Rake comparison: PR and Party
 

Looking at the rake structures on their websites, it appeared to me as though Party's rake would be significantly lower than Pokerroom's. According to a commercial website, the numbers are closer than I would expect.

3/6
PokerStars $9.92 per 100 hands, 2.57% of the pot
Ultimate Bet $11.23 per 100 hands, 3.04% of the pot
Party $13.87 per 100 hands, 3.06% of the pot
Absolute $14.85 per 100 hands, 3.79% of the pot
PokerRoom $16.58 per 100 hands, 3.84% of the pot

5/10
Absolute $19.24 per 100 hands, 2.99% of the pot
Party $19.87 per 100 hands, 2.71% of the pot
PokerRoom $21.40 per 100 hands, 2.88% of the pot
PokerStars $22.59 per 100 hands, 2.50% of the pot
Crypto $22.66 per 100 hands, 3.18% of the pot
Paradise $22.86 per 100 hands, 2.84% of the pot
Pacific $24.97 per 100 hands, 2.92% of the pot

Looking at the rake structures for pokerroom and party, one would think that party's rake would be much lower at these levels.

Party takes 5% up to $3 starting at $20
PR takes 10% starting at a 2BB pot (and even a little before that for any hand that sees a flop), capped at $3.

So if I steal, get called and make a continuation bet and have the big blind fold, at PR I'm paying $1.20 on the $13.50 pot (+$3 unmatched), while at party I'm paying $0. This alone is huge.

Since at 5/10, this is no longer the case and I'm paying $2 at PR and $1 at party in the same situation, I can see how the numbers will converse slightly as they do in the data above.

It still seems unreasonably close since essentially, PR charges 10% and Party 5% to the same max.

If anyone has any input or if they've done a similar analysis before, I'd love to put this matter to rest. I can't run PT stats to compare since I don't play at party.

Do me this little favor to put it to rest:
If someone could just do a quick calculation in their game notes section of PT, just filter for party 3/6 (10max), get all, and do the sum of ( "Rake" / APH ) / "Games played"

If you do this, make sure the date range only applies to the latest rake structure. I'd love to get some results for 2/4 through 15/30 if possible.

A PR sample of mine:

2/4, 27428 hands, 27463.90 rake, 9.36 APH yields $0.1070 or 2.674 BB/100

3/6, 9175 hands, 13918.20 rake, 9.4 APH yields $0.1614 or 2.7 BB/100

5/10, 7860 hands, 14784.50 rake, 9.31 APH yields $0.202 or 2.02 BB/100

Note: 2/4 and 3/6 should theoretically have the same rake, since it's capped at 1 SB and is taken at the same rate. 5/10 is lower because the cap is still $3, now 0.6 SB.

I'm aware that this method won't be entirely accurate, but fairly close. To make this completely accurate, I'm guessing one would have to filter for 10 players, 9 players, ..., 2 players. As an additional note of interest, does anyone know how to do this with PT or alternatively, know of an addon that can do this if PT can't?

Re: Rake comparison: PR and Party
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do me this little favor to put it to rest:
If someone could just do a quick calculation in their game notes section of PT, just filter for party 3/6 (10max), get all, and do the sum of ( "Rake" / APH ) / "Games played"

If you do this, make sure the date range only applies to the latest rake structure. I'd love to get some results for 2/4 through 15/30 if possible.


[/ QUOTE ]

All you need to look at to get the overall average is the Summary page of PokerTracker. At the bottom of the big list of players is the "average win rate" which is in fact the rake.

The machine with my PokerTracker on it is elsewhere right now so I can't post my own data, but I am thinking that pokerroom's rake is going to be hideous compared to Party and Stars.

Guy.

Re: Rake comparison: PR and Party
 

Huh. That's a brilliantly simple observation. Thanks for pointing it out.

Re: Rake comparison: PR and Party
 

over 150000 datamined hands at 5/10 (all of the hands are from november) i can say with great accuracy that the average rake at Party is 3.20% (2.14$ from an average pot of 66.86)

which is quite a bit higher than the number you have
EDIT: the average BB/100 paid in rake is 1.9 which matches your number almost exactly. i wonder if the hands taken from the sample you quoted were a year or two old. back then the average pot size was larger which would lower the %