Why people struggle at 1/2
 

I was looking at everyones graphs about a week ago showing excellent win rates at .5/1 and then showing roller coaster rides at 1/2. Then hearing everyone say how 2/4 is actually easier than 1/2 and it made me think about the rake schedule. So I decided to run a quick report looking at rake as percentage of pot and found that the worst rake seems to be at 1/2. Here's some stats from various sites...

.5/1
Paradise - 2.3%
Pokerstars - 2.0%
Party - 3.8%
Absolute - 2.5%

1/2
Paradise - 3.1%
Pokerstars - 2.9%
Party - 4.2%
Absolute - 2.3%

Another interesting note is just how high Party's rake is. I think they don't realize that having a higher rake is a bad idea at the micro levels. People are just learning to play and instead of feeling like they are winning players, they are just donating their money to Party. Obviously back to back WSOP winners helps Pokerstars but, I also wonder if this is partially the reason that Pokerstars is growing so much quicker than Party.

BTW, 10/20 Party rake is slightly below 2.1%

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

Or it might be because the average pot size is bigger on Party (due to the larger pool of loose players), and as such you are more likely to hit higher thresholds on the rake schedule, and more rake is taken out. I spent some time playing Start .5/1 and the average play was so weak-tight most pots were not raked at all. (Regardless, Party's rake structure at 1/2 is insane)

On another note, fish don't care about the rake; a lot of them do not even know that is it there at all!

-K

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

[ QUOTE ]
Another interesting note is just how high Party's rake is. I think they don't realize that having a higher rake is a bad idea at the micro levels.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh I think they realize it all to well. Most of the weaker players found at the micros are going to bust out quickly, might as well rake as much as possible before the good players(and bonus whores) take it and cash out.

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

The real difference is at $5 Party rakes .5 instead of .25. The average pot size is higher at Party but, Paradise is very close and still a much lower rake.

Average pot size at .5/1
Paradise - $6.30
Pokerstars - $5.55
Party $ 6.45
Absolute - $4.70

Average pot size at 1/2
Paradise - $12.50
Pokerstars - $10.77
Party $13.35
Absolute - $8.44

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

R-A-K-E-B-A-C-K

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

If those stats are correct, you are making an excellent point. Initially, I was attracted to PP because there were many more loose passive players there. I assumed that the extra rake would be offset by the much weaker play. However, the games have tightened up considerably over the last 6-12 months. They may still be looser than many sites, but the spread is not as wide. Party still has an excellent bonus reload program that works out to a great $ per hour rate though. I think you have to play PP during the bonus period and then it might be advantagous to play elsewhere if no bonuses are available at any of your other favorite sites.

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

Don't the rakebacks come out of your bonus if you are playing a reload?

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

Anyway the 1/2 is still very beatable or what..?

Say you do 3-4BB/100 on 0,5/1,0 could you overcome the rake at 1/2..??

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway the 1/2 is still very beatable or what..?

Say you do 3-4BB/100 on 0,5/1,0 could you overcome the rake at 1/2..??

[/ QUOTE ]

Very much so.

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

[ QUOTE ]
I was looking at everyones graphs about a week ago showing excellent win rates at .5/1 and then showing roller coaster rides at 1/2. Then hearing everyone say how 2/4 is actually easier than 1/2 and it made me think about the rake schedule. So I decided to run a quick report looking at rake as percentage of pot and found that the worst rake seems to be at 1/2. Here's some stats from various sites...

.5/1
Paradise - 2.3%
Pokerstars - 2.0%
Party - 3.8%
Absolute - 2.5%

1/2
Paradise - 3.1%
Pokerstars - 2.9%
Party - 4.2%
Absolute - 2.3%


[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't accurately account for the struggles players have. The worst proportional increase seems to be at Pokerstars at just under a 50% increase in rake. It sounds scary, but when you realize that .9% of the pot is really only pennies per pot, you need to look for other reasons to account for the roller coaster.

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

I have the bankroll for $2-$4 but haven't moved up because I don't have good enough results at $1-$2 to give me the confidence to do so. I was going to wait until I demonstrated a significant edge over a long period (not just an edge).

