Low Limit Party Rake in Perspective

[Benman]

If you look on the Summary page of Poker Tracker, you'll see at the bottom of the screen a total average BB/100 for all players in your database. The number will be negative and will reflect exactly how much the "average" player pays in rake per 100 hands. If you filter by site and limit, you can see how much in rake you are paying as a BB/100. If you are a tightish player, obviously you pay somewhat less. Nevertheless the numbers are informative.

Here's what my database shows for .50/1 limit hold'em:

Stars/Paradise = -2.93 BB/100

Party = -6.82 BB/100

Just to break even, in other words, the low limit Party player has to "win" almost 7 BB/100.

I've said it before--this is outrageous. It's all a function of the fact that Party takes 10% at $5 now. That's more than a lot of crappy out-of-the-way brick and morter casinos steal.

The only reason to play low limits at Party is to clear a bonus, in my opinion.

[mattw]

agree.

[xLukex]

It's not accurate to say that a low limit player has to make 7BB/100 to break even...

It's just not true. If it was, nobody would play there.

Somebody quote this and add numbers please. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[mattw]

the NL games are different. its 5% per dollar in pot. sometimes when 2 ppl see the flop and the pot is $3, and there is a bet on the flop and a fold, there is no rake taken. i still havent figured this out.

[Benman]

It is true, just hard to believe. Look at it this way. If there were no rake, the average BB/100 would have to be 0.00/100, because it would be a zero sum game. So, how else to interpret the fact that the average BB/100 for Party is almost a -7/100? It can reflect nothing but rake!

[xLukex]

[ QUOTE ]
It is true, just hard to believe. Look at it this way. If there were no rake, the average BB/100 would have to be 0.00/100, because it would be a zero sum game. So, how else to interpret the fact that the average BB/100 for Party is almost a -7/100? It can reflect nothing but rake!

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha or very bad play...

[adamstewart]

ya, those damn low limit games are just too tough to beat....


Adam

[bpb]

Do you have any data on the 1/2 game? I assume the difference in rake would be much lower, as more pots hit the $15 threshhold where the rake becomes the same at both sites.

Given that rake, how many players could possibly be winners at party .5/1? 5%? Lower?

[Benman]

They can still be beaten, I suppose. The point is, is Party so much looser than Stars/Paradise that it's worth paying a premium of 3BB/hour? (other than bonus whoring).

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
It is true, just hard to believe. Look at it this way. If there were no rake, the average BB/100 would have to be 0.00/100, because it would be a zero sum game. So, how else to interpret the fact that the average BB/100 for Party is almost a -7/100? It can reflect nothing but rake!

[/ QUOTE ]


These calculations are bullshit.



In order to calculate the "average" rake one pays.... look at the Summary Page in PokerTracker:

* take the average rake per hand
* divide that by the average number of players per hand

...there's your answer.


I don't have the exact numbers on me, but I believe at the lower stakes it works out to roughly 2.5 BB/100.


Keep in mind, though, that despite this amount of rake, a large amount of us here are still beating the game for 2 BB/100 profit.

... and without the rake, online poker sites would not have a business, therefore there wouldn't even be the OPPORTUNITY for us to earn our 2 BB/100.


Adam

[mattw]

doesnt the rake become the same at $10 pots? i.e., .50c

[StellarWind]

Your numbers are unbelievable. How can sometimes taking an extra quarter out of the pot lead to a difference of 3.89 BB/100? That's an extra $38.90 per hundred hands at a ten-player table.

My 0.5/1 average-player stats from last year:

Paradise: -3.03 BB/100
Party: -4.26 BB/100

These look very reasonable. The average player loses about five extra quarters per hundred hands due to pots he won that had extra rake.

Did you think to uncheck "Don't Include My Stats" on the PT Summary page?

[bpb]

There is just no way that the Party .5/1 players are 3 BB/100 worse than those at Paradise, or Bodog, or Prima ... etc.

They're certainly beatable. But I'd wager that anyone would yield a better winrate elsewhere.

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]

They're certainly beatable. But I'd wager that anyone would yield a better winrate elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'd wager you're wrong.

Adam

[Benman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


In order to calculate the "average" rake one pays.... look at the Summary Page in PokerTracker:

* take the a

verage rake per hand
* divide that by the average number of players per hand

...there's your answer.


I don't have the exact numbers on me, but I believe at the lower stakes it works out to roughly 2.5 BB/100.



[/ QUOTE ]

OK , here goes. Average rake = $0.38 / 6.51 players per hand x 100hands = - 5.84 BB/100.

