Does Rake Significantly Affect BB/100?

[ctv1116]

OK, so maybe the title isn't very clear, but basically I noticed that Party Poker's rake is essentially double that of Paradise's. I've been told that Party has much softer games than Paradise's, but does the extra rake make it worth the switch?

Also, given Party's not including flop % in the lobby screen, are you really able to get into softer games than on Paradise? Through 3,000 hands I've logged into Pokertracker, average seen flop% at the 0.5/1 tables I've played it is 47.44%. I was wondering what the average seen flop% for the Party 0.5/1 tables is (you can see it in Pokertracker under the Summary tab).

[eric5148]

I can't understand why anyone would play with a rake as high as Party's. The Paradise games are very easy. Not to mention better software, and customer service.

My Paradise flops seen is 44.95%.

[ctv1116]

Is that at 0.5/1, or 1/2?

[Tosh]

I'd say rake will account for 1BB/100 at least.

[Sam T.]

I agree that the Party rake is rediculous, and I do enjoy being able to order a beer while I play at Paradise.

That said, in my 500 or so hands at Paradise (while I earned my bonus), I found it to be a rock garden. Thus, despite the higher rake at Party, it remains more profitable; I like to think of it as a fishing license. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Festus22]

My BB/100 rate at 0.5/1 Party is 5.14 after around 12000 hands and that's playing 4 tables.

My BB/100 rate at 0.5/1 Paradise was 3.65 after around 4000 hands while clearing the February Neteller bonus and that was playing 2 tables.

Rake, schmake.

[Sam T.]

Festus,

Interesting. Can I ask how this difference affected your overall profits? Do the awful players at Party make up for the rake?

[ctv1116]

Do you have Pokertracker? I was wondering what your average seen flop % is at Paradise and Party 0.5/1. It's under the summary tab of the ring player statistics.

[Festus22]

I'm earning a smidge over $10/playing hour at Party (2.58 BB/table hr x 4 tables).

At Paradise, I made around $4.40/playing hour (2.19 BB/table hr playing 2 tables). The only reason I played there in February was to clear the $250 Neteller bonus (but even then, it was close. I "lost" $5.60/hr of potential earnings when playing at Paradise and it took me about 30 hours of playing to clear $250. So 5.60 x 30 = $168 of lost earnings but I made $250 from the bonus so it was worth doing)

So the fishiness of Party games combined with the fact that one can play 4 tables and still earn a higher BB/100 rate than playing 2 Paradise tables makes Party the obvious choice, higher rake notwithstanding. I agree with the other poster that the Paradise software is better as well as customer support but facts are facts.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have Pokertracker? I was wondering what your average seen flop % is at Paradise and Party 0.5/1. It's under the summary tab of the ring player statistics.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mine is 51% at Paradise. I aggressively shop for the best tables and change frequently. The preflop stats in the lobby make this possible and partially compensate for the better fishing at Party. Note that time of day really matters. North American prime time is best, especially Saturday night. The games are rockier on weekdays, especially times when European players dominate.

Festus, what's this only 2-table business? Paradise allows at least three if not four.

The extra rake at Party is about a dime/pot on average at .5/1. With a 7% win rate that amounts to 0.7 BB/100.

Have I ever mentioned how frustrated I get when I have to wait five *minutes* for a hand history from Paradise? Usually it takes less than a minute. That is one Paradise advantage over Party that does not get the press it deserves.

By all accounts you can make more money at Party than at Paradise. Virtually every other consideration favors Paradise: service, attitude, ambiance, user interface, software quality, system reliability, reputation, and long-term record.

You need to decide why you play poker. Personally I have enough income that microlimit poker doesn't matter, so I am happy where I am for the moment.

[daryn]

it's very easy, the players are the worst on the internet, undeniably.

[Festus22]

"Festus, what's this only 2-table business? Paradise allows at least three if not four."

When I was playing there in February for the Neteller bonus, apparently there was a lot of other 2+2er's with the same idea. I was at a $0.5/1 table with chesspain, lorinda and another 2+2er I didn't recognize but who knew me. And this was common all month. I actually had to pay close attention /images/graemlins/frown.gif and didn't feel comfortable playing any more than 2.

Even now, I believe those games are tougher and not as lucrative as the Party games. I don't know if you read my "The Plan" post but I try to play only 10-15 hours per week and don't want to have to think real hard yet still pull in maybe $6 - $8K/yr. Right now, Party is the ticket to that.

[ctv1116]

I agree, I think I'm going to open an account at Party.

[MasterShakes]

Nobody really seems to be answering the question asked - does it significantly affect BB/100? In my opinion, yes, but what I consider significant and what you consider significant could be completely different.

At Party .50/1, the rake accounts for more than 2BB/100 hands according to my pokertracker stats. I earn over 4BB/100 hands despite this at this level, and my rate is steadily climbing. So, yes, the rake is significant and even at this level, if you play as much as I do (around 5,000-7,000 hands per week), if you could get into a rake rebate program somehow, I would recommend it.

[Webster]

Party players are the worst?? LOL - not by a long shot - they are rocks compared to a number of other places!!