Is anyone that has made the leap from .50-$1.00, to $1-$2, to $2-$4 suggesting that $2-$4 may actually be easier to win at because of the better rake schedule?

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is anyone that has made the leap from .50-$1.00, to $1-$2, to $2-$4 suggesting that $2-$4 may actually be easier to win at because of the better rake schedule?

[/ QUOTE ]

The players are worse and the rake is better (though not as good as 3/6).

I think that after 10k hands and >2 BB/100 at 1/2 anyone would do fine at 2/4.

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

[ QUOTE ]

I think that after 10k hands and >2 BB/100 at 1/2 anyone would do fine at 2/4.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't tell if you're suggesting something or just making an observation - do you think skipping $1/2 6-max is a bad idea? I'm having no troubles with pp $1/2 and was expecting (fearing a little) to go to 6-max next for 10-20k hands. (I say 'fear' because I haven't learned how to spot ppl aggressively playing crap hands very well so sometimes undervalue mine). I haven't played any $2/4 yet but FWIW have no doubt playing $1/2 has made me a better player. I'm glad I didn't skip it...

Mike

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

Just making an observation. I have no doubt that my 1/2 SH experience allowed me to be able to play 2/4. I would have a problem with someone going to 2/4 if they didn't play the SH game first. But IMO there's no reason to play 10k-20k hands there. <10k hands did it for me.

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

So even if I'm making 2BB per 100 at full ring $1-$2 you suggest I get a little 6 handed experience first?

Can you give me the condensed version of what I should expect other than a lot of extra pre-flop raising of the kind I see in the full ring games when the first 3-4 players fold?

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

[ QUOTE ]
So even if I'm making 2BB per 100 at full ring $1-$2 you suggest I get a little 6 handed experience first?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you give me the condensed version of what I should expect other than a lot of extra pre-flop raising of the kind I see in the full ring games when the first 3-4 players fold?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well even worse players than you've ever seen before. 70/30/2 types. Yum. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Basically a lot of people going to showdown and betting/raising postflop with weaker and more marginal holdings like mid-pair or A-high. Basically a goldmine. Here's something that might be helpful

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

[ QUOTE ]
I was looking at everyones graphs about a week ago showing excellent win rates at .5/1 and then showing roller coaster rides at 1/2. Then hearing everyone say how 2/4 is actually easier than 1/2 and it made me think about the rake schedule. So I decided to run a quick report looking at rake as percentage of pot and found that the worst rake seems to be at 1/2. Here's some stats from various sites...

.5/1
Paradise - 2.3%
Pokerstars - 2.0%
Party - 3.8%
Absolute - 2.5%

1/2
Paradise - 3.1%
Pokerstars - 2.9%
Party - 4.2%
Absolute - 2.3%

Another interesting note is just how high Party's rake is. I think they don't realize that having a higher rake is a bad idea at the micro levels. People are just learning to play and instead of feeling like they are winning players, they are just donating their money to Party. Obviously back to back WSOP winners helps Pokerstars but, I also wonder if this is partially the reason that Pokerstars is growing so much quicker than Party.

BTW, 10/20 Party rake is slightly below 2.1%

[/ QUOTE ]

Might be worth considering a few things too:
average post-flop aggression (all players) for the different levels, as well as av vpip

Also, the amount of money that the average (TAA) player puts into a pot may be higher at 1/2 than 0.5/1.

Not sure how you would figure that out, though, but I'd figure it would be a comparison between TAA's vpip and wsd, vs the average player...

... comparing that ratio at both levels.

--Dave.

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

might be worth considering that people may play differently when they move up a limit and be more prone to tilt.

(I had my first LHE tilt in a long time last night... I called in mp1 with j3s... a sad, sad call. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] )

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

I have to check when I get home to be sure, but I am nearly positive that the rake at Party 1/2 is much better proportionally than at 2/4. It is the same rake as 0.50/1 but with double sized bets. At 2/4 it jumps up again so 2/4 is the worst of the non-micro levels and I believe overall the worst of any Party level.