What you may not understand is that Party's rake recently almost DOUBLED for .50/1. It's a whopping 4.83% of every pot, versus 2.94% of the average pot on Stars or Paradise at that limit.

If you run the numbers on your own database, be sure to filter out hands from prior to the rake increase, because those will skew the results.

I can't speak for other limits cause I'm a low limit kinda guy. Also, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. Your point that Party is still beatable is a good one. You also make a point that without rake, there would be no 2BB/hour, which is a good point too. BUT, why voluntarily play at a site with nearly twice the rake as other very good sites. I know that the conventional wisdom is that Party has the biggest fist on the Internet. My point is that I doubt that factor overcomes the recent rake increase. If your goal is the best plus EV possible, then I believe that for $.50/1 it's not Party anymore. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[Benman]

Hi StellerWind. The rake increase took place fairly recently. My numbers, and I should have mentioned this earlier, are only from after the rake increase. Have you played .5/1 in the last couple of months on Party? If so, filter out prior hands and see what you get.

[adamstewart]

6.51 players / hand????


For the record, I was unaware of any recent rake increase by Party.


Adam

[meow_meow]

Is it possible that you have neglected to uncheck the "don't include my stats" box?

I think if you have been running good at party, this might account for much of the discrepancy.

[Benman]

Yep, looks strange I know. I'm used to playing 6 max at Stars. When I moved over to Party recently to clear a bonus, I saw that they didn't have 6 max at that limit. Fortunately, I play late at night and usually am able to find shorthanded tables.

[topspin]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi StellerWind. The rake increase took place fairly recently. My numbers, and I should have mentioned this earlier, are only from after the rake increase. Have you played .5/1 in the last couple of months on Party? If so, filter out prior hands and see what you get.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll bite. Stats at 0.5/1:

29.7k hands since 3/2005: -4.25BB/100
146.1k hands since 08/2004: -4.35BB/100

Sure doesn't look like there have been any recent changes. Also doesn't look nearly as bad as you make it out to be.

FWIW, my personal contribution to Party's rake has been on the order of 2.81BB/100 over the last 15k hands at 0.5/1. Easily beatable given how lousy the players are.

[mattw]

hi topspin:

so you must win 3bb/100 just to break even. hmm, thats damn good play.

[topspin]

[ QUOTE ]
so you must win 3bb/100 just to break even. hmm, thats damn good play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. The oft-quoted 3BB/100 that people claim is near the upper ranges of sustainable win rate includes the rake, so gross it's closer to 6BB/100. That's why you'll see people post astronomical win rates at the nanolimits, where most pots aren't raked.

[mattw]

gotcha. thanks.

[emonrad87]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll bite. Stats at 0.5/1:

29.7k hands since 3/2005: -4.25BB/100
146.1k hands since 08/2004: -4.35BB/100

[/ QUOTE ]


Why the hell do you have that many .50/1 hands????

[topspin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll bite. Stats at 0.5/1:

29.7k hands since 3/2005: -4.25BB/100
146.1k hands since 08/2004: -4.35BB/100

[/ QUOTE ]


Why the hell do you have that many .50/1 hands????

[/ QUOTE ]

OP asked for all observed hands (summary tab), not just my hands played. 146k hands played at 0.5/1 would be pretty impressive /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
hi topspin:

so you must win 3bb/100 just to break even. hmm, thats damn good play.

[/ QUOTE ]




Question: if someone tells you, "I earn 2 BB/100," do you interpret that to mean that the guy must actually be a losing player? (taking into account that he must be paying ~ 2.5 BB/100 in rake?

You are failing to put things in pespective.


Adam

[solucky]

I play at european time / a bit tighter. Party 3,69BB /100 from PT and guess thats true. At sample 100 hands 70% raked are around 35$ + the pots over 12$ / 10 players make 3,5BB + the pots over 12. But one question did you saw on stars a 59$ Pot on 0,5/1 Limit ?????? I am sure not. On Party i had a few 20 30 40 50 $ Pots.

Wolfgang

[McGahee]

[ QUOTE ]
They can still be beaten, I suppose. The point is, is Party so much looser than Stars/Paradise that it's worth paying a premium of 3BB/hour? (other than bonus whoring).

[/ QUOTE ]

Compared to Paradise, no -
It amazes me how so many people can experience the same thing and come to so many different conclusions.
I've played tons of low limit hands on both sites: .5/1, 1/2 full, and 1/2 SH. They're the same game. .5/1 is cake, 1/2 full is weak/tight, 1/2 SH is soft. One is 5-max and the other is 6-max. That's the only difference. If 2+2 folks don't want to accept that, it's fine with me.

