Best sites for $5/$10 Short Hand Limit?

[IGMorton]

I'd like to discuss which sites have the best long term outlook for short hand 5/10 limit. Below is my short list. Are there any others that look better? I'm only interested in sites that:

<ul type="square"> - let me 4-table
- offer rakeback
- work with PT (preferably with a HU display)
- have good traffic and weakish competetion [/list]


Party Poker

I guess it's hard to say whether the games will be as good as they were before the split from the affiliate network. People are claiming the state of the party network 6-max games now (sans party) is pretty rough. This indicates the fish must still be on the Party servers. Rake (at full 6-max tables) has recently increased. It's particularly rough for the 3-6 BB pots which come up a lot in blind defenses and 3-way hands. Rakeback is based on the total rake / number of players.

$20 pot -&gt; $1.00 rake

$30 pot -&gt; $1.50 rake

$40 pot -&gt; $2.00 rake

$50 pot -&gt; $2.50 rake

$60 pot -&gt; $3.00 rake (maximum)

Rakeback @ 25%



Bet on Bet (Poker Room network)

Over time i'm guessing the percentage of professional players will diminish here. Rakeback deals are no longer offered at Bet on Bet and aren't available at Hollywood Poker or Poker Room. Hollywood Poker might bring some neophytes who watch "Celebrity Poker" and Bet on Bet's casino traffic might draw in more. Rake (at full 5-max tables) appears to be quite good compared to other site's short hand tables. Rakeback is based on the percentage of the pot you put in. This seems to favor agressive players who force out other players in early rounds and win pots uncontested.

$20 pot -&gt; $1.00 rake

$30 pot -&gt; $1.00 rake

$40 pot -&gt; $2.00 rake

$50 pot -&gt; $2.00 rake

$60 pot -&gt; $2.00 rake (maximum)

Rakeback @ 35%



Battle Field (Prima Network)

The short hand game quality of prima network is reportedly better than average. The growing number of casinos using this software should maintain a steady stream of novice players. Rake (at full 6-max tables) is the same as Party network. However, Prima calculates rakeback like Bet on Bet, which favors agressive players. Also, much higher rakeback is available than at Party.

$20 pot -&gt; $1.00 rake

$30 pot -&gt; $1.50 rake

$40 pot -&gt; $2.00 rake

$50 pot -&gt; $2.50 rake

$60 pot -&gt; $3.00 rake (maximum)

Rakeback @ 35+%

[The Truth]

Rakeshare is better for tight agressive players than having the rake calculated based on amt of money you put in.
it is significant

-blake

[IGMorton]

can you elaborate? i'm not sure what you are referring to

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]
can you elaborate? i'm not sure what you are referring to

[/ QUOTE ]

The way party does it is the best way for tight agressive players. They do it based by total table rake/# players at table. That is rakeshare.

Some other sites do it based directly on how much money you put in the raked pots.

Rakeshare will net you more money because I assume you play tight.

This is significantly higher, as an educated guess I would say 20% higher ish. (so, 20% of whatever rakeback percent youa re getting, say 25% makes it an actual percent of like 5% of total rake)

-blake

[Argus]

In general you will be playing fewer hands than your competition, so you won't get to contribute as much rake. Having your rakeback based on the total paid by tables you are at is advantageous because you are paying less rake than the average player.

[IGMorton]

thanks.

if i understand correctly, rakeshare only benefits me if i'm playing tighter than my opponents, which is usually true.

suppose i'm at a table with guys who don't defend their blinds enough and i am playing equally as many hands as them (blind stealing, etc).

if while i'm at that table, i win a bunch of pots by forcing players out with postflop bets, i won't make as much with rakeshare as i would the other way. correct?

[IGMorton]

thanks.

i challenge you to determine which is better for head's up play /images/graemlins/smile.gif - i suppose it would depend on the type of opponents you find.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
can you elaborate? i'm not sure what you are referring to

[/ QUOTE ]

The way party does it is the best way for tight agressive players. They do it based by total table rake/# players at table. That is rakeshare.

Some other sites do it based directly on how much money you put in the raked pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know which method Pokerstars uses?

[angst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
can you elaborate? i'm not sure what you are referring to

[/ QUOTE ]

The way party does it is the best way for tight agressive players. They do it based by total table rake/# players at table. That is rakeshare.

Some other sites do it based directly on how much money you put in the raked pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know which method Pokerstars uses?

[/ QUOTE ]

But PS doesn't have rakeback...

[w_alloy]

[ QUOTE ]

i challenge you to determine which is better for head's up play - i suppose it would depend on the type of opponents you find.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is silly. The loser will always be the only one better off with rakeshare. You shouldnt play if you expect to lose.

The Prima network is inconsistent. Never more than 2-3 games going. Sometimes VPIP for the table can be 40%, but often it is also 24-28%.

[Wynton]

I guess I read the whole thing too quickly. I thought there was a suggestion that the rake - not just rakeback - was calculated with different methods at various sites.

[arkady]

Split the money between Party and Prima, play 2 tables on each site or more for whatever site has a better game at the moment.

You can enjoy a good 30+ overall RB and will have a good selection of games.