-DeathDonkey

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was looking at everyones graphs about a week ago showing excellent win rates at .5/1 and then showing roller coaster rides at 1/2. Then hearing everyone say how 2/4 is actually easier than 1/2 and it made me think about the rake schedule. So I decided to run a quick report looking at rake as percentage of pot and found that the worst rake seems to be at 1/2. Here's some stats from various sites...

.5/1
Paradise - 2.3%
Pokerstars - 2.0%
Party - 3.8%
Absolute - 2.5%

1/2
Paradise - 3.1%
Pokerstars - 2.9%
Party - 4.2%
Absolute - 2.3%


[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't accurately account for the struggles players have. The worst proportional increase seems to be at Pokerstars at just under a 50% increase in rake. It sounds scary, but when you realize that .9% of the pot is really only pennies per pot, you need to look for other reasons to account for the roller coaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

0.05 per pot is $5 per 100, or 1/4 BB per player per 100 hands... quite a bit of money over the long term.

In a great game, this isn't a big deal, but in a tough game, this could actually kill the game.

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

[ QUOTE ]
R-A-K-E-B-A-C-K

[/ QUOTE ]

i hear that

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

[ QUOTE ]
0.05 per pot is $5 per 100, or 1/4 BB per player per 100 hands... quite a bit of money over the long term.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying it's not a lot of money over time. I'm arguing that this increase in rake does not account for why players are struggling to beat $1/2 and why they have such large swings.

[ QUOTE ]
In a great game, this isn't a big deal, but in a tough game, this could actually kill the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I seriously doubt there are $1/2 games tough enough that the rake will kill it.

Let me rephrase my position a little. If everything else were precisely equal, players making 3 BB/100 at $.50/1 would make 2.75 BB/100 at $1/2. But since things are not precisely equal, players making 3 BB/100 at $.50/1 are struggling to make 1 BB/100 at $1/2. The rake alone does *NOT* account for this deviation. There must be other problems (such as the inability to adjust to game conditions, ie when the game gets a little tight).

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

Yes, the rake has an impact, but that's only one factor.

I think there are a few other things going on:

1) Your (true) winrate is probably quite a bit less than it was at .5/1, meaning that downswings are going to be more common.

2) People frequently overestimate their winrate at .5/1... especially since they usually move up when they're "crushing" the game for what seems like a lot of hands, but isn't nearly enough to narrow things down to a reasonable range. A few good sessions can have a huge effect on your winrate even after playing several tens of thousands of hands. This isn't to say that people should spend more time at .5/1... just that honest self evaluation is much more useful than what PT tells you you've been earning/100 hands.

3) People usually move up after running well for a while, and therefore find themselves "regressing to the mean" at an unfamiliar limit.

4) The pot size might not seem that different, but you may end up contributing a higher % on average due to a fewer players seeing the flop and beyond.

5) People are nervous and/or affected more than usual by bad beats/runs given the fact that they're playing an unfamiliar game (often thought to be harder). The general difficulties re. maintaining confidence are amplified. As is the perceived impact of mistakes.

6) The changing $ figures is an added stress.

7) Your losses will be proportionally greater (relative to the size of your bankroll) due to the fact that saving up for a move leaves you significantly over-rolled at your previous limit.

8) The character of the average game at your new limit is probably different than at your old one, which therefore necessitates moving out of your comfort zone more often than you're used to.

9) The games are often harder for one reason or another (fewer poor players, more better ones, greater aggression, smaller pot sizes, etc.)

10) The effect that bonus $ + rakeback has had on the bankroll building process is often not fully acknowledged.

I'm sure there are others. It's not that important, really. Do your best to accurately evaluate your strengths and weaknesses, and play at a limit you can afford. End of story.

Re: Why people struggle at 1/2
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have to check when I get home to be sure, but I am nearly positive that the rake at Party 1/2 is much better proportionally than at 2/4. It is the same rake as 0.50/1 but with double sized bets. At 2/4 it jumps up again so 2/4 is the worst of the non-micro levels and I believe overall the worst of any Party level.

-DeathDonkey

[/ QUOTE ]

they do cap the rake at $3, 5/10 and up caps at 2

at any rate its all half of what you pay live, pre-toke