[bpb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

They're certainly beatable. But I'd wager that anyone would yield a better winrate elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'd wager you're wrong.

Adam

[/ QUOTE ]

I will guarandamtee that the average SportingBet .5/1 player is twice as bad as the average Party .5/1 player.

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They can still be beaten, I suppose. The point is, is Party so much looser than Stars/Paradise that it's worth paying a premium of 3BB/hour? (other than bonus whoring).

[/ QUOTE ]

Compared to Paradise, no -
It amazes me how so many people can experience the same thing and come to so many different conclusions.
I've played tons of low limit hands on both sites: .5/1, 1/2 full, and 1/2 SH. They're the same game. .5/1 is cake, 1/2 full is weak/tight, 1/2 SH is soft. One is 5-max and the other is 6-max. That's the only difference. If 2+2 folks don't want to accept that, it's fine with me.

[/ QUOTE ]


Isn't it Paradise that doesn't allow multi-tabling?


Adam

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
Yep, looks strange I know. I'm used to playing 6 max at Stars. When I moved over to Party recently to clear a bonus, I saw that they didn't have 6 max at that limit. Fortunately, I play late at night and usually am able to find shorthanded tables.

[/ QUOTE ]


Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's a different rake structure in the 6max games compared to the full ring games - at least I know the SH caps the rake at $2 instead of $3.

Therefore, if you're trying to play SH at the regular 10 player tables, you're likely throwing away extra money in rake there!


Adam

[rlr]

Pacific.

[rlr]

No, not really. The rake cap kicks in at 6 players on both sites. Paradise however offers 5max tables so the rake is capped at $2 for those (2/4 and above)

Paradise Rake Schedule (http://www.paradisepoker.com/real_money.html#rake)
Party Rake Schedule (http://partypoker.com/games/rake.html)

[Delphin]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not accurate to say that a low limit player has to make 7BB/100 to break even...

It's just not true. If it was, nobody would play there.

Somebody quote this and add numbers please. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The real number is around $4.25/100 hands for $.5/$1 full ring. Anyone with a reasonable sample size can confirm this from their PT stats general tab. Just divide total rake by number of hands and multiply by 100.

Most players at $.5/$1 have paid more in rake than they have winnings. This effect decreases as you go up in limits because the rake is 5% / $3 max at the higher limits.

Here: I stole this from this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=inet&Number=1555424)

Partypoker rake statistics
______Avg Pot|Avg Rake|Rake % of Pot|Rake in BB/100|Sample Size
.5/1____7.77____0.37______4.71_________4.19________57 6
1/2____13.78___0.59______4.27_________2.94________79 5
2/4____27.55___0.92______3.35_________2.41________98 4
3/6____44.46___1.56______3.51_________2.63________16 70
5/10___65.00___2.09______3.21_________1.89________15 82
10/20__117.90__2.56______2.17_________1.22________743
15/30__224.90__2.65______1.18_________0.97________828 62
30/60__447.79__2.94______0.66_________0.42________276 9

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
No, not really. The rake cap kicks in at 6 players on both sites. Paradise however offers 5max tables so the rake is capped at $2 for those (2/4 and above)

Paradise Rake Schedule (http://www.paradisepoker.com/real_money.html#rake)
Party Rake Schedule (http://partypoker.com/games/rake.html)

[/ QUOTE ]


He said that he's been playing SHORT-HANDED (average 6.5 players per table) at the normally 10-HANDED TABLES.

I'm not comparing Party to Paradise. I'm comparing 6max tables vs. 10-player tables within Party.


Or is that the sites automatically switch the cap, even at 10-player tables, depending on how many are playing?


Adam

[rlr]

The rake schedule is the same at a 6-max table with 6 players or a 10 player table with 6 or more players. Once you hit 6 players on a table you move to the new rake table.

[2ndGoat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not accurate to say that a low limit player has to make 7BB/100 to break even...

It's just not true. If it was, nobody would play there.

Somebody quote this and add numbers please. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The real number is around $4.25/100 hands for $.5/$1 full ring. Anyone with a reasonable sample size can confirm this from their PT stats general tab. Just divide total rake by number of hands and multiply by 100.

Most players at $.5/$1 have paid more in rake than they have winnings. This effect decreases as you go up in limits because the rake is 5% / $3 max at the higher limits.

Here: I stole this from this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=inet&Number=1555424)

Partypoker rake statistics
______Avg Pot|Avg Rake|Rake % of Pot|Rake in BB/100|Sample Size
.5/1____7.77____0.37______4.71_________4.19________57 6
1/2____13.78___0.59______4.27_________2.94________79 5
2/4____27.55___0.92______3.35_________2.41________98 4
3/6____44.46___1.56______3.51_________2.63________16 70
5/10___65.00___2.09______3.21_________1.89________15 82
10/20__117.90__2.56______2.17_________1.22________743
15/30__224.90__2.65______1.18_________0.97________828 62
30/60__447.79__2.94______0.66_________0.42________276 9

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad one post out of 300+ has been remembered. My contributations here have not been completely useless.

2nd

[sumdumguy]

[ QUOTE ]
The only reason to play low limits at Party is to clear a bonus, in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or.. if you really really (and I mean really) wanted to know if other posters can objectively rate themselves.

Not too long ago another poster claimed something along the lines of the 1/2-1 Party rake being unbeatable. I was under the (mistaken) impression that the game might be better left to a middle limit pro and the micro limit player might be better off in the Party 2/4 (some sarcasm was intended). Another poster said that 3BB/100 was very doable, so I became curious..

I 8-tabled 5,000 hands in the Party 1/2-1 and finished with a 2.97BB/100 rate. Admittedly, this is a small sample, but other factors to consider:

1. I 8-tabled for this whereas my modal number of tables is only two.
2. I watched TV, answered the phone, and replied to emails throughout the 5,000 hands.
3. Omaha is my stronger game.
4. I did not employ pokertracker, GameTime, or PlayerView or take or use any notes.

Well, 2.97BB/100 is NOT doable for me. That is, eventhough I had more big pairs cracked by some retardo hand than I was expecting, I still believe I had more than my fair share of luck.

In my own estimate, I belong in the 1.0 to 1.5 BB/100 group for this game. Again, I am a much stronger P/L Omaha and Omaha 8 player than Holdem. This should say a lot.. even a non holdem "specialist" can take on the 1/2-1 game blindfolded! LOL

The game left a strong impression on me. If they can't beat this game and they blame the rake, then moving up to the middle limits where the rake becomes less meaningful against your earn rate will accomplish nothing. The middle limit pros will eat them alive. One should take a very long look in the mirror. They do not simply have some holes in their game that can be patched up with a band aid. Rather, their game is simply one big hole.

If they've already read all the books.. then they should go back to school - grade 8 English would be a good place to start. There are many reason why not everybody that did do their homework in highschool finished with an A average.

[solucky]

I have 150 K hands 0,5 and feel pretty fine. Including rakeback and Bonus you pay nearly NO RAKE

[villafan]

[quote
I will guarandamtee that the average SportingBet .5/1 player is twice as bad as the average Party .5/1 player.

[/ QUOTE ]


And that is probably the understatement of the year... The average Party 5/10 6Max is a genious compared with the average Sportingbet 5/10 player.

[SomethingClever]

The rake is like 4.5%. Avg pot is what, $7? That's like $0.315 per hand. Or $31.50 per 100 hands. Divided by average players of 9.5... 3.3 BB/100????

This can't be right.

[emonrad87]

A 5k hand sample size is meaningless, no matter what your feeling is on how much luck you had.

[Delphin]

[ QUOTE ]
The rake is like 4.5%. Avg pot is what, $7? That's like $0.315 per hand. Or $31.50 per 100 hands. Divided by average players of 9.5... 3.3 BB/100????

This can't be right.

[/ QUOTE ]

A $7 pot is raked $.50 at Party which is over 7%. It's more than 3.3BB/100.

The rake is huge compared to winrate at the lowest limits. It's true in live poker rooms and it is true online.

[Delphin]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm glad one post out of 300+ has been remembered. My contributations here have not been completely useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a sucker for statistics, and your post was very enlightening. I'm struggling between staying at $.50/$1 longer to make sure my game is solid and moving to $1/$2 to cut the rake I'm paying...

[goodguy_1]

it's ironic how important this post is to vast majority of 2+2er's but few people really want to dig into this topic.

the jist of this is: move up in limits as fast as possible to avoid combating usurious rake.. if you can beat a game and also deal with the variance move up because the rake takes a huge chunk out of your potential earnings.

For example in $3-6 LHE Full the average players pays -2.68 bb/100 just to play the game..that's $16.08 per 100 hands or $10.29 per hour(@64hph).

