodor]

Someone here has posted in a couple different threads about paying more rake at SH than full. He then extrapolated this to mean that the additional funds you would make in rakeback at SH are illusory. You make more but you pay more, so that is no reason to play SH.

I never thought about it before because I don't play SH for the rake; I play SH because I like it better. I'm a bit of an action junkie. Anyhow I did give it some thought this evening and unless I'm missing something, isn't he just wrong?

If I make 2 big bets per 100 at SH that means I am ahead of the rake 2bb/100. If I play full tables and win 2bb/100 I am still ahead of the rake exactly the same amount. Except at the SH I am getting in more hands so at the end of the day I am way ahead on both counts.

Not only did I get in more hands, I also paid a larger share of the rake at the SH tables and therefore got much more back in rakeback.

The only way playing full tables could possibly be better rake wise is if I could beat the full games for a larger bb/100 than I could beat the SH games.

Where am I wrong here?

[Trix]

[ QUOTE ]
Except at the SH I am getting in more hands so at the end of the day I am way ahead on both counts

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think the getting more hands argument is very valid for online as you can multitable and pretty much yourself decide how many hands you want per hour.

[fyodor]

well even leaving that argument aside are you still not making more rakeback per hand sh simply because you are paying a larger share? And if given equal bb/100 at sh and full, the rakeback alone makes sh more attractive.

[stripsqueez]

assuming a similar rake structure you pay more rake per hand playing short handed than playing 10 handed - so i think your right

stripsqueez - chickenhawk