It\'s a misconception that Party\'s rake is higher.
 

People always state that Stars / UB's rake is lower than Party, and that's one of the reasons they play at those sites. That is simply not true.

Here are links to the three rake charts for comparison:
http://www.partypoker.com/games/rake.html
http://www.pokerstars.com/rake.html
http://www.ultimatebet.com/rules-strategy/rake.html

In regards to PL / NL, the rake structure is the same across all three sites, 5¢ / $1. Even though it's not listed correctly on the site, Party's rake is actually capped at $2 for the NL 6-max tables. Stars and UB don't offer shorthanded NL tables so I can't compare (although shorthanded NL is a very profitable game [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]).

I do concede that the rake is higher for Party .5/1 and 1/2 limit. They rake 50¢ at $5 and 75¢ at $12 compared to Stars' 25¢ / 50¢ and UB's 20¢ / 60¢ respectively. Keep in mind though that Party rakes at $5 / $12 / $20 intervals as opposed to $5 / $10 / $15 / $20 intervals. I don't think the $15 interval makes enough of a difference to tip the scales in their favor though.

At each level:
.5/1 - Stars rocks, UB sucks (they rake 10¢ / $2), Party sucks the most.

1/2 - Party has an advantage with $10-$11 pots, disadvantage with $12-$14 pots, otherwise it's the same as the other two sites.

2/4 - Stars is the big winner by only raking every $20. Party comes in second raking 50¢ / $10. UB loses raking 25¢ / $5.

3/6 (and 4/8) - Stars still comes out first. Party and UB are equal.

5/10 through 10/20 - Stars and UB are tied for first, Party is still raking every $10.

15/30 and above - UB comes out ahead, they rake less at the biggest intervals. Party comes in second because they increase the rake interval just a bit. Stars is last, almost guaranteeing a $3 rake if there's a flop.

However in general, most people agree that Party is the softer site compared to the other two. I just don't see a reason to play at another site simply because of rake. Of course software, customer support, tournament structure and selection are other factors to consider.

I don't play limit so I can't give any numbers, but if possible could some of tell us how much table rake paid per range of hands? In PT -> Game Notes -> Get All. Make sure you only select one level.

For a NL comparison, $6,200 was raked over my last 10.5k hands at Party NL100 6-max.

Re: It\'s a misconception that Party\'s rake is higher.
 

Maybe if we ask nicely havana banana can post his comparative rake tables... havnt seen them and quite awhile....

Re: It\'s a misconception that Party\'s rake is higher.
 

That would be nice. Party increased their rake before I started playing poker, so I don't have that "well it used to be better" feeling.

Re: It\'s a misconception that Party\'s rake is higher.
 

[ QUOTE ]
2/4 - ... Party comes in second raking 50¢ / $10...



[/ QUOTE ]

Party doesn't rake until $20 on 2/4

Re: It\'s a misconception that Party\'s rake is higher.
 

[ QUOTE ]
1/2 - Party has an advantage with $10-$11 pots, disadvantage with $12-$14 pots, otherwise it's the same as the other two sites.

[/ QUOTE ]
there is no party rake advantage at $1/2. all three sites would take 50c out of $10 and $11 pots. the $12 threshold at party is very strategically placed (as it is for True Poker as well) since the average pot size at $1/2 will land just above that amount (6-7BB's).

low limit players should NOT play on the party skins without a pending bonus offer - even 25% rakeback is not enough the 50-100% increase in rake at $5-$9, $12-14 pots. on the OTHER hand, with a 5x/7x bonus deal in place, the net return on rakeback equivalent on Party beats UB and PS handily. let's compare:

50c/$1 (avg. pot size $6-7)
1. Party Poker - rake 50c (attributed per player 5c) - bonus 14-20c - net (+9-15c)
2. UB - rake 30c (attributed 3c) - bonus 2.5c - net (-0.5c)
3. Poker Stars - rake 25c (attributed 2.5c) - bonus zero - net (-2.5c)

$1/2 (avg. pot size $12-14)
1. Party Poker - rake 75c (attributed 7.5c) - bonus 14-20c - net (+6.5-12.5c)
2. UB - rake 50c (attributed 5c) - bonus 5c - net (even)
3. Poker Stars - rake 50c (attibuted 5c) - bonus zero* - net (-5.0c)
*20c bonus awarded for $15 pot, so net might be about breakeven if every 4 hands is 7.5BB+

$2/4 (avg. pot size $24-28)
1. Poker Stars - rake $1 (attributed 10c) - bonus 20c - net (+10c)
2. Party Poker - rake $1 (attributed 10c) - bonus 14-20c - net (+4-10c)
3. UB - rake $1.00-$1.25 (attrbitued 10c-12.5c) - bonus 10c - net (even/-2.5c)

here's what I would consider the best rake/bonus deals at each limit, between these three sites (all assuming w/bonus):
1c/2c - UB (only choice)
2c/4c - PS (only choice)
5c/10c - PS (only choice)
25c/50c - tossup PS or UB (both are a slight net loss)
50c/$1 - Party, then UB, then Stars
$1/2 - Party, then Stars/UB tied
$2/4 and up - Party/Stars tied, then UB

note that UB is not the defacto optimal choice at any limit except 1c/2c which the other sites don't bother to spread.