To net 2.50 bb/100 at $3-6 you need to to beat the rake and the competition by 5.18 bb/100..not easy to do..Now you know why so few players after large samples beat games for great winrates-the rake.

Going up to $5-10 LHE the average player pays much less: 2.23bb/100 hands just to break even.That's alot as well but it's almost 17% less in terms of bb/100 vs. $3-6.

At $15-30 LHE Full the average player pays only 0.90bb/100 hands in rake.Two-thirds of what a $3-6 player pays in terms of bigbets.

$30-60 LHE players are only paying 0.42BB/100 in rake.

If you ever get a chance to study the effects of rake at different rooms over say $1-2 to $5-10 using PokerTracker you will see some surprising differences.

[FlopMe]

These are my stats from April. All of these hands were played at Party/Skins. I 8-table and play very tight and paid 2BB/100 in rake but the game was still very beatable for 4BB/100.

http://img124.echo.cx/img124/3174/april45jq.jpg

[sumdumguy]

You are ridiculous! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

You're one of the people who should be moving up in limits so the rake doesn't dig as deep into your efforts.

[ncboiler]

[ QUOTE ]
It is true, just hard to believe. Look at it this way. If there were no rake, the average BB/100 would have to be 0.00/100, because it would be a zero sum game. So, how else to interpret the fact that the average BB/100 for Party is almost a -7/100? It can reflect nothing but rake!

[/ QUOTE ]

Statistically sound reasoning.

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
The rake schedule is the same at a 6-max table with 6 players or a 10 player table with 6 or more players. Once you hit 6 players on a table you move to the new rake table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless it has been changed recently, the rake at a full table is not reduced to a $2 cap until there are only five players at the table. At six-max tables, the rake is capped at $2 even with six players there.

[Kevin K.]

Take your last 10k hands or so and go through them. Add up how many pots you've won that are in the range being discussed and add up the .25's and calculate the -BB/100.

It should only take 10 or 15 minutes if you just go through each hand ranking sorted by net.

[tinhat]

[ QUOTE ]
Somebody quote this and add numbers please. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that's Style...

[og5]

How does rakeback factor into this? If I am getting 30% rakeback can I reduce my rake contribution by 30%?

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi StellerWind. The rake increase took place fairly recently. My numbers, and I should have mentioned this earlier, are only from after the rake increase. Have you played .5/1 in the last couple of months on Party? If so, filter out prior hands and see what you get.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is just not true. The Party rake for 0.5/1 limit hold'em that I just now rechecked at the Party website is exactly the same as it was when I first joined Party. I believe it was instituted in late 2003, but that was before my time.

[JohnnyHumongous]

[ QUOTE ]
Take your last 10k hands or so and go through them. Add up how many pots you've won that are in the range being discussed and add up the .25's and calculate the -BB/100.

It should only take 10 or 15 minutes if you just go through each hand ranking sorted by net.

[/ QUOTE ]

An easier way is to go to the "Summary" tab in PokerTracker and just look at the BB/100 for everyone. If there were no rake, the total BB/100 would be exactly zero because every player in your database won every dollar from someone who lost an equal dollar.

Instead, the number will be something like -1.75BB/100 for 10/20. Whatever number that is is the average rake each player spends at that limit per 100 hands. So at 10/20 a breakeven player would actually be making 1.75BB/100 if there were no rake.

[Kevin K.]

I know. The problem is that we're not looking for the effect on all players. I'm assuming that we are concerned with the effect that the rake has on winning players. Winning players win fewer pots and therefore will not be affected as much as the "average player." I would also think that each individual would want to know exactly how much more they are paying and the only way to do that is to go through and look at your winning hands.

Besides, the summary is useless for finding the number for which we are looking. The number in the summary doesn't specifically show the pots that are between $5 and $10 or $12, whatever it is now. That's the number we are discussing.

By the way, if you read the OP's post, he did exactly what you are describing. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[sumdumguy]

[ QUOTE ]
How does rakeback factor into this? If I am getting 30% rakeback can I reduce my rake contribution by 30%?

[/ QUOTE ]
That depends. If you are a tight-ass winning player, it should reduce your rake contribution by more than 30%. If you are a loosey goosey player, it will be less than 30%.

Disclaimer: I have no meaningful statistical data. My reply is based solely on my judgement based on 10 years of winning middle limit poker and 15 years of successful business management. However, I am confident the 1/2-1 pros with rakeback will provide a similarly accurate, but more precise answer.