Re: It\'s a misconception that Party\'s rake is higher.
 

Can we combine a few of your excellent posts and turn them into a sticky, so we have less of these endless but understandable bonus/rake threads?

Re: It\'s a misconception that Party\'s rake is higher.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can we combine a few of your excellent posts and turn them into a sticky, so we have less of these endless but understandable bonus/rake threads?

[/ QUOTE ]
do you want me to have a life or something? thanks

maybe I'll do a site by proxy.

Re: It\'s a misconception that Party\'s rake is higher.
 

[ QUOTE ]
$2/4 and up - Party/Stars tied, then UB

[/ QUOTE ]
Last time I played on Stars, the 5/10 and 10/20 6max had max rake $3. If this is still true, then it isn't even close: Stars rake is substantially worse than Party's.

Re: It\'s a misconception that Party\'s rake is higher.
 

Stars rakes $3 at a full 6max table, Party rakes $2. In addition, the games are softer and better, money movement is faster/easier, bonuses are more ample, and 30% rakeback is available.

But, uhh, Stars has... better tourneys, CS, and software?

Yeah, I know where I'm playing. Good post.

Dan

Re: It\'s a misconception that Party\'s rake is higher.
 

Yeah the stars games take more rake unless there is 5 players delt in then it is the same as party.

Re: It\'s a misconception that Party\'s rake is higher.
 

According to PT, I pay virtually the same rake on UB and party, but I have tons of bonus bucks on UB, so I only play party for reload bonuses.

Re: It\'s a misconception that Party\'s rake is higher.
 

So you play on UB because of the fact that the bonuses take forever to clear? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: It\'s a misconception that Party\'s rake is higher.
 

If you get rakeback isn't it actually better that party's rake is higher? That way you get rakeback from every raked pot, even if you folded preflop (I think)

Re: It\'s a misconception that Party\'s rake is higher.
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you get rakeback isn't it actually better that party's rake is higher? That way you get rakeback from every raked pot, even if you folded preflop (I think)

[/ QUOTE ]

No... would you want the rake to be $100/hand just so you could get $30 back, and get stuck paying $70/hand rake?

I'm just saying that the rake's the same or lower at the limit(s) I play, so 30% of it back is just gravy.

Dan

Re: It\'s a misconception that Party\'s rake is higher.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you get rakeback isn't it actually better that party's rake is higher? That way you get rakeback from every raked pot, even if you folded preflop (I think)

[/ QUOTE ]

No... would you want the rake to be $100/hand just so you could get $30 back, and get stuck paying $70/hand rake?

I'm just saying that the rake's the same or lower at the limit(s) I play, so 30% of it back is just gravy.

Dan

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure of the overall validity of the argument, but maybe you would want it to be as high as possible under a huge amount of assumptions. If they paid rakeback for every hand (not just the ones you won), then you might want it to be raked $100 a hand. You fold preflop everytime, and get $30. Clearly this is ridiculous that I even typed this, but oh well....

Re: It\'s a misconception that Party\'s rake is higher.
 

Lower rake is better unless you get way more than the traditional ~25-30% rakeback deal. The extra rake you pay when you win is not offset by the extra rakeback you earn. I will put together an excel sheet with this later, this is off the top of my head for now, don't sue me for math errors.

Party Ring Table, 10 handed $1/$2, cost for 10 hands is $1.50 so $0.15/hand for the blinds. Average Pot is 6.5BB ($13) so $0.50-0.75 rake, I will use $0.625 per hand. You play conservatively and see ~25% of the flops, you see SD about 30% of the time you see a flop and win about 60% of the time you show down. So your winning .25*.30*.60 which is .045% so you pay $5.63 in rake over the course of 200 hands ($0.625 * 200*.045). Assuming 75% of all hands are raked, the rake generated at the table total is ($0.625*200*.75) or $93.50, $9.35 which is your contribution. Assuming you get 25% you make $2.34 in rakeback. Net effect of rake -$3.29 Now, lower that rake to a more traditional $0.25/$5 pot and the average pot size of 6.5BB means a hand is raked on average will be $0.45 about 75% of the time. You still win 9 hands out of 200, so you now pay $4.05 in rake, but the total rake payed is now ($0.45*200*.75) 67.5, 6.75 which is your contribution so $1.69 in rake back, net effect of rake -$2.36, so you save $0.93 for 200 hands or $0.0046 per hand paying the lower rake, even with the